Why isn't it interesting?

Because of this, Greg.

Why is it that so many people of purported intelligence consistently wet their pants whenever they hear (or think they hear) hints of "talks" or "breakthroughs" or "imminent prisoner exchanges" or "ceasefires" or "negotiations" with certain regimes who not only have no compunction about lying, brinksmanship, threats, political assassination, and appropriation of neighboring countries, but have made it more than clear that the destruction of a certain country is their ultimate objective?

Posted by: Barry Meislin at January 16, 2007 08:45 AM | Permalink to this comment

....with certain regimes who not only have no compunction about lying, brinksmanship, threats, political assassination, and appropriation of neighboring countries, but have made it more than clear that the destruction of a certain country is their ultimate objective?

Lying, brinksmanship, threats, political assassination and appropriation of neighboring countries I can see.

But what certain country is israel determined to destroy?

Posted by: J Thomas at January 16, 2007 01:29 PM | Permalink to this comment

Syria also denies the story, for the record.

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at January 16, 2007 02:28 PM | Permalink to this comment

I believe it was Ben-Gurion, but it might have been Rabin, who said that we have to make peace with our enemies, because we do not need to make peace with our friends.

We made peace with Gorbachev, despite Khruschev's blustering and many hostile moves by the Soviet Union prior to Gorbachev. Syria is no friend to Israel, but she may have other priorities to a state of unending war, especially with the weakness of no longer having a powerful sponsor like the old USSR. Iran is not a realistic substitute, and, religiously, is not compatible with the Syrian population. Probably, the ayatollahs consider the Alawites to be heretical, also.

Posted by: Ed Cogburn at January 16, 2007 04:43 PM | Permalink to this comment

. . . have made it more than clear that the destruction of a certain country is their ultimate objective?

I'd like to see a cite for the most recent Syrian statement in this regard.

The Egyptians used to talk about destroying Israel. That was a long time ago.

Israel made peace with Egypt and Jordan by agreeing to the 1967 lines. So far they refuse to offer Syria the same deal.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 16, 2007 05:32 PM | Permalink to this comment

So the Syrian dictator may sell out the Palestinians to deal with the Israel and the US. And you and Josh Marshall are impressed. What principle is this?
Why not deal with Iran which has an educated middle class and a strong and democratic reformist movement? Because Israel is our major ally though its policies are akin to S Africa's under Botha.
fucking brilliant.

Posted by: Seth Edenbaum at January 16, 2007 05:36 PM | Permalink to this comment

re: "But what certain country is israel determined to destroy?"

Palestine ...

Posted by: Tom M. at January 16, 2007 07:33 PM | Permalink to this comment

Ah yes, those brutal Apartheid like Israel where Israeli Arabs have full voting rights just like Jewish Israelis. Yes how much like Apartheid South Africa they are! (Has to be so after all, doesn't Saint Jimmy, Saudi Arabia's newish purchase say so!)

If you tell a lie, Big enough, Often Enough People will Believe It

-Goebbels, whose boss Hitler was the Muifi of Jerusalem's buddy.

Posted by: David All at January 16, 2007 10:59 PM | Permalink to this comment

Ah, what a wonderful world where voting rights are all that matter.

Just look, everybody in iraq has full voting rights! So they must have just as much a paradise as israeli arabs do!

Posted by: J Thomas at January 17, 2007 12:33 AM | Permalink to this comment

David All,
just go to the west bank. Tell me who own all the fucking land in Israel.
Tell me about the discrimination in land rights and housing.
Shove that up your fucking ass, bitch

Posted by: seth edenbaum at January 17, 2007 02:49 AM | Permalink to this comment

Hitler was the Muifi [sic] of Jerusalem's buddy.

Hitler granted asylum to the Mufti as a political refugee from the British Empire. As far as I know they only met once.

Exaggerating their relationship is one of the grand themes of Zionist propaganda.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 17, 2007 07:13 AM | Permalink to this comment

David Tomlin: Ah yes, tender hearted Hitler gave asylum to so many poor refugees from the horribly opressive Jewish-Controlled British Empire. (Tomlin, if you belief that nonsense, in the words of the Duke of Wellington, you will believe anything!)
Guess it is also Zionist Propaganda about the continued popularity of "Mein Kampf" in the Moslem World!

Edenbaum: Your need to curse me is proof of the smears you spout: Should go & see how the Palestinians are treated by their Arab brothers. If the Palestinians ever committed terrorism in Arab countries like they have in Israel, they would either be dead or put out in the desert to die. And the world would not give a damm, just as the world does not care about the genocide in Darfur. (Suppose in your mentality that is just dirty Zionist Propaganda, too!)

Posted by: David All at January 17, 2007 02:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

J Thomas: Guess to you all those Iraqis bravely going to the polls was just part of Administration Propaganda.

PS: How many elections with different political parties have there been in Saudi Arabia? Or is that such a utopia run by your Saudi Paymasters that they do not need choices in voting?

Posted by: David All at January 17, 2007 02:22 PM | Permalink to this comment

A fascinating roundup of reactions, denials, and speculations about the story of the Syrian negotiation is here.

There is a lot of conflict as to whether the negotiations really happened, whether the substance of the proposals on the table were reported correctly, and whether those doing the talking had the requisite authority to do so. What's also interesting is that there are some pretty vehement denials coming from the Syrian side that such a deal would be on the table.

Love to know whether any of this is real. Ideas, anyone? Does our host have any insight? He has been hinting over time that Syria is far more amenable to dealing than has been assumed by many of his commentariat.

Remember, though, that Isreal is not talking, in part, because our President does not want talks with Isreal

Posted by: Appalled Moderate at January 17, 2007 03:22 PM | Permalink to this comment

David Ali, I will let you think you won this argument. I see no value to me in continuing it.

I want to suggest to you, though, that you are doing nothing to convince anybody who isn't already convinced.

Posted by: J Thomas at January 17, 2007 05:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

Ah yes, tender hearted Hitler gave asylum . . .

Strawman.

Tomlin, if you belief that nonsense . . .

Exactly what are you disputing?

The Mufti led an uprising in Palestine, and as a result was wanted for sedition in British territory. Hitler allowed him to live in Germany. That is called granting asylum.

As best I can tell, you think 'asylum' is a nice-sounding word with positive connotations, and so don't like it being used in connection with Hitler. But that is not a factual objection.

Posted by: David Tomlin at January 17, 2007 06:19 PM | Permalink to this comment

Jesus, Mary & Joseph! (Hope I can mention that West-Bank born Jew & his family without offending anyone!) What I am saying Tomlin is that Hitler did not go around granting refugee to people unless they were Nazi or Fascist sympathizers.
He did not otherwise give refugee to people who were fleeing political persecution.

Posted by: David All at January 17, 2007 07:44 PM | Permalink to this comment

J Thomas: Untill we meet again.
(Brings his saber up to salute)*

*I've got to get out more!

Posted by: David All at January 25, 2007 02:33 PM | Permalink to this comment