re: #117 researchok

Well even if you are just comparing the leadership to Nazis I don’t really think it is a great analogy. The Nazis were in the driver’s seat of a powerful manufacturing base. Fixing Germany’s economic problems might have helped before the Nazis rose to power. But once they got the economy rolling again that ceased to be a diplomatic option for us.

In contrast the authority isn’t as intractable. They are in the driver’s seat of a wreck. They didn’t fix the economy after rising to power but rather still use it as a tool against their own people. But that only lasts as long as those conditions remain. As such we still have the power to remove that tool.

So how do you suppose we go about that?

re: #118 Bob Levin

a growing number of moderates within the P.L.O. — most notably Arafat — were putting out feelers about the prospect of a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute..

Okay, this is a quote from the article saying that Arafat was among the moderates. How does the author get to that statement? Arafat was a murderer, and he enjoyed giving the orders for murder. So, there are problems within the article, created by its author. I’m not making that up.

It is clear from context:

moderates within the P.L.O.

If Arafat was quietly seeking to become part of a peace process, as documents show including this one, then that would indeed make him a moderate in comparison to the factions that wanted no negotiation whatsoever.

However, it doesn’t matter because the US, Israel, the PLO, and many third parties have been holding talks for 40 years. There’s no straw man there.

And because negotiations have been ongoing, it seems as though the author has a loose grasp of the facts.

The fact is that the US has had a hot/cold relationship with the PLO. For a long time we refused to recognize them and avoided contact with them. And at other times we have secretly met with them. Not exactly the face of consistent diplomacy.