The greatest danger lies in the possibility that one of the current non-actors will become radically transformed, as Egypt did in the Nasser revolution and nearly did again when Sadat was assassinated.

Syria, for example, has a Shiite minority sect ruling a largely Sunni country. What happens if there’s a coup? Would a radical Islamist government in Damascus spur an invasion by Israel?

Egypt’s government is sitting on top of a volcano, where a coup is always possible. A radical change in government there would open a very dangerous front in support of the Palestinians in Gaza. And Jordan, seemingly the most secure as its government is incredibly active in monitoring dissent, is the land bridge between Iraq and the West Bank.

If any of these governments goes down, we could really see “unintended consequences.”

Look at the map. Going from west to east, or India to Israel, we have:

1) Pakistan, home to many radical Muslims, including the Taliban, and engaging in terrorism in Kashmir
2) Afghanistan, host to the Taliban, Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden
3) Iran, sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas, stirring up trouble in Iraq, and one of the principal terrorist states in the Middle East
4) Iraq, home of Saddam Hussein, who terrorized his own people, used chemical weapons against his own, and offered rewards to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine
5) Syria, another leading terrorist state, which also sponsors Hezbollah and co-operated with Saddam Hussein

Since 9/11, we sent troops to Afghanistan and overthrew the old Taliban regime, which took away bin Laden’s refuge and cut Pakistan off from Iran. Then we sent troops into Iraq, which skipped over Iran, but put American troops in the middle between Iran and Syria. So where there was unbroken territory for Muslim terrorists, the picture is now totally different.

Significant? Absolutely. Coud Iran really contribute much to help Syria in the current conflict, with 135,000 American troops in Iraq they would have to get past first? If Iran wants to join the conflict directly, they have to also be prepared to take on U.S. troops at the same time.

Not unlike teachers separating unruly youngsters by positioning themselves in the middle. Not that I would carry the analogy too far….

This is very cynical, Ric. What is the alternative, religion?

It takes a great deal of courage to extend your hand in peace after so much baggage piled on- yet it was done and it did not succeed. There were moments that seemed ripe, But after the recent failures and the loss of trust and hope and fresh traumas heaped upon one another there came to a point where a divorce was deemed necessary.

Sidewalker: Potter, why go back just to 1948 and a time of upheaval? What about before that? Were there not long periods where the city was shared?

There is a long and tumultuous history.

Barak did put Jerusalem on the table for discussion, but that was a very touchy subject and kept secret. It did break a taboo, as other taboos were broken during the 2000 talks.

This is an interesting: Taba Negotiations:The Moratino’s Non-Paper Moratinos was the EU envoy.

You can thank Hezbollah for that.

You are changing the subject. However, the US did have a civil war over the treatment of Black people here. African slavery was also a fact in the Arab lands and it wasn’t abolished in Saudi Arabia till the 1970’s.

“I think we could say that Lebanon is a multi-ethnic state?”

When the French took over Lebanon a couple of centuries ago they found the Christians to be a beleaguered minority which would have been wiped out had they not interfered.

The French set up a system that, while favoring the Christians, was a lot fairer to the Muslims than the Muslims had been to the Christians.

After independence it didn’t take long before the system set up by the French broke down.

Since then tens of thousands of Christian have left Lebanon.

Take another example Egypt where the Copts had at one time been a majority. They are down to five percent of the population and are also under constant harassment by the Muslims in the country.

Befire 1948 there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem. Attacks on Jews at that ime were not unkown. Before the British took over in 1917 attacks on Jews in Jerusalem and the rest of area were also a daily occurence.

Life of Jews in the Arab lands was never easy.

I think we could say that Lebanon is a multi-ethnic state?

There are no multi-ethnic States in the Middle East, Sidewalker.

Arab Muslims do not seem to be able to tolerate minorities only dhimmis.

In the 1948 War Jews were chased out of Jerusalem and it came under Jordanian rule. The Jewish Quarter, it’s synagogues and most other buildings were severely damaged.

Jews were not allowed into the old city even to pray. The Western Wall, the Kotel, was inaccessible. If you were a non-Jew and you could prove that ( for instance if you were a Christian and it was Christmas) you could get into the Old City.

We stayed in Yemin Moshe not that long ago. This is a housing project built in 1860 to relieve the pressure of crowding in the Jewish Quarter back then, just to the west. Windows facing the old city had been boarded up during this period because from the Old City, Arabs took pot shots across the border.

In 1967 there was great joy when Israel recaptured Jerusalem and Jews were allowed back in to pray, to reestablish themselves, to rebuild their quarter.

Israel cannot unilaterally leave the West Bank. It can leave parts of it. The endgame might very well include and exchange of land so that some settlements closer the border can remain.

There needs to be an agreement between the sides. The sticking point of Jerusalem has to include a broader peace with all neighbors and a resolution to the “right of return”. These are reasons that Arafat was unable to say yes.

Then, when Sharon was full of adrenalin, the Arab countries met(200s) and decided on an offer that Sharon should have used to restart talks.

Opportunities come and go because forces have not been aligned.

Israel cannot unilaterally make peace but the more Israel moves towards leaving the territories ( leaving enough to negotiate over), the better it will be for Israel.

Everyone has been telling Israel to withdraw, withdraw, withdraw. Well, Israel DID withdraw from its buffer zone in Lebanon 6 years ago, and they DID withdraw from Gaza. And what did they get for it? A perception of Israeli “weakness” that first produced the second Intifada, and now sparked the Hizbollah war.

Israel was gone for Lebanon and had no interest or desire to return. Despite this, Hizbollah has spent the past 6 years preparing to attack — acquiring 10,000 missiles and building bunkers and fortifications in south Lebanon. The Lebanese have done absolutely nothing about it, because that would be much more painful for them than opposing Hisbollah. This left Israel with a well-armed force on its border, opposed to its very existence. THAT, and not Israeli “going ballistic” as Rashid Khalidi says, is why Israel is bombing areas in Lebanon other the south: making it more miserable for the Lebanese to do nothing about Hizbollah is the only way to get them to do something. If Safed, Afula, and Haifa must live under fear of Hizbollah bombs, then Sidon, Tyre, and Beirut must live under fear of Israeli bombs.

Is this harsh? You bet — welcome to the Middle East.

The core of Hezbollah’s conflict with Israel has nothing to do with the continued occupation of the West Bank. If Israel withdraw to the ‘67 borders tomorrow, Hizbollah would still attack it: because their core aim is to wipe Israel off the map. Anyone who doesn’t understand this is either ignorant or disingenuous.

As for the Palestinians, Gaza is now theirs. Instead of showing the world that they can build a civil state — thereby giving Israel the confidence to eventually leave most of the West Bank — they prefer to battle Israel. They’ve turned the former Israeli settlements into missile-launching sites. What would any country do in israel’s situation?

IHow can you have a political solution with people who refuse to talk about peace? In their wisdom, the Palestinians chose to elect a government that shares Hezbollah’s aim of destroying Israel. There are no negotiations going on because as with Hizbollah, there is nothing to negotiate about with Hamas. They’ll exchange prisoners here and there, and maybe sign a temporary “Hudna”-type truce. Can you really blame Israel for not falling for this? To paraphrase Golda Meir, Israel will not commit suicide so the world will think well of it.

Yes, it would go back to being a land dominated by Arabs, but that does not exclude the possiblity of a multi-ethnic state, and that was Said’s wish. This is not going to happen and would of course not be desirable to Israelis. So it seems it is in the interest of Israel to do everything it can to create the conditions for peace with its neighbours, which is why the recent destruction of Lebanon is a huge tactical and humanitarian mistake. Geographical maps can be redrawn, but not so easily the mental maps and the nostalgic desire for a home-land.

jdyer: “Because the 1967 borders are not defensible.”

The usual excuse. Are any borders defensible with the long-range missiles and other weapons now availabe on the arms market?

It comes to the same thing.

Though I suspect that he did believe in it. The idea of single State in Israel-Palestine will in effect mean another Arab State. Let’s be clear about that.

“After any pledge, why not hand over the whole West Bank? And why doesn’t Israel compromise on Jerusalem? Hasn’t Israel enough territory?”

Because the 1967 borders are not defensible.

“The challenge of creating a viable international force to secure Israel’s border with Lebanon was captured by Nahum Barnea, a columnist for the Israeli daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot. The European foreign ministers were enthusiastic, he said.

“They only had one small condition for the force to be made up of soldiers from another country,” Mr. Barnea wrote. “The Germans recommended France; the French recommended Egypt, and so on. It is doubtful whether there is a single country in the West currently volunteering to lay down its soldiers on Hezbollah’s fence.”

Herein lies one of the biggest obstacles to any settlement. After any pledge, why not hand over the whole West Bank? And why doesn’t Israel compromise on Jerusalem? Hasn’t Israel enough territory?

Correction: Said did not believe in ethnic nationalism.

“jdyer- that’s okay. There are partisans on both sides. There is another point of view and it must be articulated ( as the late Edward Said did so well). And if what he says rings true I can accept it, and if it does not we can say so.”

Sure there are, but some of us partisans are more in touch with reality than others.

I believe in a two State solution, handing over most of the West Bank to the Palestinians after they pledge not to attack Israel any more and compromise on Jerusalem.

Said, btw didn’t believe in a two State solution and wanted the Jewish State to magically disappear.