Reply #18: I stand corrected. "Marking" the Jews was in the original title. You did

[Peace Patriot]

not color it. And I apologize to you. But this means that the Haaretiz.com news site DID color it. And it's those sort of colorations that I think we should be wary of. How can we trust a news article that starts off with such a coloration? I also wanted to comment on the word "enemy" and "my (or our) only enemy is the Jews." We really do not know if this is an accurate translation--and in the hot atmosphere of of the P/I conflict, we should be wary--but even if it is, a) we don't know if this man truly has launched rockets at Israeli sites (it is an allegation); b) "enemy" can be a political word, not a violent word; and c) he speaks of Jews (if that is the word he used) as his enemy in the context of defense, and also of opposing corruption. I am not convinced that we understand what this man was really saying, and I think it's unwise to jump to the conclusion that a violent warrior against "Jews" has been appointed chief of police. I really don't know. I am skeptical. I distrust this source as much as I distrust the New York Times and our other war profiteering corporate news monopolies. It doesn't feel straight to me. Are we getting a wholly or partially twisted, colored, anti-P picture? Are the allegations of violence against him true? If so, what are his justifications for it? What kind of situation was he violent in? Was his statement racist, or was the word "Israel" or or the phrase "Israeli Jews" "Israeli rightwing Jews" changed to (all) "Jews"?

You see what I mean? I'm just very distrustful--and it makes me want to know about the financial investments or funding of the source (the news organization).

One other thing: You say, above, that Israel has "no reason" to negotiate with the Palestinians. There have been many violent conflicts in history where both sides are so hot that they feel this way--yet negotiations can ALWAYS occur, even in the midst of violence, anger and vengeful feelings--if the wise and the peaceful step forward and initiate them. What are you proposing as an alternative? More violence? Crushing them? Maintaining Israel as an armed medieval fortress, all walled in with its weapons, while Big Brother stomps all over its neighbors?

You don't help your case by saying such a thing--that negotiation is not possible. It just makes me think you are a hothead.

As for the caliphate, well--maybe they should be permitted to have it. Some of the old caliphates were not so bad, were in fact the light of the Mediterranean in terms of learning and artistry, and were far kinder to the Jews that anyone in Europe. Not my cup of tea--being a western woman. But I do try to see the long view of this. And I do NOT mean eliminating Israel. I mean fostering development of Islamic infrastructure, culture, learning and advancement, and genuinely supporting the self-determination of Islamic peoples and Islamic democracy (unlike our western previous actions in the past, of utterly smashing democratic movements in Islamic countries). Some Islamic countries badly NEED development--especially empowerment of the poor majority--and if the west hadn't been so hell-bent on controlling Mideast oil over the last sixty years, the populations of these countries wouldn't be so desperate and wouldn't be so angry at us, or Israel. I think it's very likely that most people in Islamic countries--if they desire a caliphate--are not particularly thinking of a violent caliphate. They are thinking of self-determination--which the west has, in so many cases, denied them. Why not in fact foster a PEACEFUL caliphate--that is, a sphere of power and influence and self-determination for Islamic peoples, that is created in a context of general disarmament and new international institutions (or beefing up of the existing ones) for dispute resolution? Why cluster so much fear around this word, caliphate?

It is at least possible to imagine a prosperous and peaceful Middle East in which Israel is both safe and shares a community of interest with Islamic countries, even surrounded as it may be with a "caliphate" (some sort of regional Islamic consortium, agreed to by all). We really do need to start imagining something else than this endless and dangerous affliction: the Mideast war.

There are already signs that Mother Earth has had enough of us, and may give human civilization the heave-ho, if we don't stop polluting her--even before we destroy all life on earth with nuclear weapons. We need to think bigger thoughts--and extricate ourselves from tribal conflicts and land and resource wars. We have only a limited time to save our planet. The World Wildlife Fund gives the planet 50 years. 50 years! To the death of the planet--from pollution, overconsumption, and loss of biological diversity. We need a CREATIVE, far-thinking plan to end the conflict in the Middle East, and get on with saving the home of all humanity.