Dean: fiscal conservative and social progressive

WTF happened to journalism?

Please tell me this was an editorial at least, or has comments mixed in!

Evenhanded means pro-palestine? To Israelis, I'm sure it does! It seems to me that either the Palestinians will be given their fair share, or deaths will continue over there in perpetuity. The whole point of having a moderator between the sides is that either side can expect the neutral third party to move towards the reasonable solution. With our foreign policy towards Israel completely controlled by a couple militants, their money, and the supposed votes backing them, how can a Palestinian possibly hope for a fair outcome? And Dean didn't even go that far! Articles like this, and anything on Faux News, makes me want to vomit! How many americans buy it, how many don't realize how far out we are from journalism, reason, logic, or ethics in our "LIBERAL MEDIA"?

I've never seen such vehement attacks on a person, from the right (Faux News) and the 'Democrats' too... they're all scared somebody that can't be controlled will get in and do what he thinks is right instead of what the power$ that be demand, that they are pulling out all the stops to sink him! I have yet to hear of a single thing Dean has said that makes me question my support for him. Lieberman voted for the war, and shit like 'the patriot act' I'm sure, examine what he's actually done compared to what he says! But let's not look into the embarrassing records of the three so-called Democrats that the powers want, the three that have presided over the near-demise of the party these last four years yet still expect our vote, instead let's string Dean up for reusing the line about Trent Lot and expressing that maybe our #1 duty in the middle east isn't seeing that Israel gets its way all the time!

Wesley Clark...

Thanks... can't wait to see what happens...

For anybody that hadn't heard and gets their political news solely from a message center on an escort review site...

Clark's people are saying he will announce his candidacy tomorrow. I still think Dean/Clark 2004 would be the best way to go, but maybe he can't do that without drumming up some support of his own first. He'll have to show he's got some domestic plans if he's actually going to go it alone, never the less he should be the best counterpoint to the AWOL George 'Flight Suit' Bush, and I'd vote for him more gladly then I'd vote for any of the 'big three' that through amazing timidity have played almost as a big a part as Bush in getting us where we are today.

RE: WTF happened to journalism?

>It seems to me that either the Palestinians will be

>given their fair share, or deaths will continue over there in

>perpetuity.

I do so hate to burden someone with complexities when they are on a feel-good, fact-free rant, but I can't help but remind you that there are many Palestinian groups - including the ones which do all of the killing and the bombing - who have made quite clear that they won't stop doing those things merely when they are "given their fair share." Rather, their only goal is the complete elimination of Israel from the Middle East, and they have made clear that they won't stop until that goal is achieved.

Included among the people who have this as their stated goal is Yassir Arafat. So, genius, it's pretty easy to come and say: "Oh, if only the Israelis would give back the occupied terrorities, everything would be so nice and peacefuly there, so why don't they do that already"? Don't you think if there could be peace by doing that, they would have done it a long time ago?

The problem is that a huge portion of the Palestinians (probably not a majority, but certainly a sizable minority) believe that the only just solution, i.e. the only "fair share," is the elimination of Israel from that region. So pulling out of the occupied terrorities without a peace plan in place would be to take a step in that direction without getting anything in return. Who would ever do that?

And how, Mr. Geopolitical Expert, do you propose that the Palestineans be given their "fair share" if, to the groups doing the bombing and the killings, "fair share" means all Israeli land and the cessation of Israel as a state?

RE: WTF happened to journalism?

>>It seems to me that either the Palestinians will be

>>given their fair share, or deaths will continue over there

>in

>>perpetuity.

>So, genius, it's pretty easy to come and

>say: "Oh, if only the Israelis would give back the occupied

>terrorities, everything would be so nice and peacefuly there,

>so why don't they do that already"? Don't you think if there

>could be peace by doing that, they would have done it a long

>time ago?

No, I don't think that at all. Giving back the territories would mean displacing a couple of hundred thousand Israeli settlers who live there. The settler movement in Israel is comparable to the NRA in the U.S. -- it represents a minority, but is so focused and effective politically that few Likud politicians are willing to defy it.

>So

>pulling out of the occupied terrorities without a peace plan

>in place would be to take a step in that direction without

>getting anything in return. Who would ever do that?

There are plenty of Israelis who advocate doing that, including the former Israeli general who most recently ran as the Labor candidate for prime minister against Sharon. But it's true that the problem with the 'land for peace' formula is, what happens if the Israelis deliver the land and the Palestinian leadership can't deliver peace?

>And how, Mr. Geopolitical Expert, do you propose that the

>Palestineans be given their "fair share" if, to the groups

>doing the bombing and the killings, "fair share" means all

>Israeli land and the cessation of Israel as a state?

There is only one way. And that is if the PA actively assists IDF in rounding up the Palestinian terrorists and agrees that they must be dealt with by Israeli authorities, not by a "revolving door" imprisonment by the PA as in the past.

Glad you asked...

>And how, Mr. Geopolitical Expert, do you propose that the

>Palestineans be given their "fair share" if, to the groups

>doing the bombing and the killings, "fair share" means all

>Israeli land and the cessation of Israel as a state?

First, my point is that it'll be hard for any Palestinians to believe they're getting anything like a fair share with the way we act towards Israel.

There are terrorist factions in every country that promise to kill until they get everything they want, and they're often driven by religious fervor. The worst of the anti-abortion zealots in the US, for example. But that's the point, the average American, even those against abortion, think that killing a doctor who performs abortions is wrong and that there should be no question of 'right or wrong' when the mothers life is as stake. So the extremists are caught, tried, and executed.

You're saying that the extremists in Palestine should define the conflict and that all Palestinians should be treated as an inferior, war-like race, as I read it.

RE: Glad you asked...

>First, my point is that it'll be hard for any Palestinians to

>believe they're getting anything like a fair share with the

>way we act towards Israel.

I agree totally. I think the U.S. must be more even-handed, and not unquestioningly supportive of the Israelis, if we are to play any constructive role in achieving a resoultion there, and I am glad Howard Dean said so. Rather than its being a sign of his "political immaturity," I think it was a reflection of his common sense and refreshing willingness to say what he thinks even it violates the most sacred orthodoxies.

>There are terrorist factions in every country that promise to

>kill until they get everything they want, and they're often

>driven by religious fervor. The worst of the anti-abortion

>zealots in the US, for example. But that's the point, the

>average American, even those against abortion, think that

>killing a doctor who performs abortions is wrong and that

>there should be no question of 'right or wrong' when the

>mothers life is as stake. So the extremists are caught,

>tried, and executed.

Those who believe that abortionists should be killed are not even remotely comparable to the segment of the Palestinians who believe that jihad should be fought until there is no more Israel. It's not that hard to imprison a handful of murderous lunatics; it's infiitely harder to imprison a large percentage of the population, particularly when that percentage is better armed than the government is.

Who is going to "catch, try and execute" Hamas and the other Palestinean groups? Who has the capability or the will to do that, other than the Israelis?

>You're saying that the extremists in Palestine should define

>the conflict and that all Palestinians should be treated as an

>inferior, war-like race, as I read it.

No, I'm not saying that all. I'm saying that the solution you seem to have proposed - withdrawl from the occupied territories - would not actually bring the results you envision. That has been, and in my view, continues to be, the huge problem over there. What the terrorists groups really want - as they admit - is no more Israel. Given that, and the fact that they are large in number, well-armed, and ready to fight to the death, how do you solve that problem?

RE: WTF happened to journalism?

>No, I don't think that at all. Giving back the territories

>would mean displacing a couple of hundred thousand Israeli

>settlers who live there. The settler movement in Israel is

>comparable to the NRA in the U.S. -- it represents a minority,

>but is so focused and effective politically that few Likud

>politicians are willing to defy it.

I don't doubt that, but the Israelis have been at the place before where they are now - desperate to do something, anything, to get rid of the attacks. This whole bit about "eliminating" Arafat is a reflection of that desperation. Powerful minority or now, I think a majority of the Israelis would throw those settlers overboard if it meant peace. The problem is, it wouldn't mean peace.

>There are plenty of Israelis who advocate doing that,

>including the former Israeli general who most recently ran as

>the Labor candidate for prime minister against Sharon. But

>it's true that the problem with the 'land for peace' formula

>is, what happens if the Israelis deliver the land and the

>Palestinian leadership can't deliver peace?

I can see both sides. One side or the other has to do something first - but you would want to see some sign that the Palestinians are able - never mind willing, just able - to act against the terrorist groups. I don't think that sign exists.

>There is only one way. And that is if the PA actively assists

>IDF in rounding up the Palestinian terrorists and agrees that

>they must be dealt with by Israeli authorities, not by a

>"revolving door" imprisonment by the PA as in the past.

Agreed - if there were a genuine means to dismantle those groups, and it were a joint operating, then I think peace would be possible and would follow from it. I just don't see how the PA can do that right now.

RE: WTF happened to journalism?

>Powerful minority or now, I think a majority of the Israelis

>would throw those settlers overboard if it meant peace.

I think that's been true for years. But the Knesset, like the Congress, is not elected by a simple, national majority vote. If it were, a lot of things in Israel would be different.

> The

>problem is, it wouldn't mean peace.

No, but there would be fewer Israeli military operations and military casualties, just as has been the case since the Israeli evacuation from South Lebanon. If the Israelis could create a defensible border as they have with Lebanon then violence in Israel would be greatly reduced if not eliminated. Of course, that would mean little or no commerce with the West Bank, which would destroy the West Bank's economy.

>Agreed - if there were a genuine means to dismantle those

>groups, and it were a joint operating, then I think peace

>would be possible and would follow from it. I just don't see

>how the PA can do that right now.

The PA has or could get enough intelligence on Hamas and IJ, if they were to share everything with Israel, to allow IDF to cripple those organizations. I don't know what would stop Arafat from agreeing to this -- does he have an election coming up? Or are you saying the PA would not obey him?

RE: WTF happened to journalism?

>The PA has or could get enough intelligence on Hamas and IJ,

>if they were to share everything with Israel, to allow IDF to

>cripple those organizations. I don't know what would stop

>Arafat from agreeing to this -- does he have an election

>coming up? Or are you saying the PA would not obey him?

Oh - I think if Arafat were resolved to shut down terroist groups, they could be shut down. I have been assuming that he is unwilling to do so, because everything I've seen convinces me that he never will. So when I'm saying that I don't see how the PA is going to dismantle Hamas et al., I mean that I don't see how any PA Prime Minister can do so as long as Arafat remains opposed to such a step. That was obviously a crucial reason, if not the primary one, as to why Prime Minister Abbous quit. I would have, too - the thing that was most demanded of him, he could not do.

RE: Glad you asked...

>No, I'm not saying that all. I'm saying that the solution you

>seem to have proposed - withdrawl from the occupied

>territories - would not actually bring the results you

>envision. That has been, and in my view, continues to be, the

>huge problem over there. What the terrorists groups really

>want - as they admit - is no more Israel. Given that, and the

>fact that they are large in number, well-armed, and ready to

>fight to the death, how do you solve that problem?

What I'm saying is that nowhere near all Palestinians are well-armed and ready to fight to the death. Many oppose the violence now, and if we deal with them fairly even more will, and some will actively oppose the the violence. Maybe not to the point of catching, trying and executing the offenders, but cutting off funds and other support, social pressures, etc. Foolproof? Not at all. But more likely to lead somwhere positive then otherwise...

RE: Glad you asked...

>What I'm saying is that nowhere near all Palestinians are

>well-armed and ready to fight to the death. Many oppose the

>violence now, and if we deal with them fairly even more will,

>and some will actively oppose the the violence. Maybe not to

>the point of catching, trying and executing the offenders, but

>cutting off funds and other support, social pressures, etc.

>Foolproof? Not at all. But more likely to lead somwhere

>positive then otherwise...

What does "deal with them fairly" mean? If Israel relaxes the constraints of occupation, how do the Israelis know the result will be as you say? Is there someone speaking for the Palestinians who is promising this and can really deliver it? If the Israelis pull back from the Palestinian towns and loosen travel restrictions, how do they know Hamas won't use that as an opportunity to organize more attacks? If you are the leader of Israel and you decide to give this plan a chance and it results in more attacks on your people, what do you say to them after more of them have been blown up? "Sorry, I goofed."

Do you see the problem? You can't make a deal unless there is someone on the other side to deal with, and it has to be someone who you believe will be able and willing to keep his side of the bargain, otherwise what is the point of making the deal? At the moment there is Arafat and his crew. There are serious questions about whether they want to end the violence. Bush decided they didn't when the Israelis captured the Karine-A with a cargo of weapons purchased by the PA. The cargo included Katyusha rockets. You don't use rockets for police work. That's when Bush decided Arafat had to sidelined. But so far that does not seem to be working.

Is there anyone else the Israelis can deal with?

RE: Glad you asked...

>Do you see the problem? You can't make a deal unless there is

>someone on the other side to deal with, and it has to be

>someone who you believe will be able and willing to keep his

>side of the bargain, otherwise what is the point of making the

>deal?

Yes, I can see that.

>...If Israel relaxes the

>constraints of occupation, how do the Israelis know the result

>will be as you say?

The alternative is a never-ending cycle of violence. It has to be given a chance, and Israel, IMHO (and relatively uniformed on this topic, I admit) needs to stop throwing away whatever has been achieved every time there's another attack. Yes, it's horrific, but so is allowing this to continue because some relatively few, relatively isolated, militants succeed in killing themselves and taking some Israelis with them.

RE: Glad you asked...

>The alternative is a never-ending cycle of violence. It has

>to be given a chance, and Israel, IMHO (and relatively

>uniformed on this topic, I admit) needs to stop throwing away

>whatever has been achieved every time there's another attack.

>Yes, it's horrific, but so is allowing this to continue

>because some relatively few, relatively isolated, militants

>succeed in killing themselves and taking some Israelis with

>them.

It is not as if the Israelis are sitting there all sweet and innocent. They are implementing a policy of occupation and resettlement in violation of the Geneva Conventions. This has been the policy of Sharon and Likud since the 1970s to create imutable "facts on the ground". Neither he, nor they have ever ben shy about it despite their American jewish apologists and other on-line Zionists. There was peace for 53 days when the so-called Palestinan militants honored a self-imposed cease fire while Israel continued building settlements, an apartheid wall and targeting their political leaders for assasination. Is there anyone here seriously surprised that after that the Palestinans returned to violence? Listen to what the UN Special Representative said in the Security Council last week before the gutless, spineless American veto!

RE: Glad you asked...

Well, as discussed in another thread, there IS a workable, although not particularly palatable solution: Build a wall along a defensible border between Israel and the West Bank (there already is one around Gaza), abandon the non-defensible settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, unilaterally withdraw the troops, declare victory, and tell the Palestinians and the world they now have a country and they can do whatever the fuck the want with it as long as they leave Israel strictly alone (unless they want to risk ending up as a smoking crater, instead)!

Will this solve all problems and prevent all future attacks? No. Will it provide more security and a chance for Israel to get on with its life? Yes. Does it mean no contact or commerce with the Palestinians? Not unless that's what the Palestinians want. The border, of course, would be heavily policed and crossing wouldn't be a snap as long as there are still terrorists around.

It's a regrettable solution, but the only practical one that can be implemented NOW and that deals with the realities of two adjoining peoples who despise each other and haven't been able to get along so far. There's a rational basis for the old proverb about "good fences make good neighbors." Maybe in 50 years, after they've been apart and being able to deal with their own internal problems, Palestinians and Israelis may be able to revisit the idea of a wall and even tear it down. But it will take the passage of at least one generation to help erase some of the current hatred.

RE: Glad you asked...

>Well, as discussed in another thread, there IS a workable,

>although not particularly palatable solution: Build a wall

>along a defensible border between Israel and the West Bank

>(there already is one around Gaza), abandon the non-defensible

>settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, unilaterally withdraw

>the troops, declare victory, and tell the Palestinians and the

>world they now have a country and they can do whatever the

>fuck the want with it as long as they leave Israel strictly

>alone (unless they want to risk ending up as a smoking crater,

>instead)!

Why am I not surprised to see an on-line zionist defend the idea of a concentration camp? And btw, did you mean "defendable" or "defensible" lines? You would not advocate that the border cross trhe Green line that represents the only internationally recognized border between Israel and Palestine, would you? At least it appears that the zionist lobby has not yet paid the President to go that far in breach with the policy of every American President since Lyndon Johnson. And back to the irony of on and off-line zionists supporting fascist concentration camps, look what's been goingon in Italy recently:

September 17, 2003

Berlusconi Apologizes to Italian Jews

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 3:20 p.m. ET

ROME (AP) -- Premier Silvio Berlusconi met Jewish leaders Wednesday to patch up relations days after he was quoted as saying Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini ``never killed anyone.''

During a one-hour meeting, the premier expressed ``regret'' over the pain caused by the published remarks, but he said the statements had been unfairly interpreted, Berlusconi's office said.

Berlusconi left the one-hour meeting Wednesday at Rome's main synagogue without any comment. Jewish officials said the premier expressed his regrets during the meeting, but they said they hoped he would make them publicly, not just to Jews but to all Italians.

Berlusconi's office issued a statement soon after, saying that in the meeting ``the premier clarified the sense and context of his expressions.

``He expressed his regret for the pain caused to the community by exploitative interpretations that cannot be attributed to him, and which twisted his thoughts,'' the statement said.

Berlusconi's controversial comments appeared last Thursday in London's conservative weekly The Spectator and the Italian daily La Voce di Rimini. The remark came after one of the interviewers equated Iraq after Saddam with Italy in the years after Mussolini.

``Mussolini never killed anyone,'' Berlusconi was quoted as saying. ``Mussolini used to send people on vacation in internal exile.''

The premier said Thursday after the remarks appeared that his objection was over ``the comparison of my country to another dictator or another dictatorship, that of Saddam Hussein, which caused millions of deaths.''

``I did not intend to make a critical analysis of Fascism or of its leader. I didn't plan to re-evaluate Mussolini,'' he said.

Union of Jewish Communities President Amos Luzzatto said that during Wednesday's meeting, Berlusconi ``apologized to us and to me in particular, but he didn't apologize to Italians. He apologized for the pain he caused me, but I said it caused me pain as an Italian and as a Jew.''

``We recalled not just what the Fascist regime did to the Italians, democrats and those who didn't agree with the government, but also about what it did in general with repression and murder of its political opponents,'' he said.

Mussolini ruled Italy from 1922 until his ouster in 1943. Widespread persecution of Italian Jews began in 1938 when Mussolini's regime issued racial laws. In 1943, German troops occupied northern and central Italy, and almost 7,000 Jews were deported, 5,910 of whom were killed.

The Italian Jewish community now numbers about 30,000, mainly in Rome and Milan.

Despite the Mussolini controversy, Berlusconi's government has attracted some Jewish support because it is more favorable to the policies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon than is the center-left opposition.

Notably, when Berlusconi traveled to the Middle East last year, he met with Sharon but not with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, following the U.S. approach of isolating Arafat. Furthermore, Berlusconi has suggested that Israel be considered for membership in the European Union.

Berlusconi's policies have received praise from outside Italy, with New York's Anti-Defamation League -- a group that campaigns against anti-Semitism -- to present the premier its Distinguished Statesman Award at a Sept. 23 dinner in New York.

RE: Glad you asked...

>It is not as if the Israelis are sitting there all sweet and

>innocent. They are implementing a policy of occupation and

>resettlement in violation of the Geneva Conventions. This has

>been the policy of Sharon and Likud since the 1970s to create

>imutable "facts on the ground".

Is it true that the express goal of the Palestinian groups (the ones you hilariously call "so-called militants") is to eliminate the State of Israel from the Middle East? Are they merely fighting to end the occupation, or is that just one intermediate step to their ultimate goal of the destruction of Israel and the elimination of all Jews from the region?

RE: Glad you asked...

>Is it true that the express goal of the Palestinian groups

>(the ones you hilariously call "so-called militants") is to

>eliminate the State of Israel from the Middle East? Are they

>merely fighting to end the occupation, or is that just one

>intermediate step to their ultimate goal of the destruction of

>Israel and the elimination of all Jews from the region?

Well as Trisexual had to admit last week, the demographic reality bewtween the Mediteranean and the Jordan River is near parity (not even counting the refugees!) with every projection for Arabs to overtake the jews in 10-20 years (just like Catholics in Northern Ireland). Just as the Mitchell plan for Nothern Ireland envisaged a vote for Catholics to join the Irish Republic when the population shifted, that is the solution for Palestine as well. So the Israelis are faced with a stark choice: govern as a militaristic apartheid regime, move expeditiously to a meaningful two-state solution along the borders of 1967, or agree to the one-state cosmopolitan pluralist solution before it is too late. However for the latter two options to work, killing Arafat and other secular moderates or humiliating and emasculating them would be the stupidest thing possible. Unless, of course Israel prefers the first option that I outlined.

RE: Glad you asked...

When responding to my post, I think you forgot to read it first. Here's what I asked you:

<<Is it true that the express goal of the Palestinian groups (the ones you hilariously call "so-called militants") is to eliminate the State of Israel from the Middle East? Are they merely fighting to end the occupation, or is that just one intermediate step to their ultimate goal of the destruction of Israel and the elimination of all Jews from the region?>>

Would you be so kind as to answer that?

RE: Glad you asked...

>Would you be so kind as to answer that?

I did. Go back and read it. Israel does not have to be destroyed. It has destroyed itself already morally and the demographic projections are just the piece de la resistance. Do you get it now?

RE: Glad you asked...

>>Would you be so kind as to answer that?

>

>I did. Go back and read it. Israel does not have to be

>destroyed. It has destroyed itself already morally and the

>demographic projections are just the piece de la resistance.

>Do you get it now?

No, that is not even remotely responsive to the question I asked. I didn't ask you whether you thought Isarel was destroying itself or already had. I asked you about the goals of the Palestinian groups which I identified.

It's fucking unbelievable how many people come here, spew adamant opinoins about things, but then are afraid or unwilling to answer simply, direct questions about what they have said. If a question that is asked about your views reveals the baselessness of your views - or even just a flaw - why not answer the question and then re-assess what you think. Why avoid the question or pretend that you think it's a different question or refuse to answer the one that was asked?

Why can't you just fucking answer the question? Do Hamas, Islamic Jihad et al. have as their goal the total destruction of Israel, or would they be content with a simple withdrawl from the occupied territories. Why not just answer that?

RE: Glad you asked...

>Why can't you just fucking answer the question? Do Hamas,

>Islamic Jihad et al. have as their goal the total destruction

>of Israel, or would they be content with a simple withdrawl

>from the occupied territories. Why not just answer that?

Asked and answered, sir. One cannot speak of destroying what has already been destroyed. Maybe, you will like the answer more if it comes from a jew! (BTW, nobody said you had to like the answer, but you can't dictate the answer either. For that, I am afraid you'll have to join Shlomo in Tel Aviv!)

A failed Israeli society is collapsing

Avraham Burg IHT

Saturday, September 6, 2003

The end of Zionism?

JERUSALEM The Zionist revolution has always rested on two pillars: a just path and an ethical leadership. Neither of these is operative any longer. The Israeli nation today rests on a scaffolding of corruption, and on foundations of oppression and injustice. As such, the end of the Zionist enterprise is already on our doorstep. There is a real chance that ours will be the last Zionist generation. There may yet be a Jewish state in the Middle East, but it will be a different sort, strange and ugly.

There is time to change course, but not much. What is needed is a new vision of a just society and the political will to implement it. Nor is this merely an internal Israeli affair. Diaspora Jews for whom Israel is a central pillar of their identity must pay heed and speak out. If the pillar collapses, the upper floors will come crashing down.

The Israeli opposition does not exist, and the coalition government, with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at its head, claims the right to remain silent. In a nation of chatterboxes, everyone has suddenly fallen dumb, because there's nothing left to say. We live in a thunderously failed reality.

Yes, we Israelis have revived the Hebrew language, created a marvelous theater and a strong national currency. Our Jewish minds are as sharp as ever. We are traded on the Nasdaq. But is this why we created a state? The Jewish people did not survive for two millennia in order to pioneer new weaponry, computer security programs or antimissile missiles. We were supposed to be a light unto the nations. In this we have failed.

It turns out that the 2,000-year struggle for Jewish survival comes down to a state of settlements, run by an amoral clique of corrupt lawbreakers who are deaf both to their citizens and to their enemies. A state lacking justice cannot survive. More and more Israelis are coming to understand this as they ask their children where they expect to live in 25 years. Children who are honest admit, to their parents' shock, that they do not know. The countdown to the end of Israeli society has begun.

It is very comfortable to be a Zionist in West Bank settlements such as Beit El and Ofra. The biblical landscape is charming. From the window you can gaze through the geraniums and bougainvillea and not see the occupation. Traveling on the fast highway that takes you from Ramot on Jerusalem's northern edge to Gilo on the southern edge, a 12-minute trip just west of the Palestinian roadblocks, it's hard to comprehend the humiliating experience of the despised Arab who must creep for hours along the pocked, blockaded roads assigned to him. One road for the occupier, one road for the occupied.

This cannot work. Even if the Arabs lower their heads and swallow their shame and anger forever, it won't work. A structure built on human callousness will inevitably collapse in on itself. Note this moment well: Zionism's superstructure is already collapsing like a cheap Jerusalem wedding hall. Only madmen continue dancing on the top floor while the pillars below are collapsing.

Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centers of Israeli escapism. They consign themselves to Allah in our places of recreation, because their own lives are torture. They spill their own blood in our restaurants in order to ruin our appetites, because they have children and parents at home who are hungry and humiliated.

We could kill a thousand ringleaders and engineers a day and nothing will be solved, because the leaders come up from below - from the wells of hatred and anger, from the "infrastructures" of injustice and moral corruption.

If all this were inevitable, divinely ordained and immutable, I would be silent. But things could be different, and so crying out is a moral imperative.

Here is what the prime minister should say to the people:

The time for illusions is over. The time for decisions has arrived. We love the entire land of our forefathers and in some other time we would have wanted to live here alone. But that will not happen. The Arabs, too, have dreams and needs.

Between the Jordan and the Mediterranean there is no longer a clear Jewish majority. And so, fellow citizens, it is not possible to keep the whole thing without paying a price. We cannot keep a Palestinian majority under an Israeli boot and at the same time think ourselves the only democracy in the Middle East. There cannot be democracy without equal rights for all who live here, Arab as well as Jew. We cannot keep the territories and preserve a Jewish majority in the world's only Jewish state - not by means that are humane and moral and Jewish.

Do you want the greater Land of Israel? No problem. Abandon democracy. Let's institute an efficient system of racial separation here, with prison camps and detention villages. Qalqilya Ghetto and Gulag Jenin.

Do you want a Jewish majority? No problem. Either put the Arabs on railway cars, buses, camels and donkeys and expel them en masse - or separate ourselves from them absolutely, without tricks and gimmicks. There is no middle path. We must remove all the settlements - all of them - and draw an internationally recognized border between the Jewish national home and the Palestinian national home. The Jewish Law of Return will apply only within our national home, and their right of return will apply only within the borders of the Palestinian state.

Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater Land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box.

That's what the prime minister should say to the people. He should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements or hope for both peoples. False visions of barbed wire, roadblocks and suicide bombers, or a recognized international border between two states and a shared capital in Jerusalem.

But there is no prime minister in Jerusalem. The disease eating away at the body of Zionism has already attacked the head. David Ben-Gurion sometimes erred, but he remained straight as an arrow. When Menachem Begin was wrong, nobody impugned his motives. No longer. Polls published two weeks ago showed that a majority of Israelis do not believe in the personal integrity of the prime minister - yet they trust his political leadership. In other words, Israel's current prime minister personally embodies both halves of the curse: suspect personal morals and open disregard for the law - combined with the brutality of occupation and the trampling of any chance for peace. This is our nation, these its leaders. The inescapable conclusion is that the Zionist revolution is dead.

Why, then, is the opposition so quiet? Perhaps because it's summer, or because they are tired, or because some would like to join the government at any price, even the price of participating in the sickness. But while they dither, the forces of good lose hope.

This is the time for clear alternatives. Anyone who declines to present a clear-cut position - black or white - is in effect collaborating in the decline. It is not a matter of Labor versus Likud or right versus left, but of right versus wrong, acceptable versus unacceptable. The law-abiding versus the lawbreakers. What is needed is not a political replacement for the Sharon government but a vision of hope, an alternative to the destruction of Zionism and its values by the deaf, dumb and callous.

Israel's friends abroad - Jewish and non-Jewish alike, presidents and prime ministers, rabbis and lay people - should choose as well. They must reach out and help Israel to navigate the road map toward our national destiny as a light unto the nations and a society of peace, justice and equality.

The writer was speaker of the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, from 1999 to 2003 and is currently a Labor Party member of the Knesset. This comment, which first appeared in English in The Forward (New York), was adapted by the writer from an article that appeared in Yediot Ahronot and was translated by J.J. Goldberg.

RE: Glad you asked...

>Asked and answered, sir. One cannot speak of destroying what

>has already been destroyed.

This is not so. You and others may think that Israel is already destroyed, but the groups that I am asking about may not see it the same way. I am asking about their perspective, so telling me what you or others think about Israel is not resopnsive to my question about what these groups think.

I have read - recently - that these groups have as their goal the destruction of Israel, not merely the withdrawl of Israel from the occupied terrorities. Is what I read about these groups and their beliefs accurate or not?

RE: Glad you asked...

>>...If Israel relaxes the

>>constraints of occupation, how do the Israelis know the

>result will be as you say?

>The alternative is a never-ending cycle of violence. It has

>to be given a chance,

I don't think you are addressing the point. If it's correct that relaxing the occupation will simply allow the rejectionists to organize their attacks more efficiently, then BOTH alternatives are a never-ending cycle of violence. The only difference is that the alternative that occurs when the occupation is relaxed will include even MORE violence against Israelis. That is what you are asking them to risk. Does it really make sense for them to take that risk without any assurances from anybody that the situation will improve?

RE: Glad you asked...

>This is not so. You and others may think that Israel is

>already destroyed, but the groups that I am asking about may

>not see it the same way. I am asking about their

>perspective, so telling me what you or others think about

>Israel is not resopnsive to my question about what these

>groups think.

If the Zionist state has failed, then why is it so shocking that Palestinians who now form the majority between the River jordan and the Mediteranean Sea would re-assert their claim to sovereignty over the land that was so cruely stolen from them and given to a bunch of Eastern European rejects and Palestinian wannabes? There are still a few secular moderates who will talk about a two-state solution, but Israel targeted them for killing first so, don't get all hett up if the so-called militants respond to hasten the democratic and demographic imperative in all of Palestine. I imagine that some jews who are able to acquire or prove authentic citizenship will have a right to stay on, the rest will perhaps head back to Brooklyn or the suburbs of Berlin or Warsaw where they belong.

RE: Glad you asked...

>If the Zionist state has failed, then why is it so shocking

>that Palestinians who now form the majority between the River

>jordan and the Mediteranean Sea would re-assert their claim to

>sovereignty over the land that was so cruely stolen from them

>and given to a bunch of Eastern European rejects and

>Palestinian wannabes?

There - now that wasn't so hard, was it? Good boy.

Anyone who wants to know why the Israelis can't just give up the occupied terrorities without antyhing in return and then expect peace, just read the above. That's the agenda of the groups who blow themselves upon on teenager-filled buses - it's not mere withdrawl from the occupied territories which they seek (that's just the first step), but the total elimination of Israel as a state.

Who would give up land and allow such groups to get closer to your borders without some reasonable hope that doing so will result in the end of these groups?

>I imagine that

>some jews who are able to acquire or prove authentic

>citizenship will have a right to stay on, the rest will

>perhaps head back to Brooklyn or the suburbs of Berlin or

>Warsaw where they belong.

Yeah - maybe we can get some nice trains to take them there. Do you think they'll take their F-16s and nuclear weapons with them as they leave, or do you think they'll just leave those behind and quietly board the train?