Cargo Cult Statehood

In his 1974 CalTech address, Richard Feynman has decried the ascent of what he termed 'Cargo Cult Science'. What Dr. Feynmann was referring to is the rise of many new 'scientific' disciplines that although possessed all the superficial components of science, such as 'peer reviewed publications', white robes and fancy lingo, they lacked the central component: Scientific Integrity. The focus switched to get results published quickly, and worse, get the correct results.

I believe that this principle can be extended to other important institutions. If we analyse it properly, we will quickly see that the Palestinian Authority is working towards what could only be described as 'Cargo Cult Statehood'. They poses the superficial qualities of a nation state, such as a flag, a national anthem, diplomatic delegates, government institutions and a 'President'. But they are missing the key ingredients to stand on their own: a sense of national responsibility and political integrity.

The Palestinians, which is a modern designation for the Arabs who resided in the British mandate of Palestine pre-Israel, are perhaps the worst represented people in history. During the Second World War, they were represented by the Fuhrer's friend Hajj-amin al-Husseini, an raging advocate of the final solution. Up until recently, the face of the 'Palestinian Cause' was Yasser Arafat, to whom the title of "genocidal terrorist" is not at all a stretch. Meanwhile, the Palestinians themselves lived either under Egyptian/Jordanian military occupation or confined to refugee camps in other Arab states.

The leaders who quickly emerged, such as the PLO, were more than happy to keep their power base poor, isolated and desperate.  Setting up UNWRA administered refugee camps. Palestinians in Arab lands are the only displaced peoples who have the 'right' to pass on the title of refugee to their offsprings. The so called 'refugees' are not given many other, real rights by their host countries and their political leadership was more than happy to keep it that way.

Meanwhile, the 'struggle' for liberation of Palestine required a sense of being 'Palestinian'. A national ideology and a sense of history, that has thus far never existed.

Nowadays, Palestinians who never saw life outside their cramped refugee camp are reminiscing about a 'Palestine' that never existed. They dream of a past were they lived as hard working but joyful farmers on some idealic land. No coherent national ideology has emerged except for what can only be described as anti-Zionism, i.e. the utter disdain for the Jewish nation. A national ideology based on hate for another is unsustainable. It is no accident that all pro-Palestinian campaigns are not concerned with improving the lives of Palestinians or help them become a modern democratic nation state, it is all concerned with how to bring on suffering to Israeli Jews (even though such tactics often disrupts the lives of Palestinians).


Now, when talk of 'the soon to be declared' Palestinian state feels the airwaves, we find that their economy largely relies on foreign aid. Their state bureaucracy is extremely corrupt and is mostly based on family connections. The political establishment is divided into two territorial enclaves that hate each other more than they hate Israel.

Based on that, we cannot expect a viable, modern, democratic state to emerge. What will probably come to being is a fractured autocracy, with a failing economy that will probably resort to war with its much more powerful neighbor for the gazzilionth time in a century.

So why do so many people insist that such a strange creature can somehow help stabilize the Middle East? Why is Israel expected to make so many concessions without much of a guarantee for peace and regional cooperation?

The Palestinians have been very effective at raising national flags, writing a national anthem, creating a state bureaucracy and begging the world for aid and for pieces of paper that gives them the recognition of some faraway government. But they haven't been able to accept the responsibility of managing their own affairs.

-QP

Barry Rubin: Coming Soon, From Those Wonderful People Who Brought You The "Palestine Papers"

By Barry Rubin

Do you really believe that suddenly, for no apparent reason, and no big Israeli concession the Palestinian negotiators tossed away their demand for a "Right of Return" for millions of Palestinians and accepted a mere 100,000 being let into Israel? And if you don't believe it, how can you think that these papers are authentic?

Do you believe that this could have happened without the U.S. government knowing about it? And if so why didn't it factor into U.S. policy at all? Indeed, anyone who understands Israeli politics would comprehend that if given such an offer Olmert and Livni--desperate to survive politically--would have made a deal.  

Only someone who believes that Israel has no interest in peace--which is what the Guardian and al-Jazira think--could conceive that these leaders would just walk away after the PA made an offer that was light years' better than anything ever hinted at before. Only those who demonize Israel could believe that Livni was advocating expelling Arab citizens of Israel as if she were no different from Meir Kahane.

Do you not realize that this is a disaster for hopes of peace since no Palestinian negotiator in future would dare to offer any concession at all? And that's even if more radical forces don't sweep away those held responsible for "treason."?

In its defense the Guardian published an article by Jonathan Freedland entitled, "The Palestine papers have broken a taboo. Now the arguments for peace can be open. The papers show how much ground Palestinian negotiators were willing to concede. This isn't craven. It's admirable."

You might admire it but how many Palestinians are admiring it? And doesn't it matter more what they think about their own leadership? Does Hamas admire it? Does the Fatah leadership admire it? And of course, most of them will believe that this is what happened. I don't.

Don't justify this by saying it helps advance peace. It doesn't. Quite the opposite.

Incidentally, the Guardian offers neither evidence for its claims nor a response to specific issues raised about problems with the text. This makes me even more suspicious.-----------------------------



The situation demands satire:

From those wonderful people who brought you the “Palestine Papers!”:

Coming soon to a credulous, irresponsible, and/or malicious newspaper near you!

The Cold War Papers: Revealing that Stalin desperately wanted peace and offered to give up control of all the Eastern Europe countries but Roosevelt and Churchill refused. (Actually, the Guardian editors probably believe this one!)

The Iran Papers: Revealing that Iran was eager to give up its nuclear weapons project but the Obama Administration  refused because it wanted an excuse to go to war with Iran, take over the country, and steal its oil.  (Hm, they might believe that one also.) 

The Bush Papers: "And then the president said, 'Hey! Let's pretend that Iraq is a threat so we can invade them and steal all their oil!' Then Tony Blair responded, `Right, master! Whatever you say!" (Oh, no doubt they believe that one.)


The Obama Papers: "And then the president said, 'Hey! Let's seize control of the car and health industries so we can institute socialism and Death Panels!" (Okay, they don't believe that one.)

OK, Funny, I hope. But this latest example of madness should teach a lesson. Not only the acceptance of obviously false claims but then actually making it worse than the original by “creating” new Palestinian “concessions” and slanders against Israel.

Here's how a friend of mine summed up the recent period:

1) Reporters accepting as fact that a woman died of tear gas inhalation despite there being no recorded cases of such an occurrence ever happening.

2) Treating the Mavi Marmara incident as Israel said/Turkey said despite video evidence supporting Israel's version. (Not to mention a hostile witness supporting Israel's version.)

3) Taking the Palestine Papers at face value despite the fact that they came from Al Jazeera, despite past Palestinian statements to the contrary. Despite, I might add, the fact that they include alleged statements like when the Israelis say they are going to return the Golan Heights to Syria, the Palestinians reply that they will compensate Israel with more concessions.

How can one not believe that by these standards, if properly presented in modern terms, much of the media would accept as genuine the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Gaza’s government does), the claim that Jews grind up children to make Passover matzos or organ transplants (the Saudis and Sweden’s biggest newspaper do), that the Holocaust never happened (Iran), or that Israel doesn’t want peace and is responsible for all the Middle East’s problems (Oops! The Guardian, much of the New York Times, and the Fairfax newspapers in Australia, among many others, say that).

This debacle should be the last straw. Unfortunately, it won’t be.

Here's how I would explain this issue:

1. Most of the routine material comes from actual documents but not the "interesting" parts that everyone is talking about.

2. That still does not mean that these documents accurately reflect what happened since they are the version of PA officials

3. On a number of specific points and on all the points being publicized the claims made are so ridculous that these dicynebts must have been altered.  The texts read almost like a satire themselves in which someone set out to write a narrative in which the PA gave everything and got nothing in return. Indeed, the picture is so exaggerated that it should be obvious these claims are phony. But of course that assumes that people were going to use logic and know something about the issues.

There are about twenty reasons to believe this is essentially a hoax. Here's one: Do you really believe that after demanding a "Right of Return" for all Palestinians over decades as the most passionately held position, the PA leaders would give it up in exchange for only 100,000 being allowed in and get absolutely nothing in return for that concession? 

4. In addition, the Guardian and al-Jazira often distort what is in the documents to exaggerate it even more. Some of the specifics are really absurd like the legalistic-minded Tsipi Livni saying she is against international law and even saying she planned to expel Palestinians from Israel after an agreement.

5. Yet almost all of the media uncritically quote these distortions. 

6. Some even add new items that were neither in the documents nor in the original coverage. The most notorious example is the claim that the PA recognized Israel as a Jewish state.

This, for example, is a case study showing how Tzipi Livni’s words are twisted in a way that nobody who didn’t read the original would know. 

In other words, Islamist (al-Jazira) and radical pro-Islamist (Guardian) writers are being taken by the rest of the media as the definers of reality. 

The Guardian has now defended itself by ridiculing the idea that this is a hoax or a forgery. Let me be clear: I have no doubt that real documents of the PA were purloined, but the text of these includes such nonsensical material that it looks as if the "editors" overdid it. 

Finally, the statement of Nabil Shaath. As always, the Guardian's claims don't stand up to close inspection. He did say in passing they were authentic but gave no reason for this claim nor sign that he had read them. Shaath also was not involved in the talks during the time when the most sensationalist material supposedly happened. So he doesn't actually know. Moreover, he made remarks that seem to imply that he doesn't accept the idea that huge concessions were made at all. In other words he denies the content that is the subject of so much controversy.

From the coverage in other publications one can see that few journalists are actually reading the documents and none are seriously analyzing them. I don't think I've seen a single reference in the mass media (but I'm happy to be corrected) showing the contradictions and inconsistencies involved in these papers.

And if anything the madness is accelerating. As Christians are being driven out of the Muslim world, homosexuals are threatened with death, women are treated as property, and hate is incited there every day, the Los Angeles Times chooses to publish a long article on, well let's quote from it:

"Israeli intolerance shows up on Internet, in Knesset, on the street....Racism, homophobia and religious discrimination seem to be more prevalent, taking the form of threats and even a government motion." 

I could answer this but why bother? I'd suggest that racism and homophobia, along with intolerance in general, are less present in Israel than in any European country or the United States. I repeat: there is no sense expecting fairness from a long list of media outlets and reporters any more.

Nor is that the fault with Israeli hasbara. I once heard the great journalist Eric Severaid say that nothing can protect one from a journalist who's determined to distort your views or character.

If people in academic or journalism won't listen, or report, what you have to say, how can anyone do a better job of getting them to understand the situation and report on it accurately? We are often dealing with willing participants in a propaganda campaign for whom professional ethics has no meaning. 

Here is a brief biography of the Guardian editor who co-authored the Palestine Papers articles:


     Seumas Milne, who is the co-author of the scoop, and is likely to have been the conduit for the leaks is an interesting character. He is a Wykhamist, via Balliol, Oxford. Prior to joining the Guardian, he worked for "Straight Left", which was the newspaper of the hard line, pro-USSR, "Tankie" faction in the Communist Party of Great Britain. These were the guys who applauded the suppression of bourgeois nationalist backsliding in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. If you want a taste of Milne's current politics, try googling his articles in the Guardian along with the words "Iraq" and "resistance". You'll see pretty clearly where his sympathies lie. 

Milne was appointed Comment Editor of the Guardian just prior to September 11. In its wake, he filled the Guardian comment pages with op eds by Hamas officials and spokesmen, and their British and Middle Eastern supporters. On one occasion, they even had an op-ed by Al Faqih, Osama Bin Laden's man in Britain. 

Milne also wrote articles basically calling Fatah a bunch of Israeli stooges and puppets. He knows very well what he is doing. 

And that is his purpose here. Smearing Israel is a plus but destroying the current leadership of the PA and bringing Hamas to power is his main goal. This is the man, along with the Islamist-dominated al-Jazira whose reportage is now being taken at its word by the world media.

Note also that the Goldstone Commission consistently based its conclusions on claims by Hamas, a group that publicly announces its goal of commiting genocide against Israel's Jews.

As a Muslim friend who has seen this happen in his own country on various issues puts it, "Words mean nothing to these people... as long as they get them the desired outcome. The end justifies the means. Period."

Nor have I seen a single person in the mainstream media pointing out how disastrous this affair is for any chance of peace. Even if they were willing to make real concessions in the past--which I doubt--no PA official will ever do so in future. Granted, peace was unlikely any way but this makes the chances for a negotiated agreement pretty dead for a whole generation.

The most likely source of the material is increasingly appearing to be disgruntled hardline staffers in the PA's Negotiations Support Unit who quit, rather than some foreign, Hamas, or factional conspiracy.

But the real problem is the insanity of our current era. We live at a time when the UN's chief "expert" on the Israel-Palestine issue, the fanatical Israel-hater Prof. Richard Falk, can claim that by saying that the U.S. government is staging a cover-up on what really happened on September 11. And that's the Obama Administration he's talking about! This  is the man whose condemnations of Israel help determine the direction of UN reports. 

Many people now understand that regarding Israel and a host of other issues we are simply not dealing with professors who have any care for logic and journalists who are interested in facts. Others don't.
Here's a story a reader sent me today:

"[A person I know] gets almost all his news from CNN. So today he gave the important news that he received from CNN that the "Palestinians said they were willing to give up most of Jerusalem for peace." I tried to explain to him that the story was completely false. He just gave me a blank stare back. His mind could not comprehend how such an authority as Wolf Blitzer and CNN could report something as fact but that is in fact completely false.

"Do you ever just want to scream? I do. What can we do? What can the average person do? Does it have any effect at all if we write to the media, expressing our outrage. Does the truth matter if the official truth is all that people believe?"

Do I ever want to scream? What do you think! Does it have any effect when we complain to the media? No. 

Does the truth matter if the official truth is all that people believe? Well, that's different. Roughly two-thirds of the American people do not accept what the media tells them on this issue. In fact, support for Israel in the United States went up during the Gaza flotilla crisis. Every day, more people are waking up. New sources of information are expanding.

A lot of average people have common sense. A lot of government officials (not enough, for sure), have to deal with reality and sooner or later see through the illusions. Polls on media credibility show it to be quite low. Student sit through indoctrinating classes and don't accept what they are told.

Basically, we have to wait it out. Meanwhile, we need to tell the truth, educate as many people as possible, help build an alternate elite to replace and repair the diseased segments of society. 

Rabbi Tarfon said "It is not incumbent upon you to finish the task, but neither are you free to abstain  from it." Pirkei Avot, Chapter 2, Paragraph 16.

Or here is the Enlightenment version of that principle from Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Peru Recognizes Palestinian State: Rejects Forced Border

From JPost:

 Peru on Monday joined a growing number of South American countries in recognizing an independent and sovereign Palestinian state.

However, the decision announced by Foreign Minister Jose Antonio Garcia Belaunde does not recognize Palestine's borders pre-dating the Six-Day War of 1967, when Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza.

Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador and Bolivia have recently recognized those borders.

Peru's position is similar to that of Chile. Both governments say the issue must be worked out between Israelis and Palestinians.

Garcia said Monday that Peru also recognizes Israel's indisputable right to exist without any threats to its people.

Its announcement comes ahead of a mid-February summit in Lima of South American and Arab leaders.

This is essentially reinforcing the status quo.  A Palestinian state has been already 'recognized' by about 100 countries as a result of the PLO's unilateral deceleration of independence. So?

Peru, unlike Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Venezuela, recognizes that issues such as final borders should be agreed upon at the negotiating table. Considering Israel has already declared its willingness to coexist peacefully, side-by-side with a Palestinian state, this most recent 'recognition' is not groundbreaking to say the least.

-QP

Erekat: No Provisional State

Yesterday, it was reported that the Netanyahu government may recognize a Palestinian state at provisional borders. The provisional borders are of course the current negotiated borders between Israel and the PA during the Oslo A, B and the Wye Plantation agreement.

This morning, Chief Palestinian Lier Erekat has rebuffed any such a possibility. Of course recently rebuffed the idea of any final agreement that does not see Israel flooded with 7 million 'Palestinian Refugees'. With the same breath he accuses Israel of undermining a 'Two State' solution. 

Of course the two states the Snake is talking about are Judenrein: no Jews allowed in the West Bank or Gaza, and Judenrat: Jews will become a minority in their own homeland after it is flooded by 'refugees'.

And Israel is undermining peace, yeah right.

-QP

Is Netanyahu to Recognize a Provisional Palestinian State?

Aluf Ben at Ha'aretz reports that the Netanyahu's government response to the recent wave of South American recognitions of a unilateral deceleration of a Palestinian state in the '67 borders, is to recognize such a state at existing PA borders.

Netanyahu needs a countermeasure that will get Abbas off his back, depict Israel as an avid supporter of peace and, if possible, also paint the Palestinians as having yet again missed an opportunity to reach an agreement.

But Netanyahu's ability to offer compromises and territorial withdrawals in the West Bank are limited. Any territorial concession, even a theoretical offer of concession, could cost him the coalition he just shored up. What's a prime minister to do?

One option is to adopt the concept advanced by the Reut Institute, under which Israel would upgrade the PA's political status and recognize it as an independent state within its existing borders. The state that would be established in the Palestinian urban enclaves would negotiate with Israel over the remaining West Bank territories and all the other issues of the final-status agreement. This concept is built into the second phase of the so-called "Road Map," which called for the creation of a Palestinian state within provisional borders.

Ben describes this as a win-win situation for Israel:

Abbas has opposed a state with provisional borders in the past and can be expected to do so again, even if the offer comes from Netanyahu. If he changes his mind and says yes, Israel will come out looking good. If he refuses, Israeli public relations will have a field day: We offered them a state again, and they didn't want it. That's the best place for Netanyahu to be, with the Palestinians once more in the role of the nay-sayers and Israel not having to make payments in the form of territory or dismantling settlements. Until either the next counterpropaganda measure from Abbas, or the outbreak of a new intifada next fall, when hopes for a final agreement and Palestinian independence are ultimately dashed. 

I doubt the Palestinians want a state at all... the population just want either the IDF or the PLO off their backs... the PLO is living too comfortably as a welfare case. I don't think the PLO is ready to take the responsibilities of running a state.

But then, the prevailing philosophy of the day is that we should let them be, and not make it our problem. Perhaps this is what Debka was alluding to in the earlier article?

-QP

Russia's Embrace of a Palestinian State: an Exaggeration?

Last week, President Medvedev visited Jericho in the West Bank in a much publicized visit. During the visit, president Medvedev reaffirmed his country's decision  to recognize a Palestinian state, that was originally adopted in 1988 (when the Fatah declared an independent state).

The Arab media were quick to celebrate this victory. However, JPost points out that Medvedev's visit was devoid of much substance and its rather small, ceremonial visit is in a way an expression of disappointment over the cancelled presidential visit to Israel:

The city hadn’t seen such pomp and range of highest political officials for a long, long time. President Vladimir Putin paid a visit to Ramallah in 2005.

However, this current visit was very different: this time Medvedev visited only Jericho, crossing the Allenby Bridge from Jordan.

It was not supposed to be this way, as the Russian president was scheduled to visit Israel as well and only canceled this visit due to the ongoing strike in the Foreign Ministry. This detail was omitted in the many ecstatic reports by the Palestinian media that flocked to Jericho.

The commentators were quick to interpret this as another sign of the “superb” relations between Russia and the PA, and received an endorsement of this theory during the speech of the honored guest.

Addressing the dignitaries and the journalists, Medvedev said that it was a “unique event, a solo visit.”

Then a festive ceremony of signing agreements between the Russian and PA Ministries of Agriculture, news agencies and Olympic committees took place. When you don’t have anything important to sign, you have to produce something, one of the Russian journalists whispered. “I’m certain that tremendous opportunities for expanding the cooperation lie ahead,” the Russian president smiled.

This might be true. However, the fact that hundreds of influential businessmen and lobbyists didn’t join Medvedev in his Palestinian-Jordanian tourney points to the disappointment of the Russian side with the cancellation of the visit to Israel. As affectionate as the meeting between Medvedev and Abbas was, it was no substitute for the important economic and political relations with Israel.

So it turns out the warm, highly publicized visit, was just that, a warm visit to show 'solidarity', thus gaining street cred in the hood :)

Did Russian policy towards the peace process or towards the Palestinians change? All signs lead to no:

And here comes the million-dollar question: Did Medvedev officially recognize the Palestinian state or didn’t he? Many analysts in the PA ruled that he did: in fact Jericho Mayor Hassan Saleh announced that “Russia is going to recognize Palestinian independence” even before the Russian president had made his speech. And indubitably, that is exactly what Palestinians would like to hear.

Yet that was not what Medvedev actually said. In fact, there was not one single word, not one single fact regarding unilateral Palestinian independence.

Medvedev affirmed that in 1988, the Soviet Union supported the declaration of independence made by Yasser Arafat in Algiers, and that the Russian Federation today backs the struggle of the Palestinian people for independence – but so do the US, EU and UN. 

Almost immediately, Medvedev said Moscow strongly opposes any unilateral acts and that as a member of the Middle East Quartet believes that negotiations are necessary and that the current framework of the Oslo agreements, the road map and the Annapolis declaration is still viable.

This last part was omitted by Arab commentators, who were quick to adapt the message to their own dreams and ambitions 

So essentially, nothing to see here, let's move a long! The Russians have long been considered allies of the Arab world. To maintain good relationships they cannot be appearing to go back on their position. On the other hand, modern Russia has been fostering good relationships with Israel, relationships that have taken a strategic nature in the last few years.

-QP

Debka: Obama will not Veto anti-Israel UN Resolution

DebkaFILE report (currently available only in Hebrew) that Obama has decided, in deference to Sec. of State Clinton, to not Veto the upcoming UN Security Council vote on Israeli construction in the West Bank, including eastern Jerusalem.

DebkaFILE is not the most reputable source to say the least, but on occasion they seem to get fresh news before other sources. If they are indeed correct, this is going to be perhaps the dumbest thing the administration has done since taking office. Not only will it derail the peace process completely and make a negotiated settlement impossible, it will be a big blow to America's credibility with its allies.

In the same report, Debka reports that Barak performed his little maneuver in order to make sure the Netanyahu government survives in the near future. This, they claim Barak said, will give him the opportunity to take part of a possible peace process breakthrough that is currently going through secret channels.

Let's see where this all leads.

-QP

Palestinian Apartheid Week, Anyone?

While all the MSM has been closely monitoring a letter signed by a few Israeli rabbis, a letter that has no statutory standing whatsoever, the Palestinians are arresting and interrogating people for the suspicion of selling property to Jews:

Palestinian Authority security officials have detained a meat dealer on suspicion of selling land to Jews, Palestinian media outlets reported Friday. 

According to the report, the wealthy individual in question is a well-known figure and owns large swaths of land in the Bethlehem area. According to suspicions, he sold some land to Jews some 15 years ago.

The land in question was later used for building homes in Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood.

The PA reportedly detained and interrogated the man Thursday. During hi interrogation he claimed that all the land belonged to his father, who was the one who sold it to Jews.

The suspect was released Friday afternoon.

About a week ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referred to the issue of land sales to Jews while slamming Palestinian complaints about Israel's east Jerusalem construction. The PM stressed that while his government allows both Jews and Arabs to engage in construction in the east of the capital without discrimination, the PA harshly punishes Arabs who sell land to Jews.

Speaking to foreign correspondents, Netanyahu noted that only 10 minutes away from the briefing there is a regime in place that sentences people who sell land to Jews to death. "How many of you reported this?" the prime minister asked the journalists during the briefing. (SOURCE: Ynet)

Yes, the Palestinian Authority has the death penalty for whoever dares to sell his property to Jews (not Israelis, not Zionists, Jews!).

It's amazing that the world demands that Israel will recognize and cede territory to a state that would practically enact Nuremberg laws.

-QP

Absurdity

The Benny Morris article I discussed recently has been the subject of this Rick Richman post. I recommend all of it. But here is the gem:

We are now in the 92nd year of a peace process in which the Palestinians are the first people in history to be offered a state seven times, reject it seven times, and set preconditions for discussing an eighth offer.

If that's not absurdity, I don't know what is...

-QP 

Netanyahu: 'Significant trade' with Iraq - Israel News, Ynetnews

I found this slightly old Ynet article that I believe reflects on the real intentions of the Netanyahu government.

Pointing to what he described as "strong but unpublicized trade" between Haifa port and Iraq via Jordan, he suggested assembly points could be set up in the West Bank for some goods, which would create thousands of jobs. He did not elaborate on the nature or extent of the trade.

According to the prime minister, this would not be a substitute for a political settlement, but economic prosperity would make peace possible, as occurred in Northern Ireland.

It seems that Israel would rather build economical connections and quiet relations than expect immediate social acceptance. The intentions of Netanyahu indicate that he he honestly wants to see the Palestinians and other countries in the area prosper.

It's almost as if he sees the prosperity of the Arab world as a precondition for long term prosperity of Israel. If only Palestinian leaders cared as much as Netanyahu does for the Palestinians, perhaps things would be better?

-QP