jeffrey smith

Just to make it easy on Rich, I volunteer to initiate the not so nubile females. EDIT: or, if he prefers, I'll initiate the nubile females while he initiates the mature females. Question to Ginny: would you be interested in initiating the males, mature, nubile or otherwise? After all All are Welcome. Jeffrey S. There are four gates to one palace; the floor of that palace is of silver and gold; lapis lazuli & jasper are there; and all rare scents; jasmine & rose, and the emblems of death. Let him enter in turn or at once the four gates; let him stand on the floor of the palace. Will he not sink? Amn. Ho! warrior, if thy servant sink? But there are means and means. Be goodly therefore: dress ye all in fine apparel; eat rich foods and drink sweet wines and wines that foam! Also, take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will! But always unto me.

Value Chaser-- The Bible doesn't actually say what Vashti's own motivation was. She may have simply been angry at him for getting a new concubine or not buying her the newest fashion in crown jewels for all we know. It was (according to the Scriptural narrative) the Persian men who saw her action as an incipient feminist rebellion against the social order and felt the need to punish her because of that.

harking back to the original post--it should be said that there is not one piece of firm evidence that the person traditionally called Jesus of Nazareth actually did anything he is claimed to have done, and that we have no reason to believe that any specific statement made about him in the New Testament is factually accurate, or that any of the sayings attributed to him were actually said by him. A fortiori regarding the supposed miracles. There is a high probability that a person named Yeshua/Jesus who was a native of the Galil (Galilee) was for a short period an itinerant preacher/teacher with a small band of followers, and was crucified on the grounds of political sedition by the Romans because various sources outside the Gospel indicate such a person existed. But that's all we can say. The Gospels are not historical accounts: they are riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, even on some important matters. John, for instance, says the crucifixion took place on an entirely different day from what the other gospels say. And some scholars have argued that Jesus did not in fact exist. About 1960 or so, for example, one scholar published a book claiming that Christianity was actually a cult which took mushrooms as a holy food that enabled them to have visions, and that Jesus was in effect a mass hallucination. Apparently Jesus did live and die at the hands of the Romans and the Jewish establishment. But we are not entitled to make statements saying "Jesus said this" or "Jesus did that". (And as a teen I read a novel by Frank Yerby in which he narrated the events of the Gospels giving naturalistic explanations for the miracles. For instance, walking on water was simply Jesus steering himself while standing on a raft, but the waves kept the apostles from seeing the raft.

Actually, in the context of the full narrative, Vashti as proto feminist is rather accurate. The advisors of the King want him to punish her not because she disobeyed his order, but because she gave an example to the rest of the women of Persia and thereby encouraged them to disobey their husbands in their turn; and therefore punishing her would be a means of keeping women everywhere in their proper place. One should also remember that Vashti was a resident of a harem, and for her to appear in public, even fully clothed, would be be seen as an indecent act, almost as bad as appearing naked. Two further notes: the book of Esther is actually the only book of the Bible in which God is not mentioned, which rabbinic tradition has taken to mean that the book is a demonstration of how God guides human history from behind the scenes. And Haman was a descendant of Amalek, and is seen as continuing his ancestor's attempt to destroy the Jewish people. Jeffrey S.

After posting earlier, the following occurred to me: Moral certainty, in the most precise sense of the term, at least, is always a good thing when seen from the viewpoint of Objectivism, because of the identification of "thinking" with good/moral. If you are morally certain of something, it is because you have THOUGHT the matter through, and reached a conclusion using your mind (and no one else's!) Against this must be couched the danger of only thinking that you are morally certain--that is, believing you have sufficiently thought a matter through even though you have instead rationalized, or chosen based on the assertions of some authority figure, or otherwise NOT THOUGHT. Jeffrey S.

Perhaps it was something tied into Rand's contention that the fundamental choice is to think or not think (focus, I think, was the term she used in Objectivist Ethics), and that thinking is moral while not thinking is immoral (my choice of words, not hers): since all choices imply that fundamental choice--either you choose after thinking (in Rand's sense) or choose after not thinking--they include moral choices. For instance, the pea-eating example: Joe, our hypothetical pea eater, may refrain from eating peas for one of three reasons (that I can think of at the moment--if more occur to you, please add them in): he sees everyone else does not eat them with a knife and therefore follows their example without asking himself why they do so (the non-thinking choice, and therefore immoral under Rand's classification); he has considered how to eat peas and finds that knives are not suitable tools for that task, and therefore won't use a knife no matter what other people are doing (the fully-thinking choice, and therefore moral under Rand's classification); he sees that other people don't use a knife, and therefore follows their example so as not to embarrass himself or scandalize the others (which I think Rand would call being a second hander, and therefore immoral, although perhaps it might be analyzed differently as an example of thinking but not fully so.) Jeffrey "the other Smith" Jeffrey S.

Well, first he'd want to survive. Then he'd want to be rescued. He wouldn't have much chance of happiness until some human companionship showed up, preferably in the form of a rescue. But more people screws up the example. So here's what happens(?): Some war-like people visit including women and children. He dares not reveal himself. However a pretty young lady wanders off and he grabs her and takes her to his lair. Her relatives give up looking for her and sail away. Now he might be happy??!! I think the whole island example is hogwash. The only questions are survival, rescue and how well one can tolerate loneliness. Without other people to interact with you aren't going to be happy. A dog might help a little. --Brant haven't seen the Xray discussion on this yet edit: after reading the unread I'd only say that one can take actions that'd lead to happiness while on a deserted island, but happiness will not be achieved until one reattains a social existence Check your premises, as our esteemed host would say! While for most people, human companionship may be an essential, it isn't for everyone. I can't be completely happy with other present--or at least, people present with whom I need to or am expected to interact. I would have serious problems on a desert--food supply issues, for instance--but the only reason I would want another person around is to help solve those problems, and not for any companionship they may incidentally provide. Unless perhaps he/she stayed on the other side of the island unless called for. Jeffrey S.

I don't agree, from the bits and pieces I've seen of the show (my mother watches it almost every day). I think he's too greedy for power--that is, he tries to control other people for the sake of controlling them; he has a tendency not to give people the respect they deserve for their actions. His willingness to do illegal and unfair things is more than a simple ability to disregard arbitrary regulations, etc. Nor do I have the sense that he takes pride in a Rearden/Taggart sort of way in the product his company produces. It's just a way to make money for him, which is not what it was for Hank and Dagny--or, to take an example from within the Y&R universe--what the perfume company (Jebou?) is for Jack Abbott. Jeffrey S.

You could point to Fillmore and Pierce, if you want to trace the blame back to Commodore Perry. Good guesses by both of you. The closest to the event and the most distant. The author had a different two and somewhere in the middle of both of your time spots. I never knew about this and if true would be part of the WWII Japans rise as a Pacific power. Adam One of them would probably be Teddy Roosevelt, because of his mediation of the Russo Japanese War. Not sure who the other president would be. The Open Door policy on China had implications regarding Japan, but I forget which president was responsible for that one. Jeffrey S.

Hadn't it been always the case? This didn't necessarily weaken Rome, in fact when the politicians and the generals were the same people, Rome became the superpower and overcame both massive babarian invasions, and Hannibal, plus other patriotic citizen militias. It was the nub of the corruption problem. Roman politicans-soldiers make their fortunes by, to put it rather bluntly, looting conquered provinces. Would it necessarily have been or be a bad thing? What about the war against the Natives? Again the problem would be the potential for corruption. The American system at least has the virtue of ensuring that the soldiers can not directly enter politics until after they leave the military. Wasn't it the disaster at Teutonberg forest that put a stop to expansion? No. It merely proved that in the northwest, the Rhine was the natural boundary for the Empire. So that was the real problem, not the fact that the politicians and generals were the same people? It merely made the problem greater. In fact, the decision about who would wield power in the Roman political entity was often the direct result of the use of military force from the time of Marius on, so one can say "the army decided" starting with him. Rome always had a garrison assigned to protect Rome, how come this hadn't caused the political problem during the early Republican Rome to the extent it caused during certain period of the late Republican Rome and the sucession problem for certain time periods of the Imperial period? The garrison was much smaller and sometimes nonexistent; the army was composed of Roman citizens and not a professional group which (in the ranks and among the NCOs at least) regarded military service as a lifelong career; and most important, there was not one specific unit dedicated to garrison status: various legions or portions of legions served as current conditions required. Jeffrey S. [

That is simply a statement of belief. There is no evidence which absolutely contradicts the idea that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and there is a good deal of evidence which supports such an idea. So, unless you have documentation no one else has--in which case you'd be much better off trying to publicize it in the world media than simply here on OL--you have no right to make such a statement. As it is, it is merely wishful thinking on your part. Your logic boils down simply to this : Israel is bad, therefore Iran is good. Iran is good, therefore Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons. You want to believe Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, so you apparently are ignoring all the evidence that is contrary to that idea. The evidence is not conclusive, but it doesn't allow the blithe dismissal you are making. To tbe best of my knowledge, the above is an accurate summary. But then you deviate back into propaganda-- We will of course leave out the part about the Arab nations massing their armies on the border in 1948 and attacking Israel, which was a war of aggression on their part. That's ignoring a lot of aggression on the part of the Arabs, and some serious facts, such as the fact that Syria and Jordan attacked Israel well before Israeli forces crossed into the West Bank. The article is much too long and too detailed for me to excerpt any quotes in a satisfactory manner, but Wikipedia gives all the gory details, including the build up of hostilities in the pre-war period, in which both Israel and the Arabs participated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War Well, yes it is quite true that Iran isn't Israel. Israel is not a theocratic dictatorship calling for the destruction of another country and bankrolling terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah which use aggressive force to maintain their position in an undemocratic manner contrary to the way Lebanese democracy is supposed to work. It is in fact, rather odd, that a supposed libertarian like yourself, Adonis, is arguing on behalf of the two entities most opposed to civil rights and democracy in the Middle East other than AlQaeda itself--Iran and Hezbollah. Odd enough that it should make you want to sit down and check your premises, and decide if you are a supporter of Iran/Hezbollah or a supporter of democracy. As a reminder (from Wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbollah Jeffrey S.

I read it 3 of 4 times and I had a far different reaction than you. Did you also notice all the bad things he said about philosophy? He was very pro-science and anti-philosophy. Yes, I remember Korzybski's hostility to philosophy; it was based, as I recall, on a flawed positivistic foundation. To paraphrase Etienne Gilson, those who declare themselves philosophy's undertakers are destined to be buried by it. Ghs Isn't hostility to philosophy itself a philosophy? Jeffrey S.

Is this Karma? Hugo Chávez may be wondering, as Venezuela's taps run dry and its cities fall into darkness, whether God is on the side of the Yankees. The El Niño weather phenomenon appears to be taking sides as it parches leftist-ruled parts of South America and brings bounty to US farmers and corporations. One of the severest droughts in decades has given Venezuela's socialist president a political nightmare as hydro-electrical power dribbles to a standstill, unleashing blackouts, rationing and protests. The waters behind the Guri dam, which supplies more than half the nation's power, have touched perilously low levels. Chávez has declared an "electricity emergency", urging people to spend no more than three minutes in the shower. The president has even dispatched Cuban pilots to seed clouds for rain. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/21/hugo-chavez-el-nino-venezuela/print Executive action time. Adam No, Adam, he'll blame it on El Yanqui Malo. Didn't he blame the series of Caribbean earthquakes (in Venezuela and the Cayman Islands as well as the major one in Haiti) last month on the US? After all, we all "know" that weather changes like this are the result of Global Warming/Climate Change, and of course we all "know" that Global Warming/Climate Change is the fault of the USA... Jeffrey S.

Meanwhile, there's these folks engaged in calm discussion. Not. In the phrase "From the river to the sea" "river" means the Jordan and "sea" means the Mediterranean, which, in concert with the slogan calling for genocide, should give you an idea of what these folks think about a two state solution. Or even a one state solution in which Jews and Arabs live peacefully together. http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/2685 The blog post continues with some information on who exactly Mr. Rashid is. The Jewish Chronicle article links to a video of this episode. http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/26967/oxford-student-israeli-minister-kill-jews And there is also this (on the Jewish Chronicle) http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/28188/deputy-israeli-ambassador-cancels-uni-talk About Azzam Tamimi http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/27106/calls-destruction-israel-soas-lecture Other than suicide bombing, he and Adonis seem to be in complete agreement. But I think it says something when the people on one side of an issue go to these lengths to try to make sure the other side is not heard. Perhaps because they know that if the other side is heard, the other side will win the argument.

Which makes his analogy a little too overly "nuanced", because the problem with the Roman Empire (and the Republic before it) was that the Roman military was, at the high levels, part of the corruption problem. And there was also the Praetorian Guard, for which I can't think of anything parallel in the current American politic. The nub of the problem was that under the Roman Republic, the politicians and the generals were the same people. In America, we have a tradition of retired military running for office, but in the Roman Republic it went much further. Think of Newt Gingrich leaving his position as Speaker of the House and instead of going into private life, taking up the command of an army ready to invade a potential new piece of territory after he had arranged for Congress to declare war on some pretext. Gen. Gingrich's aims were to increase his own political clout by conquering new territory and to increase his own personal fortune through his portion of the loot and ransoms to be gained by his army as it pillaged its way through enemy lands; and then Gen. Gingrich would return home to make a run for Senator or President. Probably the only case that comes close to this in American history is Theodore Roosevelt in the Spanish American War, and of course Roosevelt made no direct profit from the campaigning (unlike the Roman generals) and was not the commanding general in the theater of war. The first Roman Emperors--Augustus and Tiberius--were the last ones who operated as both generals and politicians, although Julius Caesar is probably the most famous example. The early Principate (=the Roman Empire in its first two centuries or so), as it is called, put an end to this particular game, for about three generations, but the general corruption remained. The army in general stopped invading new territory; one reason was the early Emperors didn't want to give possible rivals a chance at generating their own power base. With the exceptions of Claudius (who conquered Britain),Hadrian and Trajan (who between them first conquered modern Iraq and then gave it back to the Persians as not defensible enough), and Julian (who died during an abortive invasion of Parthia), the Roman army never really went to war after Augustus's time: it settled into the role of defending the frontier passively and putting down internal rebellions. But the Julio-Claudian line murdered itself out of existence, ending with Nero. In the result political vacuum, the army decided who would be emperor. (It had already done so in the case of Claudius, but now it became the permanent base of power. The strongest general would win, pass on his power to his children and if they were lucky to their children, and by then the political winds (with a good dose of corruption, arrogance and sometimes psychosis mixed in) had undermined the family power base enough to allow a new general to overthrow the ruling family and either take power directly or start a new round of civil war, with some general or other emerging as the new emperor. Often enough these emperors didn't even live long enough to pass power on down to their own children. But through it all, the ultimate power was the army, and the key part of the army, because it was based in Rome and therefore was physically on the scene, was the Praetorian Guard, which never really went to war: it was the simply the most prestigious division of the army, assigned to guard Rome and the Emperor. And after a certain point, recruiting among the 'barbarians' became a normal way of filling up Roman military manpower. The whole area of relationships between Rome and the "barbarians" is a complex one: sometimes the barbarians invaded, but just as often they were invited in to settle territory the Romans were having trouble keep populated. And it was entirely normal to see a barbarian leading an "invasion" who had spent many years as the Roman version of a NCO or even junior officer. Jeffrey S.

Specifically in regard to sunset provisions, don't put too much faith in them. We have a sunset provision in Florida, the primary effect of which is to give the legislature an excuse to interfere every few years on matters that ought to have been settled law, one way or the other, years ago. For instance, in 2008 there was a mess involving no-fault insurance. First it was off for two months, then it was on again just like before, and if there was any difference from the old version I'm not aware of it. The only definite result was much agitata in the media and much confusion for insurance agents and customers. And the cause of all this was simply the inability of the (Republican controlled, I should mention!)legislature to agree on how exactly it wanted to keep auto insurance screwed up. Jeffrey S.

There is a difference between Alaric and AlQaeda: Alaric did not intend to completely upset the political order; he merely wanted to insert himself and his people at the top of the power structure. He was perfectly willing for the Roman Empire to keep on going as the Roman Empire. AlQaeda's ambitions are very different. They don't want the "American Empire" to be anything more than a historical memory once they are done with it. And he's not really correct about the Catalan Company. Roger de Flor was probably just as "civilized" as the Emperor Andronicus--and it wasn't the first or the last time that a company of mercenaries turned against its erstwhile employer after the money ran out. If any episode could be called "The" deathblow to the Byzantine Empire, it would have been the Fourth Crusade. Side note: Adrianople, aka Edirne, a millenium or so after Alaric's battle, would become one of the principle residences of the Ottoman Sultans who finally liquidated what was left of the Byzantine Empire. Jeffrey S.

Adonis, perhaps I've missed something. Leaders of Iran are on record as saying Israel has no right to exist. No leaders of Israel have ever said that Iran has no right to exist, or called for the destruction of Iran. Or any other country. Which means that while Israel has a legitimate reason to believe that Iran--who after all funds Hezbollah--would use nuclear weapons against Israel if it had the capability, Iran has no reason to believe that Israel would use nuclear weapons against it. (And your claim that Israel would use nuclear weapons against Iran is seriously undercut by the fact that Israel would be reacting in response to a perceived threat from Iran.) Jeffrey S.

Hmmmm... are you sure? Women who have male-sounding voices are not that unusual. A woman whose vocal cords have been adversely impacted by smoking, disease, sinus problems, etc. can have a relatively husky voice; and transgendered people may have a slight shift in vocal range and tone, but not a fundamental one (so a baritone would become, at best, a rather low voiced contralto), since their body size remains the same, and the result of hormonal changes at puberty on the vocal cords aren't directly reversible. And there are men whose voice is relatively high and light, and therefore not always male sounding on the phone. Or your caller may have been wary of encountering "A Boy Named Sue" Jeffrey S.

I'm going to interject here because on this particular point, Leonid is wrong on several counts; and in fact, of all the facets of this problem, the Israeli settlement policy in general is a grave abuse of Palestinian rights, and on this particular issue, Palestinians have a legitimate reason to be outraged. First off, it's not accurate to say that illegal Jewish settlements are promptly removed by the Army. There are numerous instances where illegal building has been allowed to develop and indeed expand. A number of the West Bank settlements are in fact illegal settlements which were made legal after the fact. And this must be contrasted against the problems Palestinians encounter in attempting to legitimately build on their own property, problems which Jewish Israelis don't usually encounter in similar situations. Second, if the Israeli government is the custodian of land abandoned in 1948 and 1967, then it has the obligation to act as trustee for the legal owners--the Palestinian individuals who have title to those properties; or else it needs to overtly expropriate the land. Simply allowing settlers to take over the land satisfied neither alternative. Moreover, much settlement activity has taken place on land owned by Palestinians who did not leave--instead, they are on land which has been expropriated, whether formally or not, from Palestinian residing on the land. Finally, settlements whose roads are built to be inaccessible to Palestinians, where jobs are not given to Palestinians, where the schools and other facilities are meant to be for the use of the settlers and intended to be closed to the neighboring Palestinians population, can not be thought of as being economically beneficial for Palestinians. And that's not even taking into account that many of these settlers are religious-motivated Zionists who intentionally cause problems (and sometimes physically attack) neighboring Arabs. They are people who have forgotten the words of King Solomon regarding the Torah: "Her ways are ways of pleasantness". Jeffrey S.

I've heard him interviewed (through translators, of course) on TV, and he's made statements that call for academic study as to whether the Holocaust took place, and treating Holocaust denial as an intellectual position reasonable honest people can hold. To me, that's condoning Holocaust denial--rather like someone calling for academic study of whether or not Stalin's Great Purges actually took place, and treating people who deny the purges (if such exist) as worthy of intelligent consideration. I've heard of a fatwa against nuclear weapons, but I seem to remember it was attached to the name of one or more Sunni clerics. I may be wrong that Sunni clerics were involved; and of course the existence of a Sunni fatwa does not mean there can not be a similar fatwa originating from Shia sources. The allegation that Ahmedinejad (however his name is spelled) is involved in a chiliastic Twelver cult I have seen before, but only in sources that advocate going to war with Iran in the near future, so I'm taking those allegations with several grains of heavy duty salt. Which is a convoluted way of saying that I think Adonis is completely accurate about that particular point. Jeffrey S.

Leonid: Obviously. Thanks for taking the bait. So essentially you are more right in your more obscure use of the word orient to orient it to what most folks would understand the word as representing. What is obvious is that you should have a real conversation with yourself someday. If you did, you would obviously be extremely shocked as to how you project yourself. Thanks for being so predictable. Adam Adam-- FYI, Leonid's use of the term "oriental" in this case is totally normative. Jews who trace their origin to Arab lands are usually called "Oriental Jews", although nowadays the Hebrew equivalent, Mizrachi, is more commonly used, even in English. This applies to any Jew who traces his or her descent from Morocco as much as any of the lands eastward. The only exceptions are: 1) those Jews who trace their origin from the Jews of Spain (Sefardim or Sephardic in English, even if their families settled in Moslem countries. This is complicated by the fact that some communities who would otherwise be called Mizrachi, because they have no direct connection to Spain, adopted Sephardic traditions and liturgy and therefore effectively merged themselves with the Sefardim. 2) those Jews who trace their origin from the Jews of the Byzantine Empire (Romiot, deriving from the days when the Byzantines were still the Roman Empire and called themselves Romans) 3) Jews of Iranian origin, who may be called Mizrachi, Oriental or Iranian/Persian 4) Jews of Central Asian (in this case, mostly the countries which were once the smaller Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union--Kazakhstan, etc.) origin, who may be called Mizrachi but are often referred to by terms derived from their actual place of origin (most notably, Bukharan Jews) 5) Jews whose families were long settled in Western India, called Cochin or Malabar Jews; this term, however, does not usually refer to Sefardic or Mizrachi families who settled in the same area in the 19th or 20th centuries CE 6) Jews from the Far East, for the simple reason that no Jewish community in East Asia survived independently into the 20th century; those Jews who live there now are generally members of the major Jewish communities and consider themselves such. Ironically, there are no "Oriental" Jews who trace their origin to what you're considering to be the "Orient". In fact, up to the early 20th century, academic writing on the Middle East was categorizes as dealing with "oriental studies", so much of the early archeological work in the Middle East was published in volumes dealing with "Oriental antiquities", and much of the early work with Sumerian or other dead languages of that area was thought of as dealing with "Oriental languages". Confining the term Orient to the eastern parts of Eurasia is a relatively modern trend. And, after all, the whole area is traditionally called (in English, at least) the Middle East or the Near East; it's only East Asia that is called the Far East. Jeffrey S.

Blessed if I remember. It's been six years or so since I was there, and I don't have a map handy. We ended up at Honeymoon Beach --- and along the way passed the old sugar mill at Caneel Bay --- and an overlook of Cruz Harbor. ---- So whichever end of the island that was, that's where we "hiked" (more like a loping stroll for an hour or so ) Hmm. There was supposed to be an image where those dashed lines are, but the system isn't letting me post the images off of Photobucket.... This had been a test of the Emergency Relaxation System. We now return you to our regularly scheduled argument....

Jeff, This is pure conjecture about la-la land. It has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with floating abstractions. The plain fact is that this cannot be implemented reality. Not in today's world. Period. If you read my posts, you will see me asking Adonis why insist on a discourse inherently doomed to failure. Your projection of how to implement the outcome is just as unreal as his "preferred outcome" of abolishing the government of Israel. Neither are going to happen in today's world. There are too many people involved and too many safeguards in place. I consider all of this to be empty rhetoric totally disconnected from reality. More of the same. Pure la-la land. And if you read Adonis's posts correctly, you will read clearly that his beef is with "Zionists" (as he understands the term), not Jews as a whole. And I get the distinct impression that he is against the anti-Semitic propaganda Hamas presents and sanctions. Michael First off, especially in light of Leonid's posts today, I had better state quite clearly that I think your last sentence there is completely accurate, and I don't think Adonis is intentionally anti-Semitic. However, some of his assertions and some of the things he backs have anti-Semitic results--but apparently he doesn't realize the full implications of some of what he says. I agree that what he wants is something that will never come to pass; I think part of the reason it will never come to pass is because it would involve a new Holocaust--which is why I heartily prefer for my predictions to be confined to la-la land. I don't want them to have a chance to come to pass. I think Adonis does not fully realize all the implications of his desired outcome. A unified country where Jews and Arabs live in complete harmony would be a highly desirable outcome, but it has no chance of coming to pass because if a unified country came into being, there are enough elements in the Arab community who would want to bring about a second Holocaust, and have the power to at least start on one (Hamas being the most notorious one at the moment), that, essentially, any Israeli would be insane to want to live in the same country as them, and would be insane to trust an independent Palestine to control them without some active Israeli "assistance". I also think that Adonis is so focused on the facts of Israeli violence against Arabs that he doesn't notice that it takes place in the context of Arab violence against Israelis, and that if the Arab community too concerted steps to half the violence Arabs commit aimed against Israelis, Israel would have no excuse to continue its violence against Arabs. Furthermore, he doesn't seem to understand that as long as Arab violence continues relatively unabated, the elements in Israeli society that would otherwise step in to halt or at least ameliorate the violence and rein in the settlement movement, don't have any motivation to do so. If Israel is nice to the Arabs and still gets suicide bombs and Hamas rockets and anti-Semitic vitriol throughout the Palestinian media, then there's no benefit to being nice to them. So if the Palestinian community were to abandon violence as a preferred method, it would either gain the moral high ground if Israeli violence continued, or open the way to actual peace. (And if Israelis reined in the settlers and military violence, they might get some benefit. Or they might simply get more violence.) Unfortunately, however, the Palestinian community seems to have viewed violence as the preferred method for some time now--since the 1920s, in fact. And I am puzzled by Adonis' apparent belief that violence is the only way Palestinians can react to the Israeli occupation. It certainly doesn't have to be. As to the distinction between Zionists and Jews--yes, he tries to make one, but to my ears his use of the term Zionists seems to cover almost all Jews, except people like Neturei Karta who explicitly reject Zionism. People call things what they want, but that doesn't change the nature of the thing. Some years ago, I took, as a shore excursion from a cruise, a relatively easy hike in the national park on St. John's, in the US Virgin Islands. Our guide pointed out more than a few time large earth structures and called them "wood-ant nests". Finally, one of the members of our group said, when the guide was out of hearing, "Maybe he calls them wood-ants, but those are termites!" And indeed they were, once you realized what we had seen were termite nests. The guide's euphemism might confuse, but only temporarily. So it is with Adonis. He might use the term Zionists, but on inspection his Zionists turn out to be ordinary Jews, or at least ordinary Israelis. Jeffrey S.

Michael, in 277 Unfortunately, the only way his preferred outcome could be implemented would be through a new Holocaust. Add to that Hamas' desire for an Islamic shariah state (with the dhimmi status imposed on any Jews allowed to live there) and the anti-Semitic tone of much public discourse among Palestinians, and it's not hard to imagine an end of Israel in which Jews were not merely forced into exile but killed outright. Adam in 278 Presumably far West Bank settlements don't include the built up areas close to Jerusalem, but do include those settlements which consist of a small Jewish population in the middle of a larger Arab population. As far as I know, the only people who would not accept such a deal are the maximalists on either side. I might mention that the Jewish maximalists actually believe that a Jewish state should include most of Lebanon and much of southern/western Syria, as well as most of modern Jordan, because those are the bounds of the Biblical kingdom (as established by King David)--but not necessarily the Negev south of Beersheva, because that was not part of the Biblical kingdom. Jeffrey S.