Inside the Middle East
January 27, 2009
Posted: 1530 GMT


Listening to President barack Obama's interview on satellite news channel Al-Arabya, I was reminded of something Hisham Melhem – the man who conducted the one-on-one – told me a few weeks: "It is going to be very difficult for Mideast leaders to demonize someone whose full name is Barack Hussein Obama."

Indeed, the tone was conciliatory and President Obama made sure to mention the fact that he'd lived in a Muslim country and that members of his family are Muslim. A hand extended to the region. An "I understand you" from the Commander-in-Chief.

Though in recent polls, a majority of people in the Mideast do not believe anything will change with an Obama presidency, could a softer tone alone be a game-changer?

After eight years of a Bush presidency and an Iraq war that has made virulent anti-Americanism the norm in the Arab world, Barack Obama's statement that he has advised his Mideast envoy George Mitchell to "start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating" is a rhetorical leap that marks a clean break with the past.

But here is the wider question: how to achieve true, lasting peace, without involving all actors of the Mideast tragedy in the discussions?

Mister Obama's peace envoy is in the region right now speaking with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Egyptian and Israeli leaders, but will not stop in Syria and will not meet Hamas officials.

The issue here is not whether Hamas is legitimate or popular, but how any deal can hold as a result of negotiations conducted without them.

Since Egypt has acted as a mediator between Israel and Hamas in past agreements, it's not inconceivable that messages will somehow be relayed to the group through Cairo.

Would this be like trying to achieve peace in Northern Ireland by not involving the IRA's political wing? It's a question worth asking.

Meanwhile, the process will be slow: president Obama himself has lowered expectations ("it's going to be difficult",) violence is flaring up again in gaza and nothing tangible is expected to happen before Israelis select a new Prime Minister as a result of elections next month.

What are your thoughts on President Obama's interview on Al Arabya?

Thanks to all for commenting!

Posted by: ,
Filed under: George Mitchell •Hamas •Obama

Share this on:
Professor   January 27th, 2009 3:38 pm ET

Let us hope... but we have to see the actions on the ground.... Palestinians have had enough promising words that lead to nothing but more Israel agression.

IMEBlog   January 27th, 2009 3:55 pm ET

From the blog administrator: please keep your comments on topic and refrain from using profanities. All comments that break these rules will be immediately deleted. Many thanks for taking part in the discussion.

Nona   January 27th, 2009 4:37 pm ET

Welcome, Moderator! So great to see somebody moderating this thread! Thank you!

Barak rocks! I think it was very smart and appropriate for him to direct his first interview to the Middle East. Our eloquent new president said exactly what most Americans have been wanting their government to say for 8 years:

1. We want peace throughout the world!
2. We won't agree on everything, but we will listen to all sides.
3. The people of the MidEast have to work for their own peace and we will help if we can.
4. We will support those who want to build up, but not those who want to tear down. We will not support terrorists or terrorism.
5. Israel is a strategic ally and we're committed to the relationship, but we are also committed to the Palestinian people and other nations in the region.
6. Arabs matter! Muslims matter! They are part of the world community!

Let's hope for some light at the end of the tunnel, in spite of the current state of the ceasefire.

CS   January 27th, 2009 4:43 pm ET

I'm hopeful and optimistic, as Obama has done more in a week than Bush has in 8yrs.

Professor   January 27th, 2009 4:54 pm ET

The Center for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv University in its monthly publication number 91 stated that the US-Israeli relations are facing clowdy to stormy future under Obama.

Beny   January 27th, 2009 4:59 pm ET

A question was repeated 3 times- how can one achieve peace without Hamas. Well here is my question- how can one achieve peace with Hamas? The terrorists that have once and again declared that their sole purpose is our destruction and nothing will sway them from it?

One must promote the Hamas-opposers within Gaza, which I am sure exist like in every dictatorship. They are the real Palestinians, that care for them and not for the war.

Obama and Mitchell might very well be the ones to mediate the security arrangements for protecting Israel that must come with the creation of the Palestinian state, and the creation of the Palestinian state that must come with everlasting security for Israel.

Here I also call for the man who most probably will be Israel's next PM: Bibi Netanyahu- don't dismiss Obama. Even if he is exactly your opposide- young and ideological against your age, experience and calculated mind. Give him a chance- and don't lose Israel a valuable friend. Keep Israel's interests with you as you come to the negotiations table, and follow up whatever comes out.

Nona pretty much summed it up. Thanks Nona!

Well, inside myself I doubt Barack will be politically able to do major stuff here, however goodwilled he might be. Not belittling his diplomatic abilities- just that the internal American politics might keep him tight to US's big issues like economy and Afghanistan.

Linda   January 27th, 2009 6:05 pm ET

Good to see the moderator!
I am not sure that President Obama will do anything different than past administrations. In America, he is not a one man show either. We have a congress to keep a President from going off on a whim. He may send Hillary to speak to more countries, but we will have to see what, if anything will get done. Until attitudes change in the ME, nothing will change.
I do think Nona said it very well.

M Ariely   January 27th, 2009 6:46 pm ET

If willing they could solve the conflict 60 years ago and many times since than up today

The best President Obama can achieve is a conflict management.
1:Foreign leaders cannot change the Arabs world inspiration
Arabs inspirations can be
The large picture is the Arabs desire of either;
Unfortunately-There are no CHANGE movements of those inspirations
Replacing the above desires with one that will


will take generations
2:The Arabs Israel conflict is only 1 conflict among

A:Arabs accepting the
B:Palestinians will CREATE THE 23 ARAB STATE COMMITED commitment to LASTING PEACE

Israel DESIRED PEACE and good relations with Arabs from day 1.
However Arabs DESIRED DESTRUCTION of Israel from day 1
3:Arabs are saying correctly that the west


4: Hopefuly President Obama understands the principle of Al Takeyya that:
A: Muslims are permitted to LIE TO INFIDELS
B; The real meaning is spoken only in Arab language
And Pre Obama will insists that the SAME AGREEMENT MEANING WILL BE IN ENGLISH AND ARABIC languages

dan perman   January 27th, 2009 7:04 pm ET

Obama will fail unless the arbs finally agree to accept israel as a state in the middle east

the arabs perpetuated the refugees as refugees, while refugees all over the world were settled, started new lives and stopped being refugees

hamas must fogo its charter that calls for the destruction of israel

unless all this happens, obama will fail

harvey   January 27th, 2009 7:09 pm ET

Obama can break the mould. He has proved that already just by getting elected. Lets all give him a chance.....and give peace a chance. Maybe , just maybe he can get us all to compromise and make a lasting peace that our chidren can enjoy.

I like his advice to listen....

GLeigh   January 27th, 2009 7:19 pm ET

Listening is always good. There is no possible way to please everyones in this region of the world. Everyone getting their way is simply impossible. But if people reason together and make tough compromises, hopefully a peaceful solution can be reached for the generations ahead who deserve stable lives. President Obama and his team members will do what they can, but it's going to require the intelligence and commitment of people in this section of the world. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, and knocking on wood!

Hunk   January 27th, 2009 7:19 pm ET

Why the interview was with Al Israelia ( Al Arabya) as it nicked named by many people in the Arab world?! If Mr. President wants to reach to the Arab world at large then he should have talked with Al Jazeera , except if he doesn't want Al Jazeera memory cam to replay his speech in the future with footage that speaks the opposite and even louder than his words ; this happened with both Leveny and Perez after the interview with Al Jazeera which will be very embarrassing indeed.

The Islamic world is not the Arab World , even though many Arabs are Muslims but the vast majority of the Muslims are not Arabs, hence, if he really wants to reach to the respected audience he should have used a different medium and a different anchor than Hisham Melhem who is the CNN middle east on the air subcontractor.

Mr. President will sit with Hamas and will negotiate with Hanyia, as for Abbas he will vanish in the ashes of the new Arab and Islamic awakening that’s sweeping through and will soon topple aunts like Abbas and his only and sole representative of the Palestinian people slogan that brought us – people of the middle east- shame and disgrace.

Hamas is a terrorist and Israel is the victim is something that no one single person will buy at least by the viewers whose souls are still intact.
The real negotiation is in Cairo not the one carried by Abbas, get this into your sight Mr. President.

ProPeace   January 27th, 2009 7:32 pm ET

To: dan perman

There are millions of refugees registered by UNRWA who still have no nationality and have not stopped being refugees as you claim. Obama will not succeed unless Israelis understand and acknowledge the rights of these refugees.

ProPeace   January 27th, 2009 7:50 pm ET

Dear Hala,

The media has been managing Palestinian's expectations on Obama's priorities, ranking the Middle East issue as a lower priority issue given the seriousness of the financial crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan,etc. Yet President Obama has been firing on all cylinders and proactively started taking action and making statements about the Middle East.

I was surprised that Obama even granted such an interview within such a short time of his inauguration. He said many interesting things. Arabs and Palestinians are not used to hearing such messages from the US.

Things are looking a lot better than they looked one week ago. Maybe, just maybe, this turbulent region will be able to turn away from violence and choose peace.

Itai   January 27th, 2009 8:36 pm ET

Bring peace to the middle east!
War is never good.
Pleace stop fighting.

dan perman   January 27th, 2009 8:39 pm ET

obama will not succeed any more than his predecessors unless there is a fundamental change on the palestinian side

side lines   January 27th, 2009 9:04 pm ET

Our new Pres is smart, intelligent, articulate and someone with a geniuine desire to promote peace. This is an encouraging start of new era of responsibility. Its now upto all of us as citizens of this great nation to realize that does our mainstraem media..American media has to wake up . They have blocked the stories coming out of Gaza. The job of an honest journalist is to report the story in a neutral tone and not take sides. Time after time we have seen only pro Israeli perspective and after all said and done BBC has the nerve to not air the DEC ad for asking aid.

mahmoud jboor   January 27th, 2009 10:46 pm ET

talking to hamas as an elected authority should come first and better than talking with others...
obama will never achieve anything if israelies mentality remain the way we see it in gaza ..

Solomon   January 27th, 2009 11:19 pm ET

M Ariely

"The large picture is the Arabs desire of either;

give me one Arab politician or leader who said that.


now what is wrong with that?almost all Arabs are wishing for that day.
all these countries are Arabs they should have one state European did it with 26 languages why can't the Arabs with one language and one history.?

Solomon   January 27th, 2009 11:22 pm ET

I dont have hope that Barak Obama will bring change to the Middle east.

to do that he had to stand against the Jewish Lobby.
can he do that?
I have my doubt.

Solomon   January 27th, 2009 11:25 pm ET

totally agree with you.Aljazeera should be the station.
Alebriya is not the station that most Arabs watch.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 12:06 am ET

China invented the first clock, and other things. Europe began factories. The U.S. became a producer and sends to third world countries. The U.S. first walked on the moon. Russia has a space station. China is investing in space flight. Europe has Cern which is super awesome. For some, it's not about wiping out Israel and conquering. It's about advancing the human race.

Julie   January 28th, 2009 12:23 am ET

Good to have a moderator in this thread. Barack Obama got elected based on a message of changing the tone in Washington DC. However he must change the tone overseas as well, particularly in the Middle East. The interview for Al Arabiya was a good start. One can only hope he will stick to his promises.

Roscoe   January 28th, 2009 12:57 am ET

Did anyone see the interview' This article is nothing more than some breif outakes and opinions of the author. Obama had much more to say than what is in this article

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 1:10 am ET


I did watch it it is a repeat of what all US presidents say about the middle east in the last twenty years.
few things he said ,about relations between the US and the Arab and Islamic world.I am not sure if he is going to change any minds in the Arab world. we have listen to many American presidents talk about a Palestinian state but no action.

his choice of Alarabiya is not a good one he should have chosen AlJazeera it is more respected and more truthful to the Arab Audience.

Itai   January 28th, 2009 1:33 am ET


maybe your right in the view of the arabs alArabya was not a good choice and AlJaz would be better
but in the US this is the better choice!
bcause US people think AlJaz is only propaganda
they dont know AlArab so they see it a bit more neutral
if this is so it was the better choice for both sides! ;)

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 1:43 am ET


my point is Alarabiya is considered pro American to the Arab audience it is not a good choice. Barak Obama was speaking to an Arab audience not to an American one.

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 1:48 am ET

if he was speaking to an Arab audience then it is a bad choice.
Alarabiya is considered pro American and a Saudi royal family station.

Aljazeera is more watched and more respected by Arab audience.

Roscoe   January 28th, 2009 1:50 am ET

Solomon January 28th, 2009 110 GMT


I did watch it it is a repeat of what all US presidents say about the middle east in the last twenty years.
few things he said ,about relations between the US and the Arab and Islamic world.I am not sure if he is going to change any minds in the Arab world. we have listen to many American presidents talk about a Palestinian state but no action.

his choice of Alarabiya is not a good one he should have chosen AlJazeera it is more respected and more truthful to the Arab Audience.

I agree, his position shows little difference than past administrations.

Itai   January 28th, 2009 1:51 am ET


maybe your right
but its the way how obama dont lose the face on both sides!
he can speak to arabs withou talking to the hated alJaz
hated in the US .. that means not that alJaz is bad!
but US people maybe or often think so ;(

so alArab was a wise choice for both sides!
i think so ;)

Itai   January 28th, 2009 1:59 am ET

i know Roscoe :D

i know .. that why i allways say to people go and inform your self
look at the TV which sources they use and then go to there
dont trust blindly!
today we have to fight for the truth wich is diden by the news chanels in US as in China ;)

Roscoe   January 28th, 2009 2:03 am ET

Itai January 28th, 2009 151 GMT


maybe your right
but its the way how obama dont lose the face on both sides!
he can speak to arabs withou talking to the hated alJaz
hated in the US .. that means not that alJaz is bad!
but US people maybe or often think so ;(

so alArab was a wise choice for both sides!
i think so ;)

There is only 1 or 2 small cities in the US that has access to Al Jazeera– almost no one can get this station because the major cable networks are primarily owned by the same Jewish media conclomerates that own the broadasting staition. Most people in the US have never even heard of Al Jazeera.

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 2:11 am ET

I knew that Jewish groups in the US are trying to ban Aljazeera from the US because they dont want the American to see the other side .

according to AP

American viewership of Al-Jazeera English rose dramatically during the Israel-Hamas war, partly because the channel had what CNN and other international networks didn't have: reporters inside Gaza.

But the viewers weren't watching it on television, where the Arab network's English-language station has almost no U.S. presence.

Instead, the station streamed video of Israel's offensive against Hamas on the Internet and took advantage of emerging online media such as the microblogging Web site Twitter to provide real-time updates.

Kovic   January 28th, 2009 2:19 am ET

Hi people….

i was reading your comments about Mr. mitchelle been appointed as ME envoy…. I hope he could bring a ‘ solid ‘ peace plan that would benefit all nations in the ME….

Nona   January 28th, 2009 2:25 am ET

A few facts about American media systems:

* Time-Warner, which owns CNN, is a publicly owned and traded company. Anybody who can purchase shares on the NYSE can be an owner. Anybody.

* U.S. media are for-profit businesses. The reason al-Jazeerah is not in the USA is because there is not a market to support it financially. al-Jazeerah would have to depend on advertising and cable purchases for its revenue, not on government funding and financing. That is why there is not al-Jazeerah in the USA. Nobody's stopping them. They just don't have a product that the US market will support - advertisers don't want to hawk their products on al-Jazeerah, and cable companies don't have demand for it among their customers.

It's basic economics: supply and demand.

Bill   January 28th, 2009 2:52 am ET

Aljazeera is just Islamic terrorist TV. Now that real reporters have been allowed into Gaza, they are seeing how much they lied about the numbers of dead and wounded. Their already paltry credibility is shot in the US. Aljazeera shouldn't be banned from the US, but its credibility is so low it should be on the Comedy Channel.

Fawad Ali   January 28th, 2009 3:34 am ET

Middle East envoy won't visit Gaza…..

Untainted Arab leader has not yet been invented, then why talk to some while reject others

Fawad Ali   January 28th, 2009 3:37 am ET

This is not a change, it is a same old same old tactic,

If talking to Iran make sense,

Accepting IRA murderers make sense,

Then why afraid paying a visit to Gaza

Nona   January 28th, 2009 3:52 am ET

P.S. On facts about American media:

Under American law, “free press” simply means that the government can’t own and control all media and that it has extremely limited authority to prohibit citizens and businesses from publishing what they choose. It’s the government that cannot censor. The publisher who owns the medium has every right to control its content, for example, CNN has every right to determine what content is permitted on blogs that it owns. The government, however, cannot tell CNN what content it can and cannot permit. There are certain and specific exceptions when the government can impose restraints on the media, such as matters of national security, personnel and medical matters of individuals, and pornography. To say CNN isn't exercising freedom of the press because your comments don't make it onto its blog is pretty silly: to the contrary, CNN (not the government) is exercising its freedom of the press through its right to publish or not publish what it chooses.

Freedom of speech guarantees in the First Amendment falls under a similar umbrella: Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to tell damaging lies about anybody or threaten them, for example.

It's also worth mentioning that al-Jazeera is owned by the government of Qatar, not by private individuals and companies as other American media are.

Everybody's free to believe whatever they want about the media and American law, but it helps to have a little understanding of it can be helpful in forming them. This is a concept known as "media literacy."

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 4:22 am ET

Freedom of speech my foot. when you dont allow aljazeera in the US because you think that it is against American policy it shows the big lie about the so called freedom of speech..

when Jewish organization in the US fight to stop Aljazeera from being shown on American cable,and at the same time we see Israeli politicians dying to be interviewed by Aljazeera it shows the hypocrisy of the Jewish organizations in the US.

when we see Americans in all levels of Governments interviewed on a daily basis on aljazeera we see at the same time American hypocrisy.

it is all about not allowing the citizens of the US to see the truth in the Middle east..
its really sad when you see comments on this blog from people that never watched aljazeera and yet they talk like expert on the media ,it shows how afraid they are from seeing the other side.

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 4:30 am ET

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas vowed on Tuesday to take a tough stance in talks with Israel and said he would tell a U.S. envoy that
Israel's Gaza offensive proved it was not intent on peacemaking.


this clown will not fool the Palestinians anymore. he is the most hated by most of the Palestinians.
he should leave with his prime minister Fayad and maybe retired with his friends in Israel.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 4:46 am ET

I don't watch Israeli or Arab television. I do watch CNN and other stations, trying to understand the truth. Sometimes it's painful, such as when our own high level government officials are impeached or even arrested. But it is about truth. President Obama and his team are now taking steps to open up dialog. Both sides will have to compromise and learn to live together as neighbors. With two states and unbiased world monitors to ensure the peace is long lasting, hopefully the people of Gaza and Israel can have better lives. But, it is going to depend on how receptive everyone will be to the ideas of peace and co-existing.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 4:52 am ET

Solomon – You seem to be well read on the Middle East. How would you have Israel and Gaza attain peace so they can co-exist as neighbors, happy and productive? You seem to have ideas on the subject.

Nona   January 28th, 2009 5:01 am ET

Solomon - try to follow.

al-Jazeera is NOT prohibited because it is against American policy.

We have plenty of programming that is contrary to government policy. Nobody is prohibiting al-Jazeera here. In fact, al-Jazeera IS here: it has new bureaus here, it has reporters here, it is allowed here. al-Jazeera-English on the Web is not blocked and its videos are available. Its debut online was on every news broadcast here for days. To say al-Jazeera isn't allowed here simply isn't true.

al-Jazeera doesn't broadcast here because it can't survive financially based on the American media business model. What would be its revenue source to support a staff, equipment, facilities, etc.? How would it convince cable and dish services to buy its broadcasts and beam them to their paying subscribers? Expecting al-Jazeera to sell its services to Americans is like opening a grocery in a Muslim neighborhood and expecting pork chops to fly off the shelves. It's not a product the American people want to pay for or consume. Maybe some people will try it and like it, but most people have no interest.

We pay for television broadcasts here. I don't know what it's like in Lebanon: do you get a bill every month for your television service? If you don't pay that bill, do you stop receiving TV broadcasts? Maybe so ... I don't know. But that's how it works here. There aren't enough people in the USA who want to buy al-Jazeera at this point in time to support it. Apparently, the government of Qatar, which owns al-Jazeera, doesn't want to incur the costs of providing it free to every American who has TV service.

It's just my personal belief, but I fully expect that one day the al-Jazeera TV WILL be broadcast here. I think the government of Qatar will figure out a way to market it to the American public and create a revenue model that will work.

But your argument is interesting. You say the US doesn't allow al-Jazeera because its broadcasts conflict with government policy. So then, I guess by that argument, Arab countries shouldn't prohibit Israeli broadcasts just because they violate their national policies. Anything else would be a double standard, right?

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 5:08 am ET


the problem is not Gaza and Israel.
according to the Oslo accord of 1993 there should have been a Palestinian state years ago.
but Israel kept building Illegal Jewish settlements in the west bank and is still occupying the west bank.
this is the problem it is the occupation.

the Arab league in 2002 put forward a peace proposal which says Israel withdraw from occupied land and all Arabs will recognize Israel.up to this day Israel is not interested.

now must Arabs including my self believe that peace is Impossible with this so called Israel.

it is going to be a bloody future for the holy land Jews are going to be the biggest losers at the end.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 5:14 am ET

Solomon – It sounds like you have given up on the peace process in general. I haven't. Perhaps it will never happen – I don't know. I do know that if intelligent people sit down and talk and work on issues and compromise, then there is a chance at peace. Some will not get their way. Most probably. It will involve everyone not getting their own way to some degree because all will need to compromise. When that happens, there will be peace.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 5:19 am ET

No one expects the Israelis and Palestinians to join hands and sing "Kumbayah" but it will require civility, respect, and a real desire for intelligent beings to commit themselves to peace. Whoever attains this will be a hero in my book.

Nona   January 28th, 2009 5:23 am ET

Well said, GLeigh! People on both sides have to WANT peace and be willing to pay dearly for it if they ever expect to achieve it.

I don't see why they wouldn't. They're paying pretty darn dearly for war.

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 5:26 am ET


this is an Example of the hypocrisy I am talking about.

how do you know that Aljazeera can not survive financially where did you get your information from?

how do you know that there is not enough people that will subscribe to Aljazeera give us your source.

when you ask questions like do you get bills every month in Lebanon it shows that either are an uneducated person or you are a stupid racist who try to put others down.

in Lebanon and the rest of the middle east we watch CNN and BBC and hundreds of other channels we are not afraid of the other like you do.

I told you before to get lost I will repeat it again.GET LOST.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 5:26 am ET

The trick is to want peace. There are deep wounds on both sides. Those wounds will continue until something new is created. The children will have them. The grandchildren will have them. That something new could be peace. It's a long shot, but I still can't give up hope.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 5:28 am ET

We do pay for cable, but that doesn't support a television station, only the ones providing the cable. The cable channels must advertise to generate revenue to support themselves.

Nona   January 28th, 2009 5:47 am ET

Solomon - didn't mean to offend you. I'm perplexed that I did. This isn't controversial stuff.

How do I know? Um, because I'm an American businessperson with expertise in the business of media, its laws and how to make a living in it. Government-owned and controlled media companies are a hard sell here in the USA. We don't even tolerate them from our own government, so I don't really see Americans begging to pay for a network controlled by the government of Qatar. You've been on this blog for a while. How many Americans are you observing sitting around this blog going, "Dang. We should have al-Jazeera but our government won't let us! We're so repressed! It's a government conspiracy!"

As for your TV bill, it was an honest question. I know you get CNN and BBC, but I'm not familiar with the revenue structure. Chill, dude.

Your response to me is what's known in the rules of logic as "fallacy ad hominem" – the rejection of a claim or argument based on some irrelevant fact about the author or the person presenting the claim (in this case, me). In fallacy ad hominem, an attack is launched against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions. Then the attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument. Fallacy ad hominem. Look it up.

As far as my getting lost - not gonna happen. But feel free to leave if my presence really bothers you that much.

Interesting how you totally ignored about Israeli media in Arab countries. Must be nice to be so entitled to double standards as long as they work in your favor.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 6:09 am ET

I think Nona was explaining why we don't have an Arab station in the U.S. Right now economy is not great and I doubt that the advertising dollars are there to support one. It's probably expensive.

I do think President Obama and his team are going to be as fair as possible. Finding peace will have to involve the leader of Israel and the leaders of Arab countries, and other world leaders who are interested in a fair peaceful solution. President Obama and our government can't work in a vacuum and find solutions alone. That's why our dialog is good. At least we hear all sides.

Nona   January 28th, 2009 6:21 am ET

Bill - thanks for your kind words, and GLeigh, thank you for the back-up.

I'm not trying to "get" anybody. I'm just trying to have honest dialogue based on fact. And I really really really want to understand Arabs and Muslims better, and I want them to understand us better too. I can't force the latter, but I can certainly do everything in my power to attempt to understand them better, even if the conversations get tense and uncomfortable sometimes.

This blog is a great example of how small the world now is because of technology. I really believe in my heart that the days of nationalism - the days of "them" and "us" - are dying. Technology allows ALL of us to interact with people from cultures that are foreign to us, wherever in world they are - even thousands of miles and oceans away, whatever their backgrounds or language or beliefs. Isn't that miraculous? The "one world" realities available through technology are so much bigger than our preconceived notions that they'll eventually tear them away. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but eventually. I really believe that.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 6:27 am ET

Nona – I came on here with a desire to learn about others and for peace. I do think that future generations will be wiser and stop the "Us" and "Them" thing, if we as their role models will attempt to stop. The internet is a wonderful tool to speak to each other and try to understand. I agree it is uncomfortable at times. I'm glad there is now a moderator for the blog. Words can be hurtful, just as bullets can injure. I don't see a them and us, just a world full of people trying to do life. Good night.

Debra   January 28th, 2009 6:30 am ET

I enjoy reading all of your comments. I am learning a lot from all of you, thank you. This year, for the first time in my life, I took a real human interest in politics. And now, the economy in the US and other countries is really bad. I think the US should worry about the US for now and leave other countries alone. These other countries don't want us there. We, Americans, need to stay out of other countries business! Take notice from a distance, keep our borders safe and live and let live. It's great to get on here and share our views in what is happening around the world and at the same time comfort each other. That's a start! I just think we, Americans, should literally not force ourselves where we should not be or where we aren't wanted or needed. Thanks for letting me voice my opinion!

Bill   January 28th, 2009 6:35 am ET

Nona & GLeigh –

Well said, both of you. Yes the world is getting smaller and hopefully our good ideas are spreading faster than the bad ones. I sincerely hope the chain of hatred can be broken in the middle east. I believe the most important key is what we teach our children. If we teach them love, kindness, respect, and tolerance, then they will be better equipped to handle bad situations with honor and wisdom. If we teach them to hate others who are different, teach them intolerance, teach them revenge for things that never even happened to them, teach them that death is more honorable than life, then we have doomed future generations to repeating our mistakes. We have to love our children more than we hate others.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 6:51 am ET

Bill be glad you aren't in this household. My poor husband does our taxes, my oldest son's taxes who is in college and works a little, my daughter who works full time and doesn't have a clue, and my youngest son who got a small car wreck settlement the court holds till he is 18 and has to pay taxes on the interest. One tax return?? lolol I had to laugh at your Yippee! I feed him and stay away from his desk.

Nona   January 28th, 2009 7:01 am ET

Debra - I'm glad you found us and want to share your opinions with us!

Bill - Can I just say that I really enjoy the heck out of your posts too? We are in complete alignment ideologically on this conflict. There have been about 100 times when I wanted to chime in and go, "YEAH! BILL HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!" But you word it so well that I usually refrain, because your words stand by themselves so strongly. And that last post you just made about teaching your children is probably one of the most eloquent posts ever written on this blog.

Solomon - I hope you'll keep talking to me. I think you're one of the most articulate and well-spoken critics of Israel on this blog. We have fundamentally different positions on this conflict, but I think that's a great reason to have honest dialogue and a crummy reason to terminate dialogue. I hope we can agree at least on that. I will challenge you, but talk to me anyway. I invite you to challenge me too. I promise to make an honest effort not to intentionally insult you (I sometimes get the feeling that I accidentally insult you and it genuinely surprises me when it happens).

Bill   January 28th, 2009 7:02 am ET

M Ariely -

These are precisely why the West is leary of Islam. They don't feel any obligation to tell the truth. That has played out time after time. They have no honor. They violate agreements at will. They constantly commit war crimes and acts of terrorism around the world. They attack and call their victims the aggressors. Their stated goal is to take over the world.

The world remembers back to the 1930s and 1940s and sees the rise of Nazi Germany. These thoughts then sound familiar. The West is automatically in defense mode. They've been attacked repeatedly by Islamic terrorists. It is almost impossible to build trust under these conditions.

There doesn't seem to be a conservative or a moderate Arab voice in the world. The extremists have the stage. I don't hear a unified Arab world condemning the extremists. I only hear the supporters of the extremists – even on this blog. That worries me. That worries the whole West.

Fawad Ali   January 28th, 2009 7:10 am ET

Solomon: "Freedom of speech my foot. when you dont..............."

Honestly speaking, Arab media is discredited by their regimes ……It is like you can talk about some issues but can’t discuss other more important issues regarding leadership and criticizing them……..every time when someone blames the Arab media, there is very little Arabs can do to defend their media because ‘they are not free’…….. The only local issue they are allowed to discuss freely is Israeli-Arab conflict ………

In the end, it looks like the media in Arab world is only designed to tell only one important local story and so it is easy for anti-Arab forces to dissuade the world about Arab news channels like Al jazeera etc.

Bill   January 28th, 2009 8:00 am ET

Nona -

I agree too, but we never seem to hear from those who oppose the extremists. Perhaps they are afraid. It could also have something to do with their tribal mentality, where any deviation from the standard line causes dishonor for their whole clan.

Some of them need to get some courage to speak the truth and condemn the extremists. Some need to provide the conservative and moderate interpretations of Islam to counter the extremists views. I just don't hear it.

I actually am hoping more for the middle eastern women than the men. The women are treated as second class citizens in so many ways. They have way more power than they think. I think the women could subdue the hostile intentions of their husbands and children more effectively than anyone else right now,if they got fed up enough with all this testosterone fed violence and destruction that they've been living with for 60 years. Somehow we need to reach out and empower these women to stop their men from ruining their society and, consequently, their families.

Saudi   January 28th, 2009 8:06 am ET

Mutual respect Obama theory,

America supports the Arab land occupation by Israel and settlements build up, plus the killing of women and children's. Deportation and dehumanization of a whole people, destruction of homes, mosques and learning hoses, and in the same time Mr. Obama seek for and talk about mutual respects!!!

If Mr. Obama the considered most educated, rational and intellectual president still talking about mutual respect expected from the Muslim world!!!!!! It will sound absurd and making non sense at all.

Nona   January 28th, 2009 8:18 am ET

You make some good points, Bill. I think women could solve this problem if they were empowered to (but you men have to live with our decisions without complaining about them for the next three generations! LOL!). Like I told Harvey, it'll take a week or two, and then we'll cook everybody a nice dinner.

Fear probably has a lot to do with this mess - I think you're on to something there. And I think the fear theory applies to Arab leaders as well. All leaders are subject to the whims of those they govern, whether they're presidents, kings or dictators. But democratically elected leaders - whether it's Obama or Hamas - are a lot less likely to be violently overthrown. I think Mideast leaders foster the anti-Israel passion in large part because it gives their people a cause to unite around and distracts mass attention from more threatening activities like coups and assassinations; when their people are busy hating Israel, things like excessive lifestyles and corruption in their own governments become easier to dismiss, or at least can serve as a really convenient scapegoat. The fate of the Palestinians is largely a red herring to deflect internal threats, and that's one reason the Arab leaders have let them sit right where they are for decades on end. Well, that's one of my theories anyway.

I think I'll hit the sack. Goodnight, Bill.

Rabbi Stern   January 28th, 2009 9:06 am ET

Mr. Obama needs to show the Arab world that he is serious about what he is saying... by not allowing US weapons to be used to kill Palestinian women and children... Only then Arab will believe his words not to be lip service as previous administration empty promises.

True Jews will then support Mr. Obama such actions too.

Libra   January 28th, 2009 10:41 am ET

You people talking about arabs, their women and their mentality. I find it so amusing. You really don't understand NOTHING. You got it really all wrong. This is why peace will never be achieved. You have been brainwashed by western media into translating the arab humanity to their pleasing. I feel sorry for you. REALITY has no race, color or religion. People act the way they do because they were forced to do so by their oppressors. Israel has the pleasure to take full responsibility of the rising of Islamic terrorists. Thanks Israel. Good job. Now blame it on Islam, their women and their media.

It's the Occupation, people. When will you finally get it?

miriam   January 28th, 2009 11:42 am ET

Hisham Melham has now made something clear. Middle East leaders find it hard to demonize individuals with Muslim names, middle names at least.

Peace will be hard to achieve if this kind of loyalty, based on names, is applied throughout the Muslim world's leadership. However it is a good tactic if it were employed by the Shia and Sunni foes, or Hamas and Fatah.


It's not the occupation since the Arabs have wanted to destroy Israel and Jews before 1967 or 1948.

It's the preoccupation.
Preoccupation with hatred towards Jews.

CS   January 28th, 2009 11:50 am ET

Arabs did'nt hate Jews before 1948. In fact, Christian and Muslim Arabs, and Jews all lived in the same Palestine, and Jerusalem prior to this date. They lived in peace, dealing with eachother every day. Unfortunately, the U.N. had this silly idea of creating borders in a state that existed for thousands of years prior, and designating a portion of land solely for Arabs, and a portion of land solely for Jews. This forced people off their land, thus creating the mess we have today. But let's stick to the topic of the blog, and not go back into history. It will do no good.

If certain ME leaders want to play mind games, I suggest that reasonable people rise above your station. Elevate your thinking. Obama has shown great intentions, and action thus far. If crazies want to insinuate that he will secretly be on their side because of a name that was given to him at birth (which he had no control over)
than let them. Let them sound crazy...don't join them in sounding crazy along with them.

Libra   January 28th, 2009 11:58 am ET


OK it's the preoccupation and the hatred towards Jews, so come with your tanks, airplanes, missiles, bombs and force the Palestianians out, because of the hatred. And then, bulldoze their homes, kill the mothers and children. You know, because of the hate. At when you really get desparate, Israel, cut them off of food and medicine. That will teach the Palestinians to love us Jews.

And the hate goes on. More today then ever.

Beny   January 28th, 2009 12:28 pm ET


"That will teach the Palestinians to love us Jews."

The Palestinians will never love us Jews. We are a pain in the ass to their desires of complete Arab rule over this land. The didn't want us as neighbors in 1947, nor do they want us as neighbors now. Hamas made it clear- they will not rest until Israel is wiped off the map. They hated the Jews that lived here since ever (and there was ALWAYS a Jewish population in Israel, however oppressed by the Ottoman Empire). They hated the Jews that escaped the Nazi horrors and came to build a home next to them. They will always hate the Jews.

But with all that, when you look at what Hamas done to them, I'm looking for the day they will hate their leaders that brought this suffering on them more than they will hate us. Or, as one of the latest attack's objectives, they will fear us more than they hate us.

As long as they hate us more than they love life, when they sacrifice themselves on the altar of our destruction...

kovic   January 28th, 2009 12:48 pm ET

Dan perman,

i agreed on what you've said that adolf hitler and so was hamas were democratically elected....and came into power to rule over and their hatred towards the jewish people.

sad to say, but these democracy that we used to speak of, have tainted so much because of the few bottom feeding low lifes represented by the former facist hitler and the latter terrorists hamas which are already went down in flames..

moving on, the occupation thing that this certain professor is always parroting and keep on posting, as i have read on every blogsites, are nothing more but a dead rotten propaganda with no bearing on the present situation in the ME.....

the gazan's have their land and so as the palestinians at the west bank... so there's no clearly or in any point whatsoever of this occupation thing that they accused of against israel...

kovic   January 28th, 2009 12:58 pm ET


those destructions and killings would never happened in gaza if terrorists hamas didn't attacked and provoked the israeli's to retaliate in defense of their own people...

hamas should be solely put to blamed for the massacred and chaos that was happened in gaza...these are the leaders they elected, and so was the consequences that comes along with it...and their fate was already been sealed the moment hamas stepped into power.....

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 1:40 pm ET

Rabbi – Since the U.S. and Israel are allies, it's only natural that there is some weapon exchange. I'm sure it happens in Arab countries to some extent. The goal is to not need these weapons. Israel does not want to be exterminated like Darfur. Hopefully the missiles and bombs, and all acts of aggression will stop long enough for fair people with intelligent compromises to meet and create a peace. As a holy person, pray for that peace that Israel and the Palestinians learn to be good neighbors.

Rabbi Stern   January 28th, 2009 1:52 pm ET

GLeigh – Its against the laws of the US to give weapons to a foreign country if those weapons to be used against unarmed civilians.

Its ok to provide weapons if they are going to be used to protect its borders but to invade and attack unarmed civilians that is a no no....

Its against all religious laws too... Jewish or Christians.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 2:05 pm ET

Rabbi – Unarmed? I saw pictures, on the news, CNN by the way, that showed an Iraeli elementary school with a concrete arch over it. Just in case a missile hit. Eight years is a very long time to shoot at someone. I have heard the argument that the Hamas missiles are home made so they don't kill a lot of Israelis. As you and I both know, killing is bad. Very bad. So I don't consider the ones sending them unarmed. Sadly a bomb went off yesterday, killing more in Israel. I would love to see unarmed people not blowing up anything. That is another thing that you can pray about.

Rabbi Stern   January 28th, 2009 2:14 pm ET

GLeigh – An F16 missle does not know a hamas memebr who is shooting a rocket from a pregnant woman. That is illegal. If you want to go after those shooting the rockets then you go after them and not kill 1300 innocent unarmed civilians women and children.

The end does not justify the means.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 2:17 pm ET

Rabbi – Good. Now we are getting somewhere. Where do these men meet? On what battlefield? Israel would find that much easier and less dangerous. Going into populated, urban areas is much harder for Israel. I agree that civilians should not be involved. Very sad.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 2:23 pm ET

Now we have the answer. It just took a holy person praying for his Jewish brothers and a person who really just wants all to talk and make peace to find answers. I hope all pregnant women are safe. I've been one more than once.

Rabbi Stern   January 28th, 2009 2:25 pm ET

GLeigh – so you do justify the killing of 1300 unarmed innocent civilians women and children becuase going after Hamas is too hard on Israel?

And you call yourself a mother?

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 2:28 pm ET

As a holy person, please justify the bomb yesterday that killed. It happened to be an Israeli person. I know you must realize nationality doesn't matter, this person was a person. God created everything. I don't justify any of the killing. Why would I? Killing is bad, very bad.

Rabbi Stern   January 28th, 2009 2:33 pm ET

I cannot justify any killing. Unfortunately Israel took our religion as a hostage and killed the innocent Palestinian farmers and their families in our name. It has been terrorizing the Palestinian communities for over 60 years in our name. This is shameful. Any decent human being should standup against this horrible aggression.

Mike   January 28th, 2009 2:37 pm ET

Just a couple of days ago the new U.S. vice-president repeated the same mantra after an amas rocket tricled on to an Isareli field;Israel has a right to defend itself..
But they don't only defend itself,they use a small excuse to maul and slauther people.That's the problem.
A good part of the problem is caused by the U.S. who feed Israel with 10 million dollars a day.So Israel has a lot of money to waste on arms.
Israel is not a poor country,they can live by themselves.Let's stop contributing to unjust wars in the middle east.

miriam   January 28th, 2009 2:37 pm ET


Israel does not aim to kill unarmed civilians. Armed terrorists hide among innocents which under international law turns those innocents into legitimate targets. Even so, Israel often calls off operations to prevent harming innocents.

It is legal under international law for a sovereign state to defend it's borders and to defend it's citizens from a presumed threat.

It ought to be against the law to provide humanitarian aid to governments who divert that aid away from the needy population and instead use it to finance illegal smuggling, illegal weapons purchases, teach hate in UN schools, keep the population hostage, etc etc.

In this conflict, laws are turned upside-down and international players lose their credibility.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 2:40 pm ET

Rabbi – Words. They sound like a broken record. So now we have people seeking peace and I hear that we can't do it, stand up, fight, kill. It's history repeating itself. Begin and Sadat were close to peace maybe. Unfortunately neither are alive today. What church??

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 2:43 pm ET

Mike – I do agree that Israel is productive. I have no doubts. I just wish that was the goal of all countries, self suffiency and productivity. Our aide to them? Seems we send it to everyone else. Why not?

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 2:48 pm ET

(CBS) Getting a peace deal in the Middle East is such a priority to President Obama that his first foreign calls on his first day in office were to Arab and Israeli leaders. And on day two, the president made former Senator George Mitchell his special envoy for Middle East peace. Mr. Obama wants to shore up the ceasefire in Gaza, but a lasting peace really depends on the West Bank where Palestinians had hoped to create their state. The problem is, even before Israel invaded Gaza, a growing number of Israelis and Palestinians had concluded that peace between them was no longer possible, that history had passed it by. For peace to have a chance, Israel would have to withdraw from the West Bank, which would then become the Palestinian state.

It’s known as the "two-state" solution. But, while negotiations have been going on for 15 years, hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers have moved in to occupy the West Bank. Palestinians say they can't have a state with Israeli settlers all over it, which the settlers say is precisely the idea.

Daniella Weiss moved from Israel to the West Bank 33 years ago. She has been the mayor of a large settlement.

"I think that settlements prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. This is the goal. And this is the reality," Weiss told 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon.

Though settlers and Palestinians don't agree on anything, most do agree now that a peace deal has been overtaken by events.

Rabbi Stern   January 28th, 2009 2:49 pm ET

Miriam – Israeli F16s aim at nothing they shoot missles at buildings full of innocent civilians, schools filled with children they do not do surgical aiming at Hamas rocket launchers.

International law allows a sovereign state to protect its borders but not to invade an unarmed population outside of its border.

Israel has been breaking all international laws for years and the UN and US has been turning a bilnd eye. Its time for that to stop.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 2:56 pm ET

Rabbi – Again, I ask you, is Gaza unarmed? What about the missiles. What about the bomb yesterday? Are these arms? That doesn't even register on the logical meter. In my countries borders, if another country fires missiles it will not go on eight years without a response. I assure you.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 2:58 pm ET

Mike – the U.S. sends aide to Arab countries. It sends aide to Israel. That does seem fair. It's about balance.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 3:02 pm ET

Older elephants teach the younger ones not to be too aggressive. Temperence. Consider me an old elephant. I hope that you younger men will choose to listen to the older, wiser men who care about existing, together, peacefully on Planet Earth.

Rabbi Stern   January 28th, 2009 3:09 pm ET

GLeigh – Yes Gaza is unarmed... 1.5 million unarmed civilians. Hamas is not Gaza. You don't know the difference between unarmed civilian population and an armed wing of Hamas not even all Hamas. Whats wrong with you? Are you a human being?

Google – Rabbis against Israel.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 3:09 pm ET

Rabbi – You want some kind of learned title and to fling emotions and hate into this to make war. I want no title, mom maybe, and peace. We are at opposites end of the spectrum. That doesn't mean that I disrespect your opinions. You can't kid a kidder though and moms have dealt with a lot of it over the years. I do pray for peace. I'm not sure what you are praying for. Tell me.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 3:10 pm ET

Hamas was elected by Gaza. They live there. They fire from there. They claim it as their land. Where am I wrong?????

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 3:12 pm ET

By the way Rabbi, I would like to google or yahoo your church. It is where? I'm tired of asking.

CS   January 28th, 2009 3:13 pm ET

I noticed the Rabbi said that it was illegal for one country to sell weapons to another for the use of attacking civilians.

Well what about Sadam, and the way the U.S. funded him in the fight against Iran, when they KNEW he was using chemical warfare to terrorize his own Kurdish poplulation? Did you know that chemical warfare was "illegal" according to Geneva? That never stopped us or them did it?

What about Bin Laden's Talib's? These were young men who arose against a radical sect, who, in the 80's killed, destroyed, and raped the people/land of Afghanistan. U.S. funded these acts. They gave weapons to Pakistan, who didied them out to one particular sect...knowing that there were many tribes in need of weapons for self defense against this very reality.

There are many things that are "illegal" and if laws were enforced, BOTH sides, Israel, AND Palestine would be kept in check.

CS   January 28th, 2009 3:16 pm ET

GLeigh. Why do you seem to be so angry at Rabbi? This is the first time I've seen you react like this. Why do you question Rabbi's faith?
Do you find it hard to beleive that people of many faiths are for justice, and truth, even if their particular country/fellowship/whatever, need rebuke?

CS   January 28th, 2009 3:19 pm ET

GLeigh. G.W. Bush was "elected" if that's what you call his stolen election. But I can assure you. MAYBE 2 percent of the people I know, or deal with, approve of his rule. Does that mean we deserve to be invaded and or attacked?

This is very hypocritical to say that Gazan civilians are to blame for Hamas' actions.

Rabbi Stern   January 28th, 2009 3:21 pm ET

GLeigh – you have the same mentality of Bin Laden... he says that US civilians are a fair game because they voted to their government. I think you should be sitting in Guantanamo and facing war crimes trials too.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 3:23 pm ET

CS – illogic does rattle my cage. I'm a logic person. First he said that Israel was firing upon poor, unarmed people. Well, we know that isn't true. Ask the Israel person blown up yesterday. Then I asked him his church, many times. No answer. Then he keeps repeating things and ignoring all questions. I thought asking his church, as a Rabbi was pretty simple. Apparently not. Then he asked how I called myself a mother. Because I've given birth three times? Then he asks again, how it's okay for Israel to fire at unarmed people. Again, I remind him of the missiles and the bomb yesterday that killed someone. It was an Israeli person. He ignores me. And, in the beginning, I asked him to pray for peace between Israel and it's Palestinian neighbors. Holy people I know alway pray and want peace. Well, that really brought no answer. Any other questions CS?

CS   January 28th, 2009 3:24 pm ET

Miriam. You told Rabbi that Israel does not aim to kill unarmed civilians. Are you military? Do you know the way military works? Do you know that if a target...ONE particular target...say Bin Laden was in a village that contained 5000 people, U.S. and or Israeli forces would blanket the village. That's the way military ops work. If the target is capable of doing destruction on a massive level, they eliminate the threat to the larger masses of people. Do you really only believe that Israel's aim is so precise?

CS   January 28th, 2009 3:30 pm ET

GLeigh. Why would someone put personal info on the web for the world to see? THAT IS ILLOGIC.

If you're so logical, then answer a simple question.

Rabbi and myself make the same point.

1.Gaza elected Hamas, therefore, you say they are responsible for this

2.Why is the U.S. any different if we "elected" G.W. Bush, who has made a mess, and enemies of the whole world?

Simple question. It's the same scenerio, with different variables.

Please tell me the difference.

I guess the US is entitled to put a dictating war monger in office. So long as they use nice sounding language to describe makes it ok.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 3:34 pm ET

CS – I disagree about G. Bush. That's my first point. Perhaps there were errors. He's agreed to that. This is not an easy period in history. But I do see a cruel dictator out of Iraq and something new emerging. Second G. Bush never started shooting missiles at someone, hiding them in populated areas. IF he had, I think he would have build at least one bomb shelter for the people.

CS   January 28th, 2009 3:44 pm ET

Wow. G.W. Bush Goes to Iraq, against his intelligence advice, attacks a country who never attacked us, and did not take part in 9/11, and you find a way to justify it. He creates a band of angry men (rightfully so)
by invading their country for no reason, and is responsible for the death of ove 200,000 Iraqi civilians, but that's ok.
See, this proves my point about military strategy. Civilians are expendable in large long as they're not American, right?
I would be shocked at your response, but I've heard the same thing from heartless people who think it's ok to invade a country for no reason. If Sadam was such a horrible dictator (which he was), than the U.S. should have had the insight in the 80's ...NOT TO GIVE HIM WEAPONS. They knew he was chemically bombing civilian villages.
But ol' Bush is your hero though huh?

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 3:46 pm ET

Rabbi – I have yet to hear you express any remorse over the Israeli person killed yesterday. I do express sadness over the Palestinians who have lost their lives and how I wish for peace. Why is it that I'm the only one, of us two, who can feel for the other side of this?

CS   January 28th, 2009 3:49 pm ET

Amazes me how Irony works. The U.S. and Israel committ crimes against humanity...and they're liberators,and freedom fighters, and all these other nice words.

Small Isalmic groups resist the rule of iron fists, ad hypocrites who once gave them weapons to fight others, and it's "terror"


CS   January 28th, 2009 3:53 pm ET

I know what's going on. But you're right. I should stay on the topic of the day. I digressed a minute, and I admit it. Sorry for telling the blunt truth.

This all started with your blaming Gazan civilians for Hamas' actions, so I thought I'd give an example of how govt works sometimes. Like when Bush stole his election, and promised America one thing, and when the masses disaproved of his actions, he did another.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 3:54 pm ET

Rabbi – as a holy person, I know that you realize all lives are important, soldiers, non soldiers, whoever. You just said that Israel attacked unarmed people. I just said that Israel had a person blown up by that unarmed person so he or she could not have been unarmed. There status, job wise, is irrelevant to me.

CS   January 28th, 2009 3:55 pm ET

GLeigh. You attempt to make sorrowful remarks for the Palestinian people. Then you always seem to follow with how they got themselves into this, and they should submitt to Israel, and there would be peace. You used to hide it well. Now it is very obvious.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 3:56 pm ET

CS – I think that you are over simplifying history, but whatever. He did accomplish a few objectives, to be fair. This isn't about him though. Now that he's not president that would be unfair and too easy. This is about finding peace in a part of the world that needs it badly.

Rabbi Stern   January 28th, 2009 3:57 pm ET

GLeigh – have you heard of an organization called Rabbis for Human Rights?... These are Rabbis Inside Israel who disagree with the Israeli policy of mass killings. Go check out their website.

GLeigh   January 28th, 2009 4:02 pm ET

Rabbi Stern – I just want a simple answer. When you see an Israel person killed, shot, blown-up, whatever, does your heart not hurt? Do you not pray for peace between Israel and its Palestinian brothers? Now, feeling this heart hurting stuff, how can you say that the Palestinians are unarmed? I'm trying to follow the logic. Tell me your answers.

CS   January 28th, 2009 4:06 pm ET

GLeigh. How many Israeli lives have been lost in this recent conflict?

How many Palestinian lives?

The mere fact that you are complaining about Israels few dead, in the face of Palestines 1300, and more than twice as many badly wounded, speaks about the type of soul you have.

CS   January 28th, 2009 4:17 pm ET

No GLeigh. I think the U.N. should have stepped in to help, before it got to this point. I also think that you really don't care about Palestinians, or Muslim people at all. I think you want to make a huge deal out of a few dead Israelis, and make very little of 1300 dead Palestinians.

And who are you, that anyone needs to prove their faith to? And once again. Rabbis don't attend churches. That should have been proof enough when he said that. The truth does not matter where his temple is, or if he is a doctor of theology from Tel Aviv. You and the like would find a way to tear him down because he thinks differently than you.

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 4:21 pm ET

" I have yet to hear you express any remorse over the Israeli person killed yesterday"
he is a soldier in an occupation army why should any one be sorry for his death?

people are sorry for civilian death not soldiers in an occupation army.

CS   January 28th, 2009 4:27 pm ET

The only dying of civilians that I am not sad with is after they've had a full life, with grandchildren, great grandchildren, and hopefully a full righteous life. Too bad all can't have this.

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 4:29 pm ET

"Israel does not aim to kill unarmed civilians. Armed terrorists hide among innocents which under international law turns those innocents into legitimate targets"
explain to us what international law you are talking about?

these terrorists as you call them are freedom fighters to their people.
in their eyes Israel is the terrorist state.
so by your logic every Jew in Israel is a fair target because every home in Israel is home to a terrorist Israeli occupation soldier.

Bill   January 28th, 2009 4:56 pm ET

Solomon -

There is no occupation, remember? The Arabs/Muslims attacked Israel in 1967. Their aggression was repulsed and in the process they lost Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem, etc. It is Israel's land now. You were the aggressors. You attacked and lost, as usual. Israel is under no obligation to give back the land it won after you attacked, just like the US is not obligated to give back the original 13 colonies to England after the revolutionary war.

The Arabs/Muslims in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem are just squatters on Israeli land. The Israelis have every right to expell you from their land, but they don't. They give you the opportunity to live in peace. They've even gone so far as to pull their own people out of Gaza and provide it to you. What did you do in response? You elected an Inslamic terrorist government, staged a coup, and turned Gaza into a terrorist encampment. You dug up the sewer lines to create rockets to fire at Israeli civilians. You killed your own people in a bid to solidify your reign of terror. You fired rockets and mortars at Israel for years. The brave Islamic warriors of Hamas hid behind women and children, in schools, mosques, and hospitals. They stored weapons in mosques and hospitals. They used mosques as torture chambers for members of a rival Palestinian political party. Allah must really love you guys. If not, he would have vaporized you all long ago for your continuous abominations and desecrations of his house.

It's sad that Palestinians have chosen this for their fate. Instead of being grateful for being given another chance in Gaza after losing it in 1967, they just use it to kill and intimidate others. These mentally defective people see it as their God-given right to attack and kill the Israelis who provided the land for them even after they attacked israel and lost the land in 1967. Israel has provided much more care for the Palestinians than Hamas or any other Arab organization has done. It has been repaid with violence and destruction, murder and death. Hamas even steals humanitarian shipments into Gaza and sells the goods to the people that they impoverished at exhorbitant prices. What a swell bunch!

The only occupation is the devil occupying your souls. Come back in 20 or 30 generations when you have evolved sufficiently to act as human beings.

Larry Houston TX   January 28th, 2009 5:30 pm ET

In Iraq, it’s all about religion….(sunnis vs shiites)
In Palestine – It’s all about the land…..( Israel vs Palestine)That being said : They CAN acheive peace – If the United States
does it the way Bush # 41 did….Remember ? when Bush # 41 did not allow Iraq & Saddam’s Republican Guard INVADE Kuwait ? and “Stormin Norman”
did the Job on the ground ? and we went to the Air, and drove them back to Iraq ?If we did the same thing back in 1967, when Israel INVADED Palestine, we wouldn’t be in the same problem….But instead,
the United States (at that time) sent Tanks & Warplanes to Israel…So, this means, If they went back to the 1967 map drawings, there would be peace, I think…But HAMAS has to STOP firing Rockets, period !!!

I.B. Wright   January 28th, 2009 6:05 pm ET

Bill- Why do you try so hard to connect anyone who criticizes Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands (yes, I said OCCUPATION) to terrorism? By your definition, you must be very concerned that there are billions of terrorists running around in this world. As I said before, most people of the civilized world disagree with you about the occupation issue and probably even more about trying to link criticism of Israel to terrorism. And..if you think its going to take 20 or 30 generations to reach your level of evolvement as a human being, you're wrong. It's never going to happen because, other than a few who consider being hatefull and arrogant as good thing, the rest of us are evolving in a different direction.

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 6:38 pm ET

Here is an interesting opinion piece by Paul Craig Roberts. He served as Assistant Secretary for the Treasury in Ronald Reagan's administration and also as an editor for the Wall Street Journal.

For decades the US government has taken the position that Israel’s territorial expansion is not constrained by any international law. The US government is complicit in Israel’s war crimes in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank.

The entire world knows that Israel is guilty of war crimes and that the US government made the crimes possible by providing the weapons and diplomatic support. What Israel and the US did in Lebanon and Gaza is no different from crimes for which Nazis were tried at Nuremberg. Israel understands this, and the Israeli government is currently preparing its defense, which will be led by Israeli Justice (sic) Minister Daniel Friedman. UN war crimes official Richard Falk has compared Israel’s massacre of Gazans to the Nazi starvation and massacre of Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. Amnesty International and the Red Cross have demanded Israel be held accountable for war crimes. Even eight Israeli human rights groups have called for an investigation into Israel’s war crimes.

Bill   January 28th, 2009 7:48 pm ET

I.B. Wright -

As I've said before, most of the civilized world does not agree with you. When Israel started to defend itself against Hamas aggression, and Hamas committed all those war crimes using human shields and firing from crowded civilian neighborhoods to increase civilian casualties, Hamas was betting on an emotional response from a gullible Arab population to join the fight against the non-existent occupation. Who came to their aid? Say again? Who?

It was the same people who think that the USA should give back the original 13 colonies – nobody.

Nobody came to their aid because they knew Hamas started the conflict, was responsible for the death toll, and had an unjust cause. Even other Arab countries who hate Israel for no apparent reason knew that Hamas was responsible for the whole thing. Egypt came out and said it. It was printed in an Iranian newspaper of all things, comdemning Hamas for using human shields. Of course that paper was shut down the next day, but when even the Iranians who have paid for most of Hamas weapons and training condemn them for their cowardly acts, that shows the world what the true situation is.

Do you dispute the fact that Arab and Muslim armies attacked Israel in 1967 and that the outcome of that war was that they lost Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem? Again, you were the aggressors, you attacked, you lost as usual, game over. It is not your land anymore. The occupation is nothing but a slogan to promote Muslim and Arab violence, murder, and destruction against Israel. You are still angry that you were dumb enough to attack Israel more than 40 years ago and lost that land.

I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that there are billions of terrorists. The world has already condemned Hamas as a terrorist organization. Most countries won't even talk to them. The world doesn't need my help to see who the Islamic terrorists are. It sees them every day in attacks around the world. I don't have to define terrorism. Muslims define it daily through their perverse actions of violence, murder, and destruction against innocent populations.

The occupation is just a slogan to rally people who are filled with hate to commit more violence and destruction while doing nothing for their own people.

Perhaps you are right in one respect. Even given 20 or 30 more generations, the Palestinians will probably not evolve into human beings. They are not evolving at all, but devolving. They make sure to teach hatred, violence, intolerance, revenge, racism, and the glory of death to their future generations. They pollute the minds of their young and vulnerable children, parading them around with guns, suicide belts, and the flags of Islamic terrorist organizations. Using that strategy, they will never evolve. They will just die in larger numbers.

Bill   January 28th, 2009 8:23 pm ET

Solomon -

When a bank robber gets cornered and takes a hostage, sometimes the hostage gets killed during the apprehension of the criminal. The laws of virtually all civilized countries hold that it is the bank robber who is responsible for the death of the hostage, even if the hostage was killed by the police.

It's the same situation with Hamas. The cowardly Islamic terrorists hold the civilian population hostage by using them as human shields and firing from with crowded urban neighborhoods, schools, and mosques. Sometimes, despite the care taken by Israel to avoid non-combatants, these hostages get killed. The deaths of these hostages are clearly the responsibility of the cowardly Hamas Islamic terrorists, not Israel's Defence Force. Remember, Hamas wanted those civilians to die to rally the support of their emotional and gullible neighbors. Israel wanted just to defend itself against Hamas.

I.B. Wright   January 28th, 2009 8:30 pm ET

Bill- You keep repeating yourself like you actually believe what you're saying and you keep mis-representing the statements made by others so it would be a complete waste of my time to try and have a meaningful discussion with you. C.S. was right when he said there's no arguing with you people. Your hatred and arrogance towards the Palestinian people is so clear that I'm convinced the evolution you talk about must have completely passed you by. Just so you know, if it was "me" who was "dumb" enough to attack Israel more than 40 years ago, this problem wouldn't exist today.

Bill   January 28th, 2009 8:56 pm ET

I. B. Wright -

I've read your same propaganda day after day and its still untrue. Repeating it a thousand times won't make it more logical or believeable. I sincerely have no hatred towards the Palestinian people. I genuinely feel sorry for what they are doing to themselves and will continue to do to themselves for generations to come. They have been brainwashed into an unjust cause, trying to get land back that they lost in a war before most of them were even born. They are just being used by the Arabs and the Iranians to keep on poking Israel in they eye. Eventually Israel gets tired of the abuse and hits them back hard and then they cry martyr. The world is getting tired of this same old game. Europe doesn't want to give money anymore for reconstruction of Gaza because its people will just cause it to be destroyed in the near future, again, by attacking its neighbors.

I really hope they can change their ways and their destructive and violent behavior, but if history is any indicator, there is little hope. They need a real leader. They need a leader who is more concerned about helping their people than attacking their neighbors. They need someone who loves the Palestinians more than he/she hates the Israelis. Blind hatred of Jews and Christians, especially in the context of their Islamic heritage, has brought them nothing but misery and despair for over 60 years. They can change, but they need to decide to change. Or, they will just need to be satisfied with the status quo of bombs, repression, privation, and rubble.

Perhaps you are not understanding my posts. It could be the English language you are having difficulty with. The word "you" can be plural, referring to a group of people. It would be ridiculous to assume that you alone were dumb enough to attack Israel in 1967. I use the word "dumb" because they lose everytime. Einstein said it best. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Nona   January 28th, 2009 9:05 pm ET

Bill –

Bingo. Three posts in a row that hit the bulls eye.

The Palestinian who can emerge as the Ghandi of his people will change the fate of his people forever and usher them into an era of happiness, peace, pride and prosperity that they haven't known for generations. I hope he shows up - and the sooner the better.

Abner   January 28th, 2009 9:51 pm ET

One thing puzzled me throughout this recent conflict. Hamas continued to hide among the population, launch rockets from the rooftops of the homes, schools and Mosques. Yet the civilians allowed and provided for this, willingly or unwilling– ???They claimed to have no place to go.
The fact is 1/3 of the Gaza Strip is uninhabited arable farmland. Why was it that the population did not leave the urban areas and go to the farm lands??? Why was it that the UN and the ICRC, if they were truly so concerned for the welfare of the civilian population, did not establish refugee camps- tent cities- in the farmlands in the Gaza strip??? They do this all the time in African countries in order to provide a safe haven for those seeking refuge and fleeing violent conflict. They provide huge tent cities for refugees. The UN and ICRC made no effort whatsoever to provide safe haven for these people.
Wonder why that is?? Maybe it’s because that would leave the militants unprotected??? No Shields?? Some sources claim it's because of Hamas' control of the UN and ICRC in Gaza! What’s wrong with this picture??

Solomon   January 28th, 2009 9:59 pm ET

I.B. Wright.
I will not waste my time with some one who denies that there is an occupation in Palestine.
even if every single country in the world including the US say that there is an Israeli occupation.

you can not debate with born again racists and haters.

Bill   January 28th, 2009 10:26 pm ET

Solomon -

My denial of any occupation in Israel is based on facts and history. There is no country called Palestine. Never was. Israelis are in their own country. By definition, that is not an occupation. The Israelis are not in Gaza. By definition, that is not an occupation. It has nothing to do with racism and hate. It's sad that you always go there when you have no facts to make a case. It says that you think that everyone who defeats you in a disagreement must be a racist or a hater. How childish! I don't even know what race you belong to, nor do I care.

It boils down to a very simple question. Do you deny that the Arabs/Muslims attacked Israel in 1967 and, as a result, lost Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and more? You have admitted this point before. It's rather pointless to deny it now. It is recorded history.

The land you lost through your own aggression now belongs to Israel. Deal with it. It is the truth. I believe its the hatred of the Palestinians and Muslim Arabs that keeps them attacking innocent people in Israel. "Occupation" is just a rallying cry for a people who have acted foolishly and lost their land to try to further hurt those who defended themselves from the Arab/Muslim aggression more than 40 years ago. It just gives them an excuse to be violent, destructive, and to play martyr. Sorry, the jigs up! The world is beginning to see through this non-existent "occupation" excuse. It would be like the British referring to New Yorkers as "occupiers", LOL.

Bill   January 28th, 2009 10:34 pm ET

dan perman -

It's the Muslim version of a cease-fire. We cease; they fire. They are very predictable in this fashion. This strategy is outlined in the Quran.

They're like a fighter that has gone down in every round. They're on the ground mumbling and the crowd is screaming, "Stay down!", but they don't have the sense to know any better. They just keep getting up to be pummeled some more.

I guess they want more Palestinians to die. Their bloodlust must not have been satisfied yet. No doubt they will get more innocents killed while they are hiding behind women and children. Such noble Islamic warriors.

Abner   January 29th, 2009 12:27 am ET

From the article "Since Egypt has acted as a mediator between Israel and Hamas in past agreements, it’s not inconceivable that messages will somehow be relayed to the group through Cairo."

"Would this be like trying to achieve peace in Northern Ireland by not involving the IRA’s political wing? It’s a question worth asking."


Simple answer-- NO!

Since when has Hamas acted as political representatives? Not since their armed and violent coup in Gaza! Thev've been nothing but an armed group of murderous thugs since then. They simply forfeited their political rights at that time. Most of the civilized world belived they never had any political rights before that. But most certainly, the coup solidified that perspective.

ProPeace   January 29th, 2009 1:19 am ET


There was a country called Palestine in 1947. I have seen Palestinian passports.
I have a bit of news for you. There are some Palestinians who, despite the carnage in Gaza, do not hate all Israelis and do want peace. However, opinions like yours are sure to reduce their number really fast.

kovic   January 29th, 2009 3:45 am ET

I had an argument with this certain professor moron last time..
i guess cnn just censored his last comments.....hahahaha...
these band of lunatics headed by this professor, whose good in parroting is more likely looking now for another website to posts his unbelievable negating of real events as it happens, where it happens.

there are no occupations clearly... the palestinians have their land in the west bank which they co-existed peacefully with the israelis for years, as well as the palestinians in gaza whose lives were sealed to doomed as they chose terrorists hamas to governed....

now, they have this temproray cease-fired, and i bet that hamas is regrouping and preparing for their next cowardly assault against israel....using civilians as human shields, their good at it....

Solomon   January 29th, 2009 4:25 am ET


if the whole world including the US say that there is occupation of Palestinian land by Israel,then your denying it means nothing.
I can say that Israel does not exist but I will be a fool like you are a fool for denying that there is an occupation
west bank including Jerusalem is occupied land
the Golan is occupied land.
refugees must return to their homes in Palestine.
Illegal Jewish settlers must be removed from the occupied land.
that is if there is going to be an Israel in the middle east that is secured and living in peace

kovic   January 29th, 2009 4:49 am ET


Have you read the bible as a basis for history among the israelis and the palestinians..??

Daniel Rosaupan   January 29th, 2009 4:52 am ET

How to achieve peace?

For several centuries, peace has been elusive for humankind. We have to admit that this is a consequence of man's freedom where everyone thinks that he can do anything he want in this world. The ideology of relativism has aggravated more the situation which Barack Obama adheres. We seem to forget that the reason why we have government of laws and not of men is to avoid repeating the same experience we have in the past where when people's ideas were clashing, might makes right. Today, we must not give room for relativism for it only creates anarchy. What is right must be uphold, notwithstanding heaven's should fall.

With all due respect to our Muslim brothers, Islamic faith is a relative one. They don't have a central authority to make an authentic interpretation of their law. It all depends upon their clerics. They can interpret the Quran as they want to put it, as they want them to be. Even their study about Christianity and Judaism is primarily based on their own presumptions, conjectures and opinions and not on the latter's official teachings. This is the reason why we have violence in Gaza, Iraq, Philippines etc.

Now, how do we solve violence? Is it by making another violence? I still believe what Christ had said 2000 years ago, "love your enemy". If our brother Muslims will just read the Bible with all their Heart, I believe even Al Qaeda members will experience Paul's conversion in Damascus. Be that as it may, Barack Obama must join the Catholic Church in building the Civilization of Love. This is the only solution which will last long and will fulfill his slogan for "CHANGE, YES WE CAN!".

Pax vobis

kovic   January 29th, 2009 4:56 am ET


The problem lies solely on the hamas regimed. There could be no ' war and further bloodshed ' if hamas recognized the existence of israel and the jewish people. No amount of violence will eradicate an entire nation and its people who's only wish is to lived peacefully with its neighboring countries....

But, the paramount concern here is to controlled, lessen or totally stop the abhorent acts commited by hamas in the first that way, peace will progress on both sides.

Solomon   January 29th, 2009 5:08 am ET

kovic and Daniel Rosaupan..

we can argue for ever about the bible and the Quran and which one is the true word of God.
the bible and the Quran are religious books not history books.

the discussion here is about Palestine and occupation not about religion.
neither of you is an authority on the Quran so you are not Qualified to talk about some tning that you are not familiar with.
I my self knows a little about the bible so I am not in a position to argue about it.

good day and good night until tomorrow.

slim   January 29th, 2009 6:47 am ET

Sure we'll talk and they'll talk. We'll promise and they'll promise. Then one day we will watch as a mushroom cloud billows over one of our cities. And maybe then we'll understand that these people don't want to talk, they don't want to keep a promise. Maybe then we'll understand that we can't reason with them because they are unreasonable. The muslim extremists want JIHAD!!, and anything less just won't do. No mater how much we don't understand them or don't like to think about that, we better wake up and realize that there's "evil" in the world, and it only wants death and destruction, and that it is totally " UNREASONABLE."

Daniel Rosaupan   January 29th, 2009 7:23 am ET


I just hope that you read carefully my blog. To say that there is no central authority in Islam to interpret its laws is not to judge the Qur'an. Neither in saying that their study about Judaism and Christianity is only from their own opinion constitutes judgment against the Qur'an. This is a case of non-sequitur. To conclude otherwise is not only improper but misleading.

With regard to Palestine and its alleged occupation, upon which Hamas has a great role, you failed to consider that said organization is established on Islamic foundation. In one interview with Mosab Hassan Yousef a son of a founding member of Hamas, by Jonathan Hunt of Foxnews, Mosab said the following:

"There are two facts that Muslims don't understand ... I'd say about more than 95 percent of Muslims don't understand their own religion. It came with a much stronger language than the language that they speak so they don't understand it ... they rely only on religious people to get their knowledge about this religion.
Second, they don't understand anything about other religions. Christian communities live between Muslims and they're minority and they (would) rather not to go speak out and tell people about Jesus because it's dangerous for them.
So, all their ideas about other religions on earth are from Islamic perspectives. So those two realities, most people don't understand.
If people, if Muslims, start to understand their religion — first of all, their religion — and see how awful stuff is in there, they'll start to figure out, this can't (be) ... because most religious people focus on certain points of Islam. They have many points that they are very embarrassed to talk about."


"So definitely I started to figure out the problem is Islam, not the Muslims and those people — I can't hate them because God loved them from the beginning. And God doesn't create junk. God created good people that he loved, but they're sick, they have the wrong idea. I don't hate those people anymore but I feel very sorry for them and the only way for them to be changed (is) by knowing the word of God and the real way to him".

From the words of Mosab, the issue in Gaza is both political and religious. The two are inseparable when we talk of wars which involves the Arab world. I hope you can delve more on the realities in the Middle East which most of us ignores. And the only lasting solution to that problem is the building of the Civilization of Love, not of war. We must promote the culture of life, not death.

Dr. Khalid   January 29th, 2009 9:45 am ET

There is nothing worng in pinning hopes on the new president of the US of America. Personally, I would suggest to the muslims not to bank on any one individual. He must be having his own limitations, given the strong control the jewish lobby and the jewish nation has on the American Politics. The average American is too simple and naive to know the control the jewish lobby has over the future course of their country. In this situation, the best remedy and the best solution for the muslims is to return to the true teachings of Prophet Muhammed PBUH and refrain from all acts which would attract the displeasure of Allah. It does not matter if the whole world supports the muslim cause. What matters is, is Allah on our side? As of now, Allah is not on our side because of the lack of true teachings of the Prophet in our lives. There is no other alternative then to correct our lives and follow Islam and its teachings honestly. May Allah Help Us.

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 1:25 pm ET

I too think it's wrong to pin all our hopes on a President. God gave us a great world full of different plants and animals, change and variety. He gave us people of all skin tones and langues, again change and variety. We're suppose to care for and care about them. We don't seem to be doing a bang-up job with either.

Nona   January 29th, 2009 1:37 pm ET

Not that it's a particular relevant point, but just to correct an inaccurate fact stated above ...

The Bible IS a historical document, not strictly a religious document. It is relied upon heavily by historians, archeologists, etc. not for its religious value, but for its historic value.

To dismiss the Bible as exclusively a religious document with no historical value reflects either shocking ignorance or complete disregard for its contents.

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 1:55 pm ET

Good morning Nona. I think so also and about the Muslim religious book. Sorry I've forgotten the accurate spelling. Ditz that I am. Apostaphres throw me sometimes. I know spelling it was a K is not great so won't even try. I do try respect all the great holy people, all.

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 2:00 pm ET

I'm not a one religion type of person. That was my upbringing, for sure, but it has always felt wrong to me. Now, older, it seems even more wrong. I think God reveals himself to us as he pleases, when he pleases, the way he pleases. We are just learning in layers. There are pieces to the puzzle. I have read parts of the book that, ditz that I am, need to learn how to spell accurately and the Bible and others.

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 2:03 pm ET

The only thing that really gets my goat are those who don't acknowledge him at all. Ouch. Heavy stuff for an early morning.

Nona   January 29th, 2009 2:07 pm ET

Hi GLeigh!

I've read only part of the Koran so I can't speak to its historic value, but I find it very easy to believe that it has historical value too.

I do know that there is archeological and other physical evidence supporting much of the history recounted both in the Old and New Testaments. I'm not saying the same isn't true of the Koran, I'm just saying I don't know. I need to read more of it.

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 2:10 pm ET

Hi Nona! I love reading your info on the media! I never knew. It's always fun to learn. But spelling the Qua'ran with a K is not quite right. I'm probably off too. I've seen it too many times with a K. Both are found in my college Lit books, pieces of them.

Nona   January 29th, 2009 2:13 pm ET

GLeigh, I hear you on the "one religion" type of person. I don't really buy into the notion htat only one religion is "the right" or "the correct" religion and the others are "false" religions. I think Gd is so incomprehenibly powerful that He can be all things to all people even if we mere humans can't understand how. But I do believe Gd frowns upon destruction on any of his children and wants us to treat each other as brothers. JMO.

You're right. Too heavy for this time of day!

Nona   January 29th, 2009 2:20 pm ET

Thanks for the compliment, GLeigh!

I just looked it up. According to the Associated Press, which is kind of the authority on written style and usage, "Quran" is the preferred spelling for the holy book. AP recommends using the spelling "Koran" on if preferred by a specific organization or in a title or name. Wiki gives a bunch of other spellings as options.

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 2:23 pm ET

Perhaps Nona. I wrote Koran once and person told me their spelling. It was Qua'ran. I think. Then I went to a book store and saw it that way in several places. I told myself to remember. Well my brain is getting lazy with not working and being a mom. I do think we need to spell it the way people of that faith prefer. I wouldn't appreciate anyone spelling the Bible incorrectly.

Nona   January 29th, 2009 2:28 pm ET

No, I wouldn't either. "Quran" is a transliteration from Arabic so it's probably a lot more subject to mispelling by writers who are native English speakers. I take AP to be a good authority since it writes for a worldwide audience.

But I think what really matters is how the Muslim participants on this blog prefer it to be spelled. It is their holy book, and I will defer to their preference if any of them express one.

Nona   January 29th, 2009 2:38 pm ET

I have not heard from Linda. I really hope she's OK.

I like the moderator. I hope they keep moderating. I hate that the pace has slowed so severely, but the (relatively) civil discussion without the excessive insults, hate-based remarks and threats is such a huge improvement that I think the trade-off is worth it. The discussion is staying so much more relative to the topic (this particular discussion excluded. We may get deleted! LOL!)

Nona   January 29th, 2009 2:56 pm ET

Yeah, typos ... I just let those go. And improper grammar,spelling, etc. A lot of people who blog here aren't native English speakers and I don't think it's fair to expect perfection from them - or really from anybody when it comes to writing on a friggin blog. Everybody makes typos and other mistakes in the heat of the moment as they're writing their thoughts. Those mistakes don't really have any relevance to the validity (or invalidity) of their opinions and the logical construction of their arguments as far as the topic we're here to discuss goes. I just let all that stuff go and try to concentrate on the spirit and intent of what somebody's saying.

Larry Houston TX   January 29th, 2009 2:57 pm ET

WoW !! Between Bill / Mr. Solomon / & Mr. Wright......I honestly don't know what to believe !!!

This I know for a FACT : Why didn't the unied states DEFEND Palestine, from ISRAEL taking over THEIR LAND in 1967 ?????

Didn't we drive Saddams army BACK ??

How come we didn't do that in 1967 ???? Instead, we GAVE ISRAEL
Tanks / and Warplanes.....( To TAKE OVER Palestine's LAND )

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 2:58 pm ET

Nona – I think there are a lot of just regular folks too who just want to raise their kiddies and live in peace. I guess that's an odd concept.

Lazaro de los Pobres   January 29th, 2009 3:03 pm ET

Obamas words lack historical validation and without that, there can be no future vision. The U.S has never been a friend of Muslim nations. As a matter of fact as recent as one month ago, the Bush Administration which should be charged with war crimes had been donating chemical weapons such as "white phosphorus" & Dense Inert Metal Explosives to that Zionist proxy Regime, with horrific results. The U.S. has also sent them shipments of one ton bombs in support of the onslaught . How can war criminals extend olive branches ? Obama cannot change the history of U.S. involvement with his eloquence and persona, he cannot do this in 5 days or in 100 days in office. This is the real world, and it is going to take much soul searching, honesty and the courage Jimmy Carter has shown, to recognize, if not apologize for all the harm caused. It is not that our government has made "some mistakes in the past", as he said. These are not mistakes, they were intentional, planned and carefully carried out policies; i.e. the interference in Iranian internal affairs, resultining in a coup which brought the murderous Sha of Iran into power in 1954, the supplying of chemical weapons during the Reagan administration to the Iraqis, to be used by Sadam Hussein, to kill Iranians by the thousands in that war, siding with Bin Ladin and financing his insurgency against the socialist government of Afghanistan, opening military bases in Saudi Arabia, in areas that were an insult to Islam, making religious enenmies for us, siding with Israeli expansion, at every point and agains the interest of the Palestenians, whose land was robbed__So you see, it gets complicated, and the locals understand these forces even better than I do. We always seem to side with the forcers of regression, with dictators and murderors, we do so, as it suits our needs, and we do this to his to safeguard the interest of giant oil companies and special interest back home. In the Middle East and throughout the world this lack of respect and vision of a just world, has caused the destruction of many lives, and nations. Obama need to catch up on his history.
This is not a question of religion, it is a question of power.

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 3:18 pm ET

Lazaro – I do agree mistakes, bad ones, have been made, probably from many people. Truth is truth. So, how do we go forward for these people and find peace. That is the next question. It needs to be fixed.

Solomon   January 29th, 2009 3:20 pm ET

the Arabic sound conventionally transliterated as "Q" does not exist in English..

in Arabic the Bible is called.Al-injeel.
the Torah is called Al-tawrat
the Quran is called Al-Quran.
God is Allah.
Jesus is Issa
Moses is Musa
Abraham is Ibrahim.

Christians are called Al-Nassara.

Jews are called Al-yahood.

Muslims are called Al-Muslimeen.

all these words are used by both Christian and Muslim Arabs.

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 4:17 pm ET

Watching the news and learning about world affairs, discovering the truth, is always good. CNN has been a great tool for learning truth. Sometimes it's painful, such as the impeachment of the Illinois Governor. But truth is always enlightening.

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 4:39 pm ET

Thank-you for writing Harvey and Solomon. I think that I got it. Truth. Painful as it can be, it's still best. I need thinking time. Have a good day, both of you. I will probably be starting new stuff soon and not here much -

CS   January 29th, 2009 4:40 pm ET

President Obama has never claimed to be able to fix this problem in 5 days, or 100 days. In fact, he said from the onset, that it would be hard. What I do know, is that he has made a lot of good first steps in his few days in office. Everyone seems to want to blame the U.S., and Obama for what is going on. And don't get me wrong...I fully admitt that there have been things that my country have done that are in stark contrast to my moral content, but to be fair, the Arab leaders need to do their part too. You can't just put all the responsibility on the shoulders of Obama. He is not Hamas, and therefore, is not responsible for their behavior.

The next thing is, that the U.S. have absolutely been friends to Arab nations. Who do you think helper sadam with Iran? And who do you think helped Afghanistan, and Bin Laden defeat Russia. So quickly we forget. What Arab nations have done following the assistance of the U.S., is what is troubling. We helped Afghans with arms during russian conflict. When the Afghans drove out the Russians, their remaining forces took the weapons, and created a civil war against it's own people. Is Obama to blame for that too?

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 4:46 pm ET

By the way Solomon, thank-you for writting. It is always good to learn about other cultures. Two dozen and one.

CS   January 29th, 2009 4:53 pm ET

Dr. Khalid. I really respect what you said. I try to be an informed American, and not to be swindled, as I know the media has other objectives than the real truth, so I truly respect what you said. I belieive a great many wrongs have been done by us westerners, Arabs, and as of late...the Jews. It's nice to hear moderate centerline tone in here. Looking forward to hearing from you again. Welcome.

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 5:03 pm ET

CS – I think it's great that we've a professor, a Rabbi, and a doctor on here. Good to get views.

GLeigh   January 29th, 2009 5:13 pm ET

The truth is that both sides need to work much harder on getting there. I hope we have peace. It's not going to be easy. Later.

Beny   January 29th, 2009 5:47 pm ET


There was no Palestine in 1967. The land we won were Egyptian (Sinai desert, given back in the Begin-Saddat peace deal), Syrian (Golan heights) or Jordanian (West Bank, given in 1993 to Arafat in exchange for more suicide bombings in Israeli buses). Learn your history.

Besides, need I remind you who exactly declared this war? Here is a reminder from Gamal Nasser's speech on 26th May 1967 (war started on June 1st):
"We intend to open a general assault against Israel. Our basic aim is the destruction of Israel".

Neither did he care one whit about the Palestinians. This war was declared because Nasser got a big arms shipment from Russia and deemed his army invincible.

They amassed HUGE armies on our borders, and so Moshe Dayan ordered a counterassault basically aimed at the Egyptian airforce, and later expanded when Syria and Jordan joined in.

So you blame us for surviving?

Why not blame Poland for annexing the German lands after WW2? Or has that escaped your logic because, say, Germans don't explode in Polish buses?!

P.S. Get it into your head- Israel is the best ally US has in the world. Believe me, you need us. Especially now with Russia and Muslim countries on the rise. Israel is taking the blows meant for you so say thank you.

I.B. Wright   January 29th, 2009 5:54 pm ET

C.S.- Hey there! You're right, it's going to be difficult for Mr. Obama to solve this problem but one thing is for sure- I think he's got a much better chance than his predecessor. As we said before it can be done as long as he is prepared to be objective and apply pressure on both sides, but particularily on Israel since they seem to be least motivated to want peace. I blame the U.S. for it's blind support of Israel in the past because there were many instances where that support was not deserved. Even the best of friends can't expect unbridled support when they are doing something wrong. Occasionally they need their friends to give them a firm push to get them moving in the right direction again. I believe former president Jimmy Carter understands the situation as well as anybody and can play a useful role in coming up with a just and lasting peace. I'm cautiously optimistic anyway.

Filipe   January 29th, 2009 5:59 pm ET

Lazaro de los Pobres January 29th, 2009 1503 GMT

Obamas words lack historical validation and without that, there can be no future vision. The U.S has never been a friend of Muslim nations. As a matter of fact as recent as one month ago, the Bush Administration which should be charged with war crimes had been donating chemical weapons such as “white phosphorus” & Dense Inert Metal Explosives to that Zionist proxy Regime, with horrific results. The U.S. has also sent them shipments of one ton bombs in support of the onslaught . How can war criminals extend olive branches ? Obama cannot change the history of U.S. involvement with his eloquence and persona, he cannot do this in 5 days or in 100 days in office. This is the real world, and it is going to take much soul searching, honesty and the courage Jimmy Carter has shown, to recognize, if not apologize for all the harm caused. It is not that our government has made “some mistakes in the past”, as he said. These are not mistakes, they were intentional, planned and carefully carried out policies; i.e. the interference in Iranian internal affairs, resultining in a coup which brought the murderous Sha of Iran into power in 1954, the supplying of chemical weapons during the Reagan administration to the Iraqis, to be used by Sadam Hussein, to kill Iranians by the thousands in that war, siding with Bin Ladin and financing his insurgency against the socialist government of Afghanistan, opening military bases in Saudi Arabia, in areas that were an insult to Islam, making religious enenmies for us, siding with Israeli expansion, at every point and agains the interest of the Palestenians, whose land was robbed__So you see, it gets complicated, and the locals understand these forces even better than I do. We always seem to side with the forcers of regression, with dictators and murderors, we do so, as it suits our needs, and we do this to his to safeguard the interest of giant oil companies and special interest back home. In the Middle East and throughout the world this lack of respect and vision of a just world, has caused the destruction of many lives, and nations. Obama need to catch up on his history.
This is not a question of religion, it is a question of power.

Why can you not accept Obamas' words as his sincere intentions for moving forward?
You speak as though he is responsible for all things of the past-– little or none of which he had anything to do with.
Additionaly, none of the weaponry sold to the Israeli's are considered banned by any world organization, that claim is siimply false. You should really investigate this to satisfy you're own curiosity, I have.

What is your basis in claiming Obsama is a war criminal, please explain??? He's been in office for one week!

Why do you think the US supplied chemical weapons to Sadaam Hussein- where did that come from???

You also seem to have a problem with the US befriending Arab nations and supporting their interests. Why is this a problem for you?

CS   January 29th, 2009 6:00 pm ET

Beny. People have been trying to talk about possible solutions to this you're a little off target. But since you want to go there, let's.
Nobody. Not you, not Israel, not U.S. not Palestine beleives they have any big arms shipments from Russia. Afew outdate rockets, maybe. A handful of ak47's maybe. But you don't see Palestine using 1ton bobms, stinger missile, or any other heavy artillary. No tanks, no jets, no choppers, nothing of the sort. So your info about who has what is misinformation.

It seems a little odd to me that every Supporter of Terror (Israel) wants to FF from 1948 to 1967. As if Israel and the U.N. did not breach Geneva convention rules by creating a state where people already inhabited said land. Just refusal to admitt that Israel pushed it's way onto Palestine. There are people living inAmerica right now...Palestinians, with deeds for their properties, and buildings, which are now inhabited by European Israelis. Not Arab Israelis. Not origional Israelites, but European Israelis.

CS   January 29th, 2009 6:13 pm ET

What's goin on I.B. Wright. I agree that Israel and Palestine need to be pushed towards peace. Each equally, butin different ways. I think Israel has to be willing to completely release all restraints on the freedoms of the people of Gaza. All settlements must be fully, and permenantly removed. Energy independance, as well as water supplies must be in control of Palestinians (on Palestinian land of course). Israel should not be a presance on Gazan soil at all. The opression must stop.

Palestine needs to work to unifty it's govt, and remove Hamas. The people elected Hamas (wheather by choice, force, or botched election), and they now see that Hamas' ways are cancerous, and do not promote the enviornment for peace, and growth. Hamas has to be stoped fromfiring useless, ineffective rockets into Israel. As Doc said earlier, they need to start to follow the true religion of Islam, which promotes peace and upright dealings with oyhers...even others of different faiths.

Solomon   January 29th, 2009 6:22 pm ET


are you still trying to fabricate a new history of the Middle east ?

Nasser never said that it is a fabrication.
June 1 1967 is not the day that war started.
If no Palestine was there in 1967 can you tell us where did lord Balfour promised the Jews a Homeland in 1917?

was Israel there before 1947?

by the way I like you comparing Israel to a puppy of the US.
and today you are telling us that you are defending America not Israel.
are you worried about your future in Palestine?I dont blame you a bit.

I.B. Wright   January 29th, 2009 6:30 pm ET

C.S.- I agree with you, this is an objective and balanced view of what needs to be done. As I understand it, this is similar to the "road map" proposal but it seems the dismantling of settlements in the cccupied territories and the return to Israel's pre-1967 borders is a major stumbling block. As you say, a little pressure here and there might shed a whole different light on the subject.

slim   January 29th, 2009 6:47 pm ET

The Palestinians and the people in the Gaza strip are just as guilty as the Iraqi's . And both just as guilty as the Jihadist's.

Filipe   January 29th, 2009 6:51 pm ET

Solomon January 29th, 2009 1822 GMT

If no Palestine was there in 1967 can you tell us where did lord Balfour promised the Jews a Homeland in 1917?

was Israel there before 1947?


There has never been a recognized country or state of Palestine. The territory commonly refered to as Palestine as always been just that, a territory, always control of a recognized state or country, the Ottoman Empire or the Great Britain for example.

And no, there was no Israel in 1947-- It was created by the UN and it's member nations along with Great Britain in accordance with the UN Mandate as it pertains to "territories under mandate" subsequent to WWII through UN resloution 181. This is the same UN resolution that also provided for the creation of an Arab state. But the Arabs rejected the UN resolution and initiated war with Israel instead. So the Arabs have never realized their state as given to them by the UN and Great Britain.

Filipe   January 29th, 2009 7:02 pm ET

CS January 29th, 2009 1800 GMT

Beny. People have been trying to talk about possible solutions to this conflict…so you’re a little off target. But since you want to go there, let’s.
Nobody. Not you, not Israel, not U.S. not Palestine beleives they have any big arms shipments from Russia. Afew outdate rockets, maybe. A handful of ak47’s maybe. But you don’t see Palestine using 1ton bobms, stinger missile, or any other heavy artillary. No tanks, no jets, no choppers, nothing of the sort. So your info about who has what is misinformation.

CS-– I think you've misunderstood Benys' comments-- he was talking about Egypt in 1967-– not present day Gaza!

Solomon   January 29th, 2009 7:16 pm ET


Palestine as the rest of the Arab east was part of the Arab and Muslim empires for over 13 hundred years its population was Palestinian Arab all that period.

Britain was given mandate over Palestine in 1922.5 years before that Britain occupied Palestine after the defeat of the Ottoman Muslim empire the same year Britain promised the Jews a home land there.
dont you think that some thing is not right here?.

in another word promise from one that does not own the land to some one that do not deserve it.

Palestine in 1917 . 92% of its population are Palestinian Arabs less than 6% were Jews owning less than 2% of the Land.
resolution 181 calls for the refugees to go back to their homes in Palestine this was a condition to accepting Israel as a member state.

Solomon   January 29th, 2009 7:27 pm ET


if the UN today passed a resolution.saying that Ireland is not part of Britain.or that Quebec belong to France.

would Canada and Britain accept that?
of course they will refuse just like the Arabs did in 1948.

CS   January 29th, 2009 7:34 pm ET

Filipe. I have not misunderstood. You have. Go to and look under the history tab. there you will see the truth. It was written by a Jew, who is righteous. He is also a professor, which helped me (being a supporter of Palestine for the most part) to take him at his word. I doubt a Jewish professor would have his facts turned you?

Filipe   January 29th, 2009 8:12 pm ET


I read Beny's post and he is speaking of the situation in 1967.

Am I wrong what he speaks of??

Your post to him, I think you were admonishing him for claiming the present day Gazans have Russian weaponry, no?

From Benys' post

"Besides, need I remind you who exactly declared this war? Here is a reminder from Gamal Nasser’s speech on 26th May 1967 (war started on June 1st):
“We intend to open a general assault against Israel. Our basic aim is the destruction of Israel”.

Neither did he care one whit about the Palestinians. This war was declared because Nasser got a big arms shipment from Russia and deemed his army invincible."

They amassed HUGE armies on our borders, and so Moshe Dayan ordered a counterassault basically aimed at the Egyptian airforce, and later expanded when Syria and Jordan joined in."

Filipe   January 29th, 2009 8:22 pm ET

Solomon January 29th, 2009 1927 GMT


if the UN today passed a resolution.saying that Ireland is not part of Britain.or that Quebec belong to France.

would Canada and Britain accept that?
of course they will refuse just like the Arabs did in 1948


But that is not the same. Those lands are not under mandate. It is not at all the same situation.

The UN Charter does not provide for the situation you describe.

The Palestinian territories were under British Mandate. The UN Charter specifically addresses this situation and provides for the UN and Britain to make the decisions that they did. Be it right or wrong, the member nations of the UN created the UN Charter and agreed to it.

Additionall, it wasn't just the UN that made this decision. It was the UN, the member nations,and Great Britain.

So the UN did not unilaterally make this declaration.

Filipe   January 29th, 2009 8:28 pm ET

Solomon January 29th, 2009 1916 GMT


Palestine as the rest of the Arab east was part of the Arab and Muslim empires for over 13 hundred years its population was Palestinian Arab all that period.

Britain was given mandate over Palestine in 1922.5 years before that Britain occupied Palestine after the defeat of the Ottoman Muslim empire the same year Britain promised the Jews a home land there.
dont you think that some thing is not right here?.



I don't mean to claim that all is correct and just with what was done with repsect to the Palestinian territories. But, what was done was according to the laws as they were at the time.

Beny   January 29th, 2009 9:03 pm ET

Thank you Filipe for clearing the point of my last post.


"Beny people have been trying to pose possible solutions for this conflict...."

I have countless times given my solution and have even adapted it along with reality, something the Palestinians never do (they have not changed their demands one bit from 1967, you call that negotiations?).

Nevertheless I have been rejected countless times as being "unrealistic". Why? Because I dared to insert some clauses which are the only way to really ensure my safety.

Unlike Hamas and some people which support the one-Palestinian-state solution, I support a two-state solution. I just have traumas from the last time we trusted the Palestinians blindly (and it exploded in my bus) and now I want to make sure, with whatever force necessary including checkpoints and patrols, that no Palestinian will ever think of daring to attack Israel.

Bashing Israel like you guys love to do is not "offering solutions". It's agreeing to the ultimate solution by the Palestinians (and some commentators here) of Israel disappearing from the map. I know it will bring peace to Israel, but I must nevertheless decline.


dan perman   January 29th, 2009 9:06 pm ET

resolution 181, like all other assembly resolutions, is not binding

have the arabs complied with security council resolutions that are binding?

242? 1701?

no, no and no

Dennis Junior   January 29th, 2009 9:14 pm ET

President Obama outlook on the Middle East is forward looking....

dan perman   January 29th, 2009 9:16 pm ET

hamas outlook on the middle east is also forward looking :

to a middle east without israel

Filipe   January 29th, 2009 9:32 pm ET

Solomon January 29th, 2009 1916 GMT

resolution 181 calls for the refugees to go back to their homes in Palestine this was a condition to accepting Israel as a member state.



You must be mistaken, Israel became a memder state of the UN on May 11, 1949.

Solomon   January 29th, 2009 9:39 pm ET


so because Palestine was under the mandate of Britain the mandated power have the right to replace the natives of the land with another people.

are you really convinced by that?

Britain does not own Palestine.the UN does not own Palestine,

there are 12 million Palestinians who owned that land and it is their right to fight for it in any possible mean if the international community can not give them their right.

Solomon   January 29th, 2009 9:52 pm ET


refugees who fled or were expelled during the 1948 war have the right to return to Israel based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194 – the so called "Right of Return."

Resolution 194 states in part:

the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Filipe   January 29th, 2009 10:15 pm ET

Solomon January 29th, 2009 2139 GMT


so because Palestine was under the mandate of Britain the mandated power have the right to replace the natives of the land with another people.

are you really convinced by that?


I did not say it was right. What I said was, it was in accordance to the laws of the time. It was in accordance with the UN Charter, the British Mandate and the fact that the Palestinian territories were under British control. That's all!

I am not to judge if it was right or wrong!

Filipe   January 29th, 2009 10:17 pm ET

Solomon January 29th, 2009 2152 GMT


refugees who fled or were expelled during the 1948 war have the right to return to Israel based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194 – the so called “Right of Return.”

Resolution 194 states in part:


OK-- so what is your point?????

Isn't this what they're still arguing about???

dan perman   January 29th, 2009 10:31 pm ET

over the last 8 years over 1300 Israelis were killed by palestinian terror and over 8000 wounded

this is how the palestinians show their thirst for peace

I.B. Wright   January 29th, 2009 10:47 pm ET

dan perman- If you want to use the number of killings as a reflection of one's thirst for peace then I guess Israel's thirst for peace is even more obvious considering they killed that many Palestinians in just three weeks? Yes, I know you're going to claim it was in self-defense but he dead Palestinians can't tell the difference.

Solomon   January 29th, 2009 11:01 pm ET

some one asked

"resolution 242 states that israel has a right to exist within secure and recognized borders. why are you not citing that resolution?"

that border is the 1967 border.

and he asked again
"the rhodes ceasefire agreements to which the arab states are signatories provide for negotiations of the final borders. why are you not citing that agreement?

that was before 1967 and they are talking here about the partition not occupied land of 1967 Rhodes agreement was in 1949.

Solomon   January 29th, 2009 11:11 pm ET

Some one is asking

"resolution 194 “and live in peace with their neighbors”
that’s the key sentence of the resolution. Hams wishes to live in peace with their neighbors?"

refugee problem started in 1948.thirty years before there was a Hamas
16 years before there was PLO.why the refugee problem was not solved?

subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

This blog has now been archived and commenting has been switched off. Visit the Inside the Middle East site for news, views and video from across the region.

Read more about CNN's special reports policy