Reply #128: Thanks for posting the link and for your further elucidation

[Rhiannon12866]

I think if you read other posts I have made, you will find that I agree with you on all points. BTW, I did like your cliff analogy. As for the settlements, dismantling them is an important first step. If nothing else, it would show good faith on the part of Israel, or, more specifically, the Sharon government. However, I do not believe that anyone who orders "targeted killings" is negotiating in good faith for a lasting peace.

As for Mr. Bush*, as I understand it, the only reason that he finally became involved in the world's most serious conflict at all, after almost three years in office, was to satisfy a bargain he made with Tony Blair. In exchange for Blair's support in his Iraq war, he agreed to become involved in brokering peace in this region. If this is true, I think Mr. Blair made a very bad bargain. If it doesn't serve his interests, or those of his cronies, Bush* has a very short attention span. After all, this is the one area in the Middle East where there is no oil. As for his understanding of this complex and heated conflict, I have no doubt that you are right; Bush* hasn't a clue.
:dunce: