The President of Israel has traditionally refrained from expressing himself on matters of public, political debate.  When Ezer Weizmann broke with that tradition, he was roundly criticized from all directions and part of Moshe Katzav's appeal was in the assump- tion that he would remove the controversy from his office.

The President has failed on two counts.  First, on several occasions, he has been too quick to express regret for actions of the IDF that have later proven to be justified, or at least understandable.  In doing so, he
has inadvertently aided our enemies.

More important, he has repeatedly injected himself into the debates between the Treasury and the special interest groups - almost always against the Treasury, with an occasional nod to "evenhandedness."  Katzav
began his career as a "social lobby" MK and is hardwired to see every social problem as something that the Treasury can solve, if only the officials there weren't so mean-spirited.  As such, he does not see that his public pronouncements are matters of public, political debate, but rather as matters of absolute moral truth and goodness.

Someone should set him straight.

Amotz Asa-El writes of "Yitzhak Shamir's rejection in 1987 of the London Agreement with King Hussein, a deal that would have at least preempted, if not alto- gether averted, the Palestinian onslaught that began later that year, and until this moment has yet to abate." 

And Shimon Peres writes on the same subject  that "King Hussein would have been the one to manage the Palestinian issue (as was proved in the agreement ... that Yitzhak Shamir thwarted, and which I know many of his supporters regret to this day)."

We don't know what might have happened.  By 1990 the PLO might have overthrown Hussein and begun their war against us with air and sea ports and allies and international standing as a state. 

We don't know what might have happened.  We do know that Oslo was a disaster and that Geneva is worse.  Asa-El surely knows this.  Peres does not.

In your news article about President Bush's remarks on the Geneva meetings, your anonymous staff wriites that the agreement "limits the 'right of return' for Palestinians who fled or were driven out during the
1948-49 war, and their descendants." 

Yet your own editorial says "Proponents claim that the Palestinians gave up their demand of 'return' and recognized the right of the Jewish people to a state in their own land. They did neither."

Seems to me you folks should make up your minds.  And your more responsible editors should rein in the anonymous and naïve staff.

Jonathan Lipow writes "Israel's current recession clearly began in 1995."

That cannot be the case.  Yitzhak Rabin was Prime Minister in 1995, therefore nothing as bad as a recession could possibly have happened then.   Lipow obviously doesn't read the papers or follow broadcast news.

The results of Yuli Edelstein's local version of the Logan Act are known in advance.  It will be passed.  It will be challenged from the left and the court will upheld the challenge on the grounds of freedom of speech.  After that, someone from the right will go to jail under the provisions of that same law.

But we need to go through the process anyway, to allow the legal system to continue undermining its own legitimacy.

You write :   Nowhere outside of North Korea and perhaps Burma is there such complete repression."  You might add Cuba and China to that list.

You quote Eric Yoffie as saying "Surely the Jewish people did not dream of Zion for 2,000 years in order to be a minority in someone else's state."

Actually, I think that most of our  ancestors were more concerned about Eretz Israel than they were about any political structure, the idea of Jewish sovereignty being totally foreign to them.

But that aside, if our ancestors dreams is what moves Yoffie, we should see him high on the bandwagon for Hevron and the Temple Mount.

I wonder if the same High Court of Justice that approved the screening of the lies in "Jenin Jenin" on the grounds of free speech would approve a film by Adir Zik and Barry Chamish called "Rabin Rabin."

The problem with the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee is not just that states would be able to "simply define away their support for terrorism," but even moreso that unholy coalitions of states would certainly define
many legitimate Israeli actions as terrorism.  Under the principle that says "first, do no harm," this UN Committee looks like bad medicine.

People go on about differentiating between radical Islam and moderate Islam, then the folks "from Dr. Phillips High School said the floats -- one depicting Young Republicans fighting "evildoers" and tearing down a statue of Saddam Hussein...were inappropriate and might 'alienate' some in the community."

Saddam is the enemy.  If his downfall disturbs some residents of Florida, then alienating them seems just the right thing to do.

You may burn the flag, but if you are accused of spitting on one of the Rabin memorials, you can lose your job on the spot.

Free speech in Tel-Aviv.

You write "The recommendation to sack him doesn't bind the police inspector-general, and Mizrahi's trusty allies in the prosecution and politics are sure to help him avoid reckoning. Allowing Mizrahi a free hand has now been incongruously rendered synonymous with the rule of law."

What is the problem in calling these allies by their names?

Bret Stephens, in his fine Logan-Locke piece, points out that according to the Beilin logic "why shouldn't the settler movement not search for its own obliging foreign patron?" 

Better ask why a group of non-settler Likudniks should not try to make a private deal offering to give the PLO some of the green-line Arab settlements.  Were that to happen, no one on the Left would want to discuss
the proposal on its merits.  They'd just call it "racist" and be done with it.

Your fine editorial on the silencing of Arutz 7 misses one point.  The Knesset has already passed legislation legalizing Arutz 7, but for the past four plus years, its implementation has been prevented by an unholy
alliance which includes the state prosecution, government ministers and others of dubious motivation.

n youe "Yekke" section, you tell us that Elyakim Haetzni "was a vociferous opponent of Palestinian autonomy until his death in 1991."

Your writer and editor might like to know that Haetzni's ghost has a regular spot on Arutz 7 every Monday morning, in which he comments on very current events.

Both your print edition and your Internet edition have headlines which speak of the bombing of the Liberty.  Yet very first sentence of the article(!) makes it clear that their were no bombs involved.

Don't the people who write the headlines have to read the articles first?   And don't the editors get paid to make sure that doesn't happen?

I assume that sooner or later I will get used to most aspects of the new Post.  I have gotten used to needing glasses for the phone book and can probably handle needing them for the WSJ page.  I will probably not get used to articles that start in the first section and end someplace else.

Your argument regarding the similarities between the Labor Courts and the Rabbinic Courts is badly flawed.  The Labor Courts exist in order to ensure that decisions will be tilted heavily towards one side in labor disputes.  That has proven to be the case.  The Rabbinic Courts exist to ensure that the traditional function of rabbis as adjuduicators within their communities doesn't become extinct and to keep matters based on Jewish tradition out of the hands of those who are neither inclined nor trained to respect it.  This latter consideration has proven more valid than anyone could have imagined.

Putting the Rabbinic Courts in the hands of Lapid reminds me of Ehud Barak's decision to give the police to the jurisdiction of Sholomo Ben-Ami - and we all know how that turned out.  The difference is that Ben-Ami knew it was a bad idea but agreed in order to get his seat at the table, while Lapid rubs his hands with glee.

On your Internet edition, the headline reads "Police may have found body of missing American student" while the article says "The body was found by a group of yeshiva students and Zaka volunteers."

Sounds like you need to make up your minds.

A rap on the knuckles is due the person who wrote your headline "Arad supporters demand prisoner swap include him."

Aren't we all Arad supporters, even those who would make a deal with the devil that excludes him?  Aren't we all supporters of all the prisoners of war and missing in action?

Professor Porath writes "Only after such a settlement [on refugees] was attained should Israel have moved on to the next stage, that of the territorial concessions, rather than the other way around."

"Only after" indeed.   Such an agreement was not possible then, nor is it now and everyone knew it.

The writers (I cannot in good conscience call them "negotiators") of the Oslo agreements wanted a signed paper at all costs, no matter how obvious it was that the content was worthless.  And what costs they have brought upon us!

Jonathan Rosenblum raises serious allegations in his column about Yehezkel Beinisch.

I expect that the Post will run a column telling the other side of the story.  Something about whether Rosenblum's son serves in the army.  That should settle the matter.

Your observation that "Israel's assessment of its neighbors' peace intentions in 1993 was about as accurate as its assessment of their war intentions in 1973," is more than valid.  The biggest difference may be our unending obsession with assessing blame for 1973 while refusing even to examine the question for 1993.  Do we have to wait until the body count
reaches 2700?

Your piece in the Jerusalem POST today says:
When, over a long period of time and with complete consistency, the Palestinians prove they accept Israel, negotiations can be reopened and the issues of the past decade - borders, resources, armaments, sanctities, residential rights - be taken up anew. 

You should have said "be taken up from scratch."  We have heard enough from our neighbors, from the Assads to the PLO, that negotiations must pick up where they left off.

The following appeared in an AP article on the Skakel murder case.  "Among questions raised by Bryant's statement are how three young black men in the largely white Belle Haven community the night of the murder did not appear in any police reports. In addition, their names did not surface during the trial."

Wouldn't that have been profiling, therefore illegal?

Those politicians who call the recent bus bombing a watershed which will prompt a strong reaction to dismantle terror, would do well to consider that had last week's attacks been considered a watershed, prompting a strong reaction to dismantle terror, then this weeks bombing might not have happened.

You write:
Islamic Jihad, Hamas (search), the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades (search) and the Israeli military had generally been sticking to a truce that began June 29.

Tell that to those Israelis killed and wounded since then.  Tell that to those Israelis who might have been killed had the IDF not killed the terrorists preparing bombs in Hebron and elsewhere.

Is someone keeping track of how many western politicians and news facilities call the perpetrators of the Baghdad car bomb "militants?"

Shlomo Avineri would have us believe that the opening of the cease fire line between the two parts of Cyprus is an example that we would do well to consider.  The good professor did not tell us how many suicide bombers and other terrorists crossed those cease fire lines before they were opened.  That would seem to me to be a relevant consideration for not
following the Cypriotic example.

It is interesting to compare the ease with which one can claim a causative connection between pollution around the WTC site and underweight babies with the PC difficulty of pointing out the high relationship - causative, to be sure - between the WTC destruction and the nationalities of its destroyers.

You wrote  "Certainly many Americans agree with Mr. Bush on his definition of marriage. But why should states with majorities that feel differently be barred from acting through their democratic processes?"

Your rhetorical question is wrong.  This has nothing to do with what "states with majorities" feel.  It is all about what state courts with majorities feel.

When the law is changed or manipulated in order to force Gilad Sharon to hand over his documents, will it occur to anyone to enforce the same law to force the same kind of revelations from Yitzhak Herzog, Doron Cohen and Tal Zilberstein?  Or will Barak's henchmen be allowed to continue to provide cover for their boss, as they have for the past four years?

You published a letter from Judy Buchman Ziv saying (among other things) "Few know that when children turn 18 a single mother of children loses all her points with the Income Tax Authority and ends up paying taxes like a single woman living with a cat."

This is not a situation peculiar to single parents.  Married parents' children eighteen and over are not acknowledged either.  In fact, when I had me identity card replaced some years ago, Misrad HaPenim refused to include those of my children who were over eighteen.

On Wednesday, 9 July, you printed the following the following by Daniel Pipes:

"Should Palestinian violence against Israel continue, [the Americans] would announce something along the lines of: 'Well, we did our best, but the Palestinians failed us. The road map is a good idea in principle, but
must be postponed until they are ready for it. We are giving up on it for now.' " 

Obviously this isn't fresh opinion.  Pipes surely knows that the violence against Israel is indeed continuing.  He must have written this weeks ago, before we learned that the violence would continue and before we learned
that there would be no announcement that Pipes predicted.

So why does the POST need to print it?  It's old hat.

Miguel Moratinas opens his farewell harangue "The State of Israel has just celebrated 54 years of existence. This is an irrefutable fact nobody should deny."

This fact which "nobody should deny" is wrong, of course, as we have recently celebrated fifty-five years of statehood.

It may be a trivial point, but it is indicative of the ignorance which Moratinas and his bosses impose upon us.  If they can't get the basics right, why should we expect them to get the story of the truncation of
Mandatory Palestine?  If they cannot count to fifty- five, why should we have expected them be able to count bodies in Jenin? If they can't read the local papers' headlines about fifty-five years of  indepen- dence, why should we expect them to read the Arab papers' explanations of a hudna designed to prepare for the next onslaught? If the correct words are so
unimportant, we should we expect them to distinguish between "militants" and "terrorists?"

And in any case, who is Moratinas to tell us what misstatements we should or should not deny. 

To your fine piece in the Washington Post, I might add one other thought.

Being exposed to news reports or - as in the Malvo case, living with the actual fear - while not necessarily creating prejuduce against the defendant, but may affect the sentencing due to a deeper understanding of
the heinousness of the crime.  That seems to me to be a good thing.

If, for instance, a jury in a drunken driving case hap- pens to include a person whose child had been injured by a drunken driver, justice would be well-served.

Mr F.W. de Klerk suggests that we accept the idea of blanket amnesty, as they did in South Africa.

I expect that his experience was with one and only one such amnesty.  What would he say about an unending cycle of murder followed by amnesty followed by more murder and amnesty and then again and again.

Perhaps he would understand as we do that each amnesty simply reinforces the those who tell the murderers that incarceration in the Jews' prisons
is brief and easily worth the price of more dead Jews.

You had a nice essay in today's Jerusalem POST.  Let me point out one thing. The Arab citizens of Israel by and large have no problems of dual loyalty. Most of them have no problem defining them first and foremost as Palestinians.

Your anonymous "Internet staff" wrote:
Elswhere, Palestinians shot at an Israeli vehicle near the West Bank settlement of Omarim, near Hebron. No one was injured in this attack.

Omarim is not "near Hebron" but south of Dahariyya and barely over the Green Line.  "Near Lehavim" or "near Meitar" would be more accurate.

If President Bush were to, say, have a revelation and announce that it isn't really necessary to dismantle unauthorized settlements, I wonder if Ariel Sharon (who surely does not have revelations) would decide that Bush is right or perhaps that Israel should take the initiative and dismantle them anyway.

You wrote:
Unfortunately, an Abu Mazen led Palestinian Authority will be business as usual in the Middle East — with the same disastrous consequences for
Israel, the United States, and most importantly the Palestinians. 

Why pray tell "most importantly?"  They know what they are getting and it makes them happy.  So lets save our sympathy for the real victims.

When you brought the "you can run but not hide" in your fine article, I thought to point out that President Bush is destroying his own legacy by giving terrorists a new place to hide - in the new Palestininian state.

But that would not be correct.  Terrorists needn't hide there.  They can go out their business right in the open, just as the locals do.

Uri Dan's description of the drivers who will using the road map is a good one.  But he misses a key analogy - that Mahmoud Abbas is not just a driver, but Arafat's chauffeur.  Abbas may do a better job technically
than the erratic Arafat, but it's the man in the back seat who is calling the shots. 

Dan doesn't mention this, not because he didn't think of it, but because doing so would make Ariel Sharon look bad.  And Uri Dan would never do that.

You wrote:
Lawmaker David Levy, a former foreign minister, said that for the same price Sharon was offering "the Left could have made peace long ago. This is no compromise, we are giving up everything."

The truth is that the further away he is from power, the easier it to see how under the bluster, David Levy always had more common sense than most of the sophisticates.  And more courage that most of the Sephardic pseudo-sophisticates in the Likud.

Whether we think it is a road map or a road trap, I cannot begin to express how utterly unacceptable it was for four Likud ministers to abstain.  The least we can expect from veteran leaders Livnat, Netanyahu,
Hanegbi and even Naveh, is to take a stand when a stand is called for.

Uriel Heilman tells us that that after Lemrick Nelson Jr got away with the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum, the "relative silence of ... Jewish community leaders on this matter is a sign of the current state of black- Jewish
relations, which has more to do with irrelevance than with apathy."

Are we permitted to speculate that the silence of the Jewish leaders has something to do with the fact that Rosenbaum was "only" a Haredi.

Your analysis on the rights of the minority (and by the way, there are quite a few here, not just one), ignores a critical distinction.  The rights of an individual minority member are not the same as the rights of a minority as a group.

In the case of the former, Israel does not badly at all.  In the case of the latter, anything that Israel does - except perhaps within the Ministry of Religions - is too much.

That is the formula for "Jewish and democratic."

Uzi Landau makes a fine case in his essay "Don't Reward Palestinian Terror." But he is wasting his energy telling us.

Uzi Landau is a minister in Ariel Sharon's government.  He should be telling his boss.

Uzi Landau's ministerial responsibility includes strategic relations with the United States.  He should be telling the US administration.

If he cannot or chooses not to, who needs him in the government?

Secretary Powell wants Israel to take "positive steps" such as removing security checkpoints to facilitate movement by residents of the PA.  The Secretary surely realizes that such steps will result in terrorist
attacks.

Why doesn't some enterprising reporter ask him how many dead Jews it will take before he allows us to reestablish those same checkpoints?  How many
dead Jews make a pogrom?

The Australian ISM member who was arrested Friday (and who may be deported - the POST didn't tell us which of the two was being deported!) was not identified in the POST article because she didn't want her name released.  Personally, I don't care what her name is, but I am surprised that the detainees personal preferences is now a reason for self-censorship.

Perhaps the POST is planning to extend this option to all those arrested for anything.

Your full page ad in the Jerusalem POST says "artists subject to change."

I suggest that after Ahinoam Nini decided that the words of Hatikva are suvbject to change, based on her personal political agenda, you ought to be dropping her from your concert.

We were saved from the unfortunate choice of [Moshe] Gershuni for the Israel Prize, by his refusal to attend the ceremony.  Limor Livnat invoked the law - for the first time - requiring the recipient to attend the ceremony and to shake hands with the dignitaries.

But now the Law on Unintended Consequences kicks in.  The Minister of education is a woman and when Aharon Barak retires, the President of the Supreme Court will be a woman, as well.  What will happen when an Orthodox man declines to shake her hand when he receives the Israel Prize for Talmudic Scholarship or Life's Work or any other prize?  Will there be a fuss?  Will the law be invoked?  Will the press remind us about Gershuni?

Or perhaps this is in fact an intended consequence.

I suppose we should Daoud Kuttab's return to your op-ed page, if only because he so bluntly reminds of truths that some of us would rather sweep under the rug.

Kuttab's headline reads "Palestine Isn't Iraq" and he challenges the notion that just as Iraq sans Saddam Hussein may translate into a kinder, gentler neighbor, so may Abbas instead of Arafat help improve security in our more immediate neighborhood.

Kuttab is correct.  Saddam Hussein oppressed the Iraqi people, who may not reflect his views towards us.  Arafat, though a corrupt despot who oppresses those under his rule, fully represents the inability of most of
them to accept the Israeli state of the Jewish People.

Some would like to believe that there are no"emeny peoples," only evil leaders.  We aren't sure if this is the case in Iraq, but it may indeed be the case.  We need Kuttab's straight talk to remind us that it certainly isn't the case in Arafatland. It isn't impossible, but it will take a large, ongoing dose of reality and leadership in Ramallah.  Neither Dr. Bush nor Dr. Sharon seems interested in prescribing this course of treatment.

Your essay in today's Washington Post is all fine and good, with one small problem.

Many of us subject all international proposals to a simple test:  Can Israel's enemies use it against us without provocation?  Yours fails that test and therefore needs reworking.

You write " It's not hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys if you get the chance to see what the enemy is using to shoot at you."

Put that if you will into the context of our daily battle with our neighbors in the Palestinian Authority whose guns come from ourselves and yourselves.  Then write some bad reviews of the road map for your friends
in the administration.

You write:
Ed Koch has suggested that the U.S. grant honorary citizenship to Tony  Blair, same as we did to Winston Churchill. Not a bad idea.

Yes it is a bad idea. It would by extension bring something to his foolish wife and who needs her?!

Colette Avital's rhetoric is pathetic.  Moreso because she probably doesn't see its absurdity.

She accuses Meir Sheetreet of "trying to pit one part of our nation against another in a ploy to divide and rule."  She means immigrants and veteran Israelis.  So by all means, let us not pit these two groups against one another.  Instead she suggests a united front of all worthy Israelis that takes money from those unworthies who live across the Green Line and yeshiva students - and just for good measure those govern- ment departments that are charged with providing religious services to all citizens.

Avital doesn't seem to realize that this is another example of "trying to pit one part of our nation against another in a ploy to divide and rule." 

 And why should she?  She doesn't see those she would ravish as potential voters for her Labour Party.

Avital may be chair of the Knesset's Aliya, Absorption and Diaspora Affairs Committee, but that doesn't mean that the immigrant community has to buy into her fantasies and divisiveness.  The immigrant community has more sense than that.

You wrote:
But this past Thursday, Whitney made another step in the right direction.  She performed at a fund-raiser for the Action Network, the group run by presidential hopeful Reverend Al Sharpton. Whitney sang two songs and looked terrific, even if she did break down in tears at one point.

"Right direction?"  Al Sharpton?  This is Whitney Houston's rehabilitation?

Charles J. Stephens writes that if President Bush wanted Iraq to be like Vietnam, "He could allow Arab fighters from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian territories to enter Iraq unimpeded. "

It seems to me that the more agents of terror we can lure into Iraq, the easier we will be rid of them.

I am pleased with the position that Nonie Darwish has taken and I appreciate your use of the term "coura- geous," considering the type of society she comes from.  I don't want anything I write below to detract
from my opening sentence and I have therefore cc'd Ms Darwish herself.

It seems to me that by publicizing Ms. Darwish's essay we are doing a disservice.  As I read the piece, I ima- gine the same things being written by Jews who feel alienated from true Judaism.  There is no shortage of
Jews who consider Torah Judaism to be fundamen- talist, who consider Zionism to be violent, racist or whatever negative mot-du-jour comes to mind, who
have the impression that Orthodox Judaism oppresses women or free thought or what-have-you.

Of course, "we" consider such Jews to misguided (or worse).  But we also consider that when the press, universities or our open enemies quote them,
it is manipulation or anti-Semitism or some other inherently antagonistic advocacy.  It often is, regardless of the often deeply-held feelings of
the quoted Jew.

I don't think it reflects well on us when we seem to be doing the same thing ourselves.  Saying "we are different from them" doesn't solve the issue.

(There was further correspondence with Nonie Darwish, if you are interested.  Ask me.)

This was a very good piece.

But we also might consider whether Clinton really meant "regime change" (a la 24 June 2002) when he kept having the terrorist Arafat as a house guest.

I agree with what Shmuley Boteach wrote in his review of "Queer Jews," but it seems to me that he walked right past an important in understanding the problem-  atic relationship between homosexuals and Orthodox Judaism.  Boteach suggest - rightly - that homosexu- ality "a sin akin to driving on Shabbat" and as such should not "invite social censure."

The fact that this is not the case, is a reflection of the homosexual community's attitude, rather than that of Orthodoxy.  A member of an Orthodox synagogue who drives on Shabbat generally understands and accepts
that he cannot be president of the congregation.  Open homosexuals seem not to understand this, so they set up their own congregations.  Has anyone ever heard of an Orthodox congregation for Sabbath desecraters?

The other thing that separates homosexuality from garden variety non-observance is the insistence on being regarded as a legitimate alternative life-style, which contains strong seeds of proselytizaton.  The Orthodox tent may be large, but there is a limit to the choices it can afford to offer.

President Bush says that if Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq, he will call off the war.

So Saddam will say he has left Iraq and the UN will send Hans Blix to Iraq to confirm whether Saddam has indeed left.  Then we can wait a few more months for these new Saddam-inspections and when Blix says he can't find him, the UN will declare that Saddam must have left.

How about this?

Limiting a three-parent family to two women and a man or two men and a women discriminates against homosexuals.  Why not three men or three women?

And what happens if the man is the brother of the non-biological mother?  Two of the three have become incestuous by law even though the physical relation- ship involves each with the third party, but not with each other.   (And if the third party dies, the brother and sister - or two brothers or two sisters - are left in an incestuous two-person marriage.

And as you implied, but did not state outright, why are children relevant to this?  If the issue is just parents, what happens if the child dies (or grows up and moves out)?

You write, regarding "dirty bombs:"
All that would be required subsequently would be a relatively modest installation, with protective shields and suitable gear for those employed in assembling the device. 

Why does anyone assume that a butcher like Saddam Hussein is interested in protecting his bomb assemblers?

Mark Steyn writes:
"The trouble with the UN is simple: At its inception, its structures reflected the realities of the Second World War victory parade; then, from the Fifties to the Eight- ies, it reflected the realities of the Cold War stalemate."

That's only true if we accept the French version of those two periods.  The real truth is that France wasn't very important then either.

And another thing.  Steyn's example of a suitcase nuke in Detroit is off-base.  I hardly expect the terrorists to target the largest concentration of Arabs in the US.  Unless of course they paln to say that the Jews did it.

Last week, David Weinberg wrote a critique of the anti-Israel positions of Henry Siegman, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Today's washington Post has an op-ed by Morton Halperin, another Senior Fellow at the CFR, expaining that the policy of containment has been working in Iraq and concludes that "It might even be more successful in bringing about an indigenous change in the regime."

Maybe Barry Chamish has been right all along.

Of all the post-election ruminations, I am most disturbed by the speculation that Am Echad's three MKs might be enlisted to pad the coalition.

By all logic, the main outline of matters of war and peace should be clear.  Surely no one can seriously consider that the two thirds of the electorate who object, should be forced to accept Shimon Peres as Foreign Minister or Amram Mitzna as Defense Minister.  In any case, the essential decisions in these fields will be taken by Ariel Sharon himself, without
regard to his coalition partners.

That is much less the case in the critical matters of economics.  The economy needs fixing, with both eyes focused on the long term.  Economic liberalization, reduction of government involvement and free markets have to become more than slogans and quickly.  Economic policy has to be more than the political expedients of transfers of cash from the middle class
to the poor and the rich.  The hand that controls the government's role in the economy must belong to someone who understands the notions of growth
and freedom.  The best person is Binyamin Netanyahu, but there is no chance of his being named Finance Minister, when the Foreign Ministry needs his talents.  (Had YBA done better at the polls, a case could be
made for giving the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to Natan Sharansky, whose international stature rivals Netanyahu's.  But that won't happen.)

The necessary economic steps will be a hard-sell to the populist wing of the Likud and will be an even bigger problem for Shas.  But if Sharon wants the Histadrut's Am Echad in the coalition, it's a sign that he doesn't even want to try to get the economic job done.

But there is an answer and his name (may my neigh- bors forgive me for speaking it out loud) is Lapid.

According to their pre-election statements, Shinui's two major labels are "middle class" and "secular."  Their platform shows no particular affection for the Labour-Meretz position on security.  Shinui, for all its
electoral success, has more to lose than to gain by spending another four years in opposition and Yosef Lapid himself can hardly count on being a force after the 2007 elections, when he will be seventy-six years old.  So Shinui has all the reasons in the world to find a way into the government being formed now.

Shinui's fifteen MKs represent only one-eighth of the Knesset.  One eighth that Sharon can manage without.  That realization should make Lapid jump at the possibi- lity of fulfilling - if he dares - one of his two raisons d'etre, the advancement of a middle class agenda.  The reform of the economy.

I expect that most of the Shinui voters were attracted by the "secular" label rather than the "middle class" label, but I also expect that Lapid himself knows that much of the secular demagoguery was just that.  Even
Lapid can understand that there are Haredim who are not studying and whom the IDF can conscript any time they wish, but the IDF itself declines to do so.  And even Lapid can understand that so long as that remains the case, the question of universal conscription requires getting around a few more bends in the road.

Lapid would not lose face if he told his supporters that they are being given the opportunity to solve one of their two major issues now, even if it means putting the other off until later.

(My neighbors might do well to consider that there is a good chance that Shinui will join the coalition sooner or later and that having Lapid dealing with the realities of Finance is clearly preferable to entrusting him with Justice.)

Would Shas join the coalition on those terms? Maybe.  Maybe not.  It doesn't matter.  What happens to Sharon's precious notion of a government of national unity?  Eighty-four MKs, including Shas, looks like national unity to me.  That's seventy percent of the Knesset.    Even seventy-three MKs with the door open to Shas without conditions isn't bad either.

Just please not Am Echad.

So no one can do anything about Iraq's chairmanship of the UN's Disarmament Conference because alphabetical order dictates all. 

What to you bet that when, after Iran and Ireland, Israel comes up in alphabetical order, all kinds of diplo- mats will come up with reasons to change the rules.

If Ms. Liora Glatt-Berkovitch is so proud of herself for leaking the police inquiry into the Sharon family finances, why did we need an investigation to disciver her role.  Why didn't she speak up proudly two weeks ago?

Election Commission Chairman Cheshin criticized MK Uri Ariel for saying that Cheshin's ruling allowing the MK Tibi and the Balad party to run, are contrary to the will of the people.  I don't think that even Cheshin in
his most arrogant moments really believe that his decision reflects public will. What it does reflect is his power – rightly or wrongly - to overrule public will.  MK Ariel simply stated what most people would consider fact.

Cheshin then added that Ariel would do well to con- sider the sages' advice "the wise should consider their words carefully."  That sounded to me like a threat.

I don't much care who represents Israel in the Eurovision song contest, nor do I much care how they choose the song.

But I recognize an advertising con when I hear one.  The radio ads tell us how wonderful it is that the public gets to choose the song.  So long it's one of the four that were all written by the same person.  Some freedom of choice.

Amnon Lord would have us vote for the Likud  because " [t]he stronger the Likud is, the greater the chances Binyamin Netanyahu will be the next
foreign minister. Netanyahu is the only one who can lead the diplomatic offensive against terrorism."

I have a much better idea.  Netanyahu is not the only person with the international standing and good sense to be Foreign Minister, but he is the only person with the background and determination to work at repairing
the economy. 

Netanyahu for Finance Minister.  Shcharansky for Foreign Minister.  So my vote will go Yisrael BaAliyah.

You want to get the Times and friends to choose abstinence over condoms?  Here's how. 

Find a "condom demon" who is bigger that the "abstinence demon."  Start a rumor that the condom makers are all Jews or even Israelis, and that they
gain from promiscuity. 

"Zionist plot" trumps "religious right" every time.

"The law is an ass" is neither an anonymous "old maxim" nor did it originate with "a US Supreme Court justice just under 100 years ago" as Aharon Goldberg claims.  The quote belongs to Mr. Micawber, of Dickens' David Copperfield.

Several problems with your piece entitled "No Palestinian Need Apply."

First of all, the particular candidates who were disqualified are documented as support terror.  They say now that they don't because they don't consider killing Israelis to be terror, but rather legitimate ... blah-
blah-blah.

Second, there are other Israeli Arabs running for election, including in parties that are overwhelmingly Jewish.  So your headline is simply false.

Third, in reporting the Likud election irregularities, you overlook that several Labour candidates are under investigation by police, and have also chosen to remain silent.  But while Sharon is dealing sternly with his suspects, the Labour Party just goes along it's merry way as though it's the normal way of doing business, which in their case, it is.

We expect better of Fox.

I join Shmuley Boteach in not caring what the Mormons do with me after I'm dead, but it's not quite as simple as that.  It's one thing for a stray cousin to baptize his dead relatives.  It is quite another for the Mormons as a group to do wholesale baptism of Holocaust victims.  Simply stated, it is grossly offensive.  (The Mormons implicitly recognize the
offensiveness by limiting third party baptisms to dead people.)  That was the issue that led to the original agreements - the ones that were violated by our Mormon friends.

There is a second issue.  Although I don't care if my Mormon third cousin (the one who carries my great- great-grandfather's name) baptizes me, but I cannot lead him further astray by handing over my gen files for his use.  That would by putting a stumbling block before a blind man. 

You write "We find ourselves in agreement with Yossi Beilin, who stated that a partial cease-fire is not a cease-fire."

This notion is neither particular to Beilin nor is it prominent in the worldview which he presents.  It is rathetr a fairly broad national consensus.  You could have written the same sentence using Avigdor
Lieberman's name in place of Beilin's.

So what did the POST gain by invoking Beilin's name in this context.  Are you trying to make him sound just a bit mainstream?  Or are you trying to ingratiate yourselves with his foreign supporters?

After establishing that the government - and those it authorizes - has a responsibility to speak for the people, Caroline Glick concludes "Yossi Beilin may speak for Europe. He does not speak for Israel. It is past time for those who do to make themselves heard."

But that will hardly solve the problem.  Sharon meets with the terrorist leadership and talks openly of the unthinkable.  Olmert would have yellow stars on certain exports.  Shalom - we the less said, the better.

I am not sure exactly whom Ms. Glick has in mind as our spokesman.

Maariv's headline regarding the Geneva meetings is "Hope or Naivete?"  The POST writes "A lot of good intentions were behind the Geneva document." 
Others use the terms "foolish" or "wrong-headed." 

Maybe those endearing terms are relevant to the groupies, but I think it's high time to use words like "evil, "wicked" and "illegal" to describe the leadership of this movement to destroy Israel, the state and its people.   There is no other way to describe those who see the killings of civilians - or in the Netzarim case, disarmed soldiers - as a fulcrum to move public
opinion in their direction.

Should the Geneva script play itself out, God forbid, the groupies will be surprised with the results, the same way they were surprised by the results of Oslo.  But the leaders - and first among them, Beilin - will say proudly that this had been their intention all along.

Only when the enemy has been identified, can we begin to try to thwart his machinations.

I have lived in Israel for more than thirty years, yet I fail to understand where the National Labor Court gets the authority to order the government to stop using the Israel Shipyards dock.

This is not a labor issue, it is a political issue, an economic issue.

It is though the Histadrut were to strike over child allowances and the Labor Court were to order the government to do whatever the Histadrut might want in this non-Labor field.

Haven't we had enough of courts that overstep their authority?

The headline said it all - "Moshe Katsav is wrong."  But there is nothing new about that.  Since he began considering himself a national leader, rather than a political one, and certainly since he assumed the
presidency, Katsav seems to have decided that he must choose his public statements according to what "Haaretz" would think of him.  Regardless of the fact that "Haaretz" doesn't think of him at all, no matter what he says.

Caroline Glick writes "The benefit to Israel to be accrued from this deal is clear...The Avitan, Avraham and Sawayid families will at last be able to bury their sons."  Why do we assume this?

Why don't we assume that the Hizbollah scum won't slip in some remains of their own and keep back at least one Israeli body for the next time.  And what make us think that our government won't give them more later?

Ralph Peters writes "If the populace continues to harbor our enemies and the enemies of a healthy Iraqi state, we need to impose strict martial law. Instead of lavishing more development funds on the city - bribes that aren't working - we need to cut back on electricity, ration water, restrict access to the city and organize food distribution through a ration card system. And we need to occupy the city so thickly that the inhabitants can't step out of their front doors without bumping into an American soldier. "

Israel is regularly condemned for doing ever so much less.

To save us the trouble of doing it ourselves, Hillel Halkin has examined the "Geneva initiative" and found it wanting.  What Halkin doesn't even bother examining is whether what the Arabs are being told is similar to
what he expects to get in his mailbox.

I don't understand Arabic muself, but those that do tell us that the Arabs are getting an entirely different version.  Halkin takes fifteen paragraphs to say "Thanks for trying - but no thanks."  Had he read the
what the Arabs are being told, he would have needed just one sentence and could have skipped the politeness.

You write (about Yossi Beilin and friends):
Certainly, the initiative is not illegal: Israel is not America and the Logan Act is not the law of this land.

The fact that there is no Logan Act here does not preclude the Beilin actions from being illegal.  Early last week in his weekly Arutz 7 column, Yoram Sheftel quoted chapter and verse on why it is very much illegal.  Maybe you can get him to write an essay for the Post.

Evelyn Gordon's suggestion that the universities "simply begin classes as scheduled" is naïve.  Many (dare I say "most?") professors would refuse to teach under those conditions - whether in some sort of workers' sympathy or to keep in line with the politically correct or just from laziness.

As an editorial, your comparison between the way the PA treats Israeli and US demands for arrests is useful.

It would also be useful to make another comparison.  On the rare occasions that the PA arrests those who kill Israelis, they are charged with actions detrimental to the PA, rather than murder.  I haven't read what those who killed the Americans were charged with.

You quote Ariel Sharon as saying "If it becomes clear that [Elhanan Tennenbaum] did something illegal, he will be punished here. We cannot let Hizbullah act as our representative to punish him."  Will anyone remember that when the courts here decide that he needn't be punished because he has suffered enough?

What do you bet that the Mitzna-Beilin agreement, which supposedly includes the cancellation of any claims of a "right of return," includes a provision for "family reunification" that will increase the population of the State of Israel by a million Arabs?

In these days of embedded reporters, why aren't we taking foreign reporters through the Rafiah tunnels to show them what is on the other end?  Are we afraid that the soldiers inside the Egyptian army camps won't
respect their press cards?

I shall not quarrel with your opinions, your analysis or your conclusions.   There doesn't seem much point.

I must say something, however, after reading this sentence.  "Israel must return to the so-called Green Line -- the border before the 1967 Six Day War."

If there is anything "so-called" it is the term border, as you use it.  I am sure you know the history of the lines drawn since the beginning of the Mandate, so I shall not rehash it.  You certainly know that there is no real difference between the Arabs on the two sides of the Green Line (aside from the fact that those on the western side have civil rights and those on the eastern side do not - even though they had a an administration run by their brethren for the latter part of the 1990's).

The same comment pertains to your use of the term "Palestinian areas," for the same reason.

The notion that "no one wants to go to Israel" is patently false, although we have seen better days.  The fact that "people want to leave" is not news - since the beginning of the Zionist enterprise, many have dropped out.

In some areas, Israel is definitely losing.  The opinion columns of Amereican newspapers is a prime example.

The recent radio ads urging us to pay the TV tax includes the promise that if everyone would pay, the tax would be substantially reduced.  Let's leave aside the question of whether the government would actually lower the tax and examine the claim itself.

What the IBA - which has never had any financial accountability - is telling us is that we taxpayers must bear the burden for their inability to collect their own tax.  If we have to have this onerous Bolshevik
leftover, how about at least saying that if they leave part of their tax uncollected, they should have to reduce their operating budget by the same percentage.  They will tell us that the public would suffer - but the
truth is that the public is no longer their hostage and most couldn't care less if they disappeared entirely.

Chris, all last year (and now again), Kurt Warner reminds me of Joe Hardy.  The difference is that when Applegate turned Hardy back into plain old Joe Boyd, he had the sense to get off the field.

Shimon Peres says "Arafat outside will be more effective and more negative than he is today." 

For a change, Peres is right.  Leave Arafat where he is.  Just make things more difficult by cutting off his electricity and water twenty hours a day, interfering with his phone service and keeping political visitors away.

When you wrote: 
The conventional wisdom of the time held that the proper way to attack terrorism was to eliminate poverty and its other "root causes" such as the Arab-Israeli conflict.

you no doubt meant to add "and those pesky Jews."

When Ehud Barak formed his government, he surprised many by which ministers received which portfolios.  None was more surprising then Shlomo Ben-Ami as Minister for Internal Security.  Ben-Ami really wanted
to be Foreign Minister and most expected he would settle for a senior position affecting social policy.

By the time the riots started, Ben-Ami was acting Foreign Minister, in addition to his Internal Security post.  The fact that Ben-Ami performed badly was not just his own fault.  The fact that he was in a postion for
which he was not qualified and didn't want, together with the preoccupation with his second - preferred - portfolio, made his failure inevitable.  The responsibility for that goes exclusively to Ehud Barak.

You have the following headline on your main news page "Bomb Destroys Jerusalem Bus"

followed by the following smaller line:
"Attack kills at least 20, wounds 100."

That's the way you see it?  First the bus.  In smaller print the 120 people?

What Senators Kyl and Schumer write about Wahhabism is correct.  But there is nothing new about it.  Daniel Pipes, for one, has been saying all of this for years, which is why many Islamic groups in the US have condemned his nomination (and subsequent interim appointment) to the US Institute of Peace.   Kyl and Schumer are right that the Saudis must choose sides.  They should remind their fellow senators that the Senate too must choose sides and remind them which side Pipes is on.

An Associated Press article contains the following sentence:

Sharon made it clear during the Cabinet meeting that there can be "no progress toward a Palestinian state without full implementation of their obligations," said an Israeli official who briefed reporters on condition
of anonymity.

I cannot help wondering why the official insisted on anonymity.  Isn't the demand for "full implementation" an integral part of stated Israeli government policy?  Or perhaps Mr Anonymous is afraid of being caught in
error the next time the Prime Minister changes our stated policy.

What exactly is the point of releasing prisoners as a "confidence building measure" when those whose confidence is supposedly being built consider it a fraud and inadequate?  I can think of another definition of "confidence" that seems more relevant here - the scam that the government is putting over on the citizenry.

The only confidence the PA is building is the one that says that agreements are only stepping stones to the next set of demands.

One of the problems with the term "painful conces- sions" that the politicians of left and right are trying to foist upon us is that when they get to talking about the concessions themselves, they don't sound like they are in any kind of pain.  At least not since Rabin's first
handshake with Arafat.

After the signing of Oslo II, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer was brimming with undisguised glee when he cackled about the end of the idea of "Eretz Israel HaSheleima."  We heard no pain from Barak at Camp David, nor do we see any from Sharon now as he releases terrorists from jail.

I do not fully agree with Yossi Klein Halevi's piece about Hevron, but if a few of our politicians had his attitude, it would put add some sorely needed credibility when they talk about painful concessions.

Andre Jnejhan says "There is a shred of dignity holding the sign rather than just begging on the street," he said. "They [the homeless] are grateful."

The advocates don't want their clients to feel grateful (except to the advocates themselves).  "Grateful" is degrading.  They want them to feel entitled.

Your editorial "Avoid the populist trap" was right on.  It seems to me that the broadcast media and certain politicians are trying to mold this into an economic version of Four Mothers.  Won't our supposed leaders ever learn?

Matthew Gutman tells us why the release of prisoners is an important strategic issue for the PA, but he misses a main point.

Getting prisoners released early and often is essential for their ability to recruit more terrorists.  Seeing their friends and brothers growing old in jail would be a strong disincentive to follow in their footsteps.
Unfortunately, our own government goes along with the PA's interests in sustaining terror.

Your reaons against releasing PA prisoners are corerect but incomplete.  Releasing prisoners at the end of hostilities is supposed to be mutual.  There can be no talk of prisoner releases without including those
Israelis, dead or alive, who are held by the PA's allies.

Like many others, I have had serious reservations about the wall which we are building in the general area of the Green Line.  It will give us a false sense of security.  It is a waste of good money.  It won't work.  It
sets the outer limits of our opening negotiating posi- tion, from which there can be only further withdrawal.  It divides between two groups of Jews and makes "legitimate" targets of those outside the wall.

But now that the US administration is saying that we must not (may not?) build the wall, the pros and cons need to be reconsidered.

First of all, the intolerable infringement by the US on our sovereignty must be rejected.  Secondly, the wall has one useful purpose, which may outweigh all the drawbacks.  There will come a day when our enemies will assemble two hundred thousand "peaceful demonstrators," including women and children, in Kalkilya and march them through Kefar Sava to the sea. 

Stopping that alone may make the wall an absolute necessity.

If, as Masha Lippman describes, there is Chechnyan attempt to copy Palestinian terror, we would be well advised to consider why.  And so would President Putin.  Chechnyan terrorists are trying to emulate
Palestinian terrorists because they see that Palestinian terror works.

The fruits of Palestinian terror are being promoted by Putin himself, both as part of the Quartet and through traditional Russian policy.

One might hope that Putin would draw the appropriate conclusions.  But one would be wrong.

Asher Blass concludes his essay on pension funds with the following remark about our inability to trust the government. "Those who worked year after year with the expectation that they would receive a certain level of benefits are not going to be receiving it, after all."

One might ask - as Blass did earlier - why is this the governments' fault and why to other taxpayers have to foot the bill.

The answer to that is in what Blass neglects to mention.  Many of, by virtue of our workplaces, have been forced to participate in these pension plans, even though we suspected all along that when our time came, there would be no money left for us.

Our government seems determoned to send the IDF and its bulldozers to destroy Jewish communities.  When Jewish protestors do what the ISM and
others do when the IDF destroys terrorists houses, what instructions will our government give?  I expect and fear that the Jewish government which handles the protectors of terrorists with kid gloves will use brass
knuckles and worse against our own patriotic protestors.

Your piece about art and Catholics at Princeton isn't news here in Israel.

A few years ago, the sculptor Yigal Tumarkin vented his anti-religious spleen by including in an exhibit a pig wearing phylacteries.  The religious objected but "freedom of art" won out.

Around the same time, a young immigrant from Russia named Tatiana Susskin did a political cartoon on a handbill, portraying Muhammed as a pig.  She went to jail for two years.  If I remember correctly, her parole was denied because she was considered a continuing danger to public safety - but I mat be wrong on that.

You wrote:
French Embassy spokesman Bernard Chappedelaine said that although common EU policy is to go ahead with meetings with Arafat, he knows of no pressure on the Bulgarians. 

It seems to me that we should encourage visitors to visit Arafat.  They should stand outside his compound and throw him bananas.

Jay, the following two paragraphs were lifted from an AP report on foxnews.com - about the ex-priest who jumped from the hotel.

The manhunt for Widera had expanded from Milwaukee and California's Orange County to Tucson, Ariz., El Paso, and finally Mexico, said U.S. Marshal William Kruziki.

"His death in Mexico is a sad ending to a tremendously complicated and sad life," Kruziki said.
 

The Marshal said?  What is he, a parapsychologist?  Or maybe he wants to be appointed a judge?

The POST published the following strange sentence about the Eurovision Song Festival, from an AP piece: It has grown from seven founding participants to 26 this year, stretching from Britain to Israel. 

Stretching from Britain to Israel indeed?  Would that be west to east or what?  Don't we count Ireland, Portugal and Iceland?  AP may not know better, but the POST should.

It is clear from listening to Mahmoud Abbas' words of obeisance for Yasser Arafat, that no matter what anyone wishes, Arafat remains the joker in the deck with the potential for making anything in the road map program irrelevant.

There is, however, one absolute, inevitable fact that everyone seems to be ignoring.  The Shabak might call it "incitement" when I say so, but every day that passes, brings the septuagenarian terrorist precisely one day closer to dropping dead.  This development will be met with surprise and dismay by the State Department, the Europeans, Haaretz and others, but it
will undoubtedly reshuffle the deck regarding anything done in the meantime.  Nothing will remain undone, except of course Israel's one-way concessions.

So let's save ourselves the trouble and recriminations and tell President Bush that it is obvious that PA regime change can have only one form - the death of the Chairman, whether from natural causes of by the hands of his brothers.  Then, after the dust settles, we can talk about a road map.

You write:

The most generous peace offer in the history of the conflict was answered with the most sustained wave of Palestinian suicide bombings in Israeli  history
 

That is wrong.  The "most generous offer" was made 29 November 1947.  That wasn't enough for them either.

Gentlemen, I think I figured out the issue.

This morning the rabbi was discussing the weekly portion and in particular Lev. 22, v. 31-32.  He made the well-known point (based on the existence of v 32 after v 31 is already written) that there is a responsibility to
sanctify God's name, above and beyond the keeping of His commandments and that that responsibility increases with the stature of the man.

My immediate thought was of William Bennett.  The issue isn't the legality of gambling.  The issue is something comparable (in a sort of secular way) to what we call hillul Hashem - desecration of God's name.

William Bennett is guilty of desecration of [fill in the blank].

I join many others in applauding the first stage of the United States' success in Iraq and hope that the establishment of a new regime there follow that pattern of success.

According to press reports here in Israel, Arafat's protégé Mr Mahmoud Abbas has not condemned the murder of Gideon Lichterman by his own Fatah agents, earlier this week.

We have heard further that the United States has not called upon Mr Abbas to do so.  This is distressing, to say the least, and does not seem to be in keeping with President Bush's speech of 24 June 2002.

The usual "condemnations" by PA spokesmen speak of the counter-productive nature of terrorist attacks, without saying that murder is wrong per se.  For some reason, we (here and Israel and those back home in the US) have accepted this sort of condemnation as the norm for the PA.  But in declining to call even for that, we see another step in the direction of encouraging terrorism and its appeasement.

The charges against the Bush administration for responsibility for the looting of Iraqi museums and libraries reminds me of nothing more that the Kahan Commission's "findings" that Ariel Sharon was responsible for Sabra and Shatilla.  The difference this time will be the strong stance of the Bush administration itself, support which Sharon never received either from the Americans or from his own colleagues and countrymen.

Alexander Zvielli's quote from the Palestine Post of April 20, 1938 mentions "forty 'illegal' Jewish immigrants."  Putting "illegal" in quotes reminds us that this term must be put in the political context of the law concerned.  The "law" that made these immigrants "illegal" was rightly scoffed at by the Palestine Post.

The Jerusalem Post, on the other hand, has no problem with the term "illegal settlements," even when some of these homes are within the boundaries of Jewish municipalities and sanctioned by them. The Post would
do well to replace the term "illegal" with the less incediary term "unapproved."   The ghosts of the Palestine Post would surely approve.

I certainly don'tknow just what happened to Tom Hurndall, but from the POST article by Tovah Lazaroff AND Margot Dedkevitch I can see that there are two versions - one from his friends and one from the IDF.

They begin with a statement of "fact" based on the friends' version, backed up with a quote.  Then after the IDF's "different view," we get nine paragraph of the friends' rebuttal.  So what is a person to think but that the POST accepts the friends' view over that of the IDF.  There is even a reference to the death of Rachel Corrie which was also laid at the IDF's door by the press until David Bedein filled in the facts.

So this reader will withhold judgement until we hear  from Bedein.  Unfortunately the casual reader will put up another large black mark for the IDF and move on to the next atrocity.

You wrote:
They will fight as long as they can be sustained by reinforcements, money and supplies coming in from those nations--Syria, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Yemen--who sent them there in the first place.
 

... and the autonomous Palestinian Authority.

You suggest that the time is now right for Israel to be able to take the "road map" negotiations seriously.

You might consider what has happened since President Bush laid out his vision of regime change for the Palestinian Authority last June.  Or rather what has not happened.  There was no regime change.  There was not even a cosmetic change of faces at the top of the PA pyramid.  There has been an attempt to add another subordinate face to the PA leadership, but even so, the PA regime is so resistant to change that they cannot even go though the charade smoothly and the Abbas appointment is still pending.

Let us remember, Mahmoud Abbas has a PhD in Holocaust denial and he has made it clear from the beginning that his notion of a two states includes
an Israel overrun by several million Palestinians, alongside a Palestine rid of all Jews.  Israel has every reason to be wary.  Repairing the damage of the Oslo agreements is difficult.  Repairing the damage of this
new terrorist state will be even moreso.

David Newman's self-pitying farewell speaks volumes about why it is time for him to go.  I used to be one of those who tried to engage him in discussion from time to time, but as he and reality parted company, I stopped even reading his columns.

The best example is his absurd remark "the majority of media outlets being taken over by the center and center-right" as though it is fact.

So I hope that he now has more time to enjoy the "shop and shul" Sabbaths that he thinks would contribute to mutual understanding.  Or to spend extra time with his students to make sure they see things the way he wants.

You write:
The council would then be recognized not only by the U.S.-led coalition  but also by the United Nations, as the sole legitimate representative of the Iraqi state. 

Consider that the French and friends might arrange to shoot down that UN recognition just for spite.

Avishai Raviv has been found not guilty.  Some will say that now the matter of the supposed conspiracy to murder Yitzhak Rabin is closed.

Others will say that it has expanded, to include the state prosecution who chose to present precious little of of the available evidence and the court who chose to ignore that which was presented.

The unanswered questions remain unanswered and although the press remains uninterested, the truth will not go away.

So US troops rescued Jessica Lynch from the hospital where she was being held captive.  How long will it be before someone accuses the US of war crimes for sending soldiers into a hospital?

Larry Defrner asks for proof that the US bombing wasn't the cause of the deaths of civilians in the Baghdad market.  It has been suggested that a large bomb dropped from high up might just create a little- bitty crater at the place of impact.  The absence of such a crater might just mean that the explosives were placed at ground level by someone on the ground.

Seems esay enough to find out.  If of course anyone with access to Baghdad really wants to know.

Your internet site carries the banner headline "EXCLUSIVE:  Jenin plaza named for bomber of US troops."

How can it be "exclusive" if it was on Arutz-7 yesterday?

Victor Davis Hanson writes:
"Our bombs are among the most selective in the history of warfare, hitting the headquarters of fascist killers, the modern-day equivalents of Hitler, Goering, Ribbentrop, and Himmler "
 

When the Israeli government orders this kind of thing, it's called  "targeted killing" and widely condemned by our friends (not to mention our enemies) as "execution without trial."

The only thing objectionable about Daniel Friedman's definition of "stupidity" is that it neglects to include the criticism of the cartoon. Excluding Friedman from those with the right to free speech and demanding
that you extol the life and goals of poor misguided Ms. Corrie is sounds pretty stupid to me.

General Franks does't know if Saddam is alive.  Why not send Hans Blix to see if he can find out?

There is a substantial difference between the freedom to speak publicly and a requirement to do so.  I am pleased, but not surprised,  to see that Justice Scalia understands that.  I am displeased, but not surprised, that some of the media does not.

In defending its support of the Bush "road map," our government spokespeople tell us that the preconditions for change in the PA - regarding both terror and its internal structure - ensure that nothing
substantial will be demanded of us unless those preconditions are met.

Our govenrment seems to have forgotten that should the US government - for reasons completely unconnected to facts on the ground - declare that
terror has been reduced to "an acceptable level" or if "progress has been made" on a new improved PA, we will be stuck with the results.

It is of no use to insist that we trust President Bush on this.  He will have his own considerations in the run-up to the elections only twenty months away.  And if he loses those elections, his succussor is liable to have a whole different agenda.

Douglas Kmiec writes in the Wall Street Journal (reprinted in the POST) that the US Supreme Court ruled long ago that one legislature cannot pass
legislation and require a larger majority of a successor legislature to change it.

Our own Supreme Court would be well advised to consider that obvious bit of common sense, in respect to our Basic Laws.  Changing or repealing these Knesset laws require a super-majority, despite the fact that a simple majority is sufficient to pass them.

I am not sure why everyone seems to be up in arms about the survey which showed that high school students don't know who wrote "Hatikva."  The POST, the radio and TV and other newspapers all seem to have found this particular example to be the emblem of ignorance.

I expect that there are many matters that have been and will be more important to the continuity of the Jewish People, about which hich school students are even more ignorant. 

I mean when you get right down to it, why do we need to know who wrote it.  Even "Do they know the words?"  seems more important.

Jay, aren't the Albanians - of whom you speak so highly - Muslims?  The kind we are supposed to be looking for?  Moderates who condemn the militants?  What the ones in DC and Dearborn won't do?

President Chirac said the the Eastern Europeans "missed a good opportunity to shut up."  Didn't he notice that they did just that?  When all the anti-west crowd was out protesting the impending war against Iraq, Eastern Europe did in fact shut up.  Not just the governments, but the people as well.

I heard a radio ad on army radio, aimed specifically at soldiers, saying basically "have as much fun as you want, get as drunk as you want - just make sure you have a designated driver."  Had this been sponsored by one of our traffic saftey organizations, I would have understood.  But the sponsor was the IDF Alcoholism Prevention Unit.

It seems to me that "get as drunk as you want" is not the appropriate message for the IDF Alcoholism Prevention Unit, regardless of the value of designated drivers.

You write:
Negotiations have been put on hold, to put it mildly, during the violence that began after Mr. Sharon's provocative visit in September 2000 to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

One would think that after this many months, the P-G would have gotten past the notion that the current war is in anyway connected to Ariel Sharon's legal visit to the Temple Mount.  Using the supposedly neutral
"began after" is no excuse - would you say that the 9/11 terror "began after" President Bush had breakfast.  (Besides, the first murder was the day before Sharon's tour, so "began after" isn't even correct.)

Your Shlomo Gazit believes it would be counter- productive for Iraq to attack Israel with missiles because "it would force the European 'dissidents' to admit their mistake and add their support to the war."

Whom does Gazit think he is kidding?  Nothing will "force" the those who still oppose disarming Iraq to admit to a mistake.  It's as unrealistic as expecting Beilin, Peres and friends to admit their mistakes of the last decade. 

Does Rabbi Paul M. Katz of Maaleh Adummim truly believe that the Haredi-bashers will be satisfied to see yeshiva graduates serving as army chaplains?  Hasn't he heard them mock those who "only" serve as kashrut
supervisers?  Or those whose service is postponed until after getting a yeshiva education.  Is Rabbi Paul M. Katz trying to kid us or perhaps just himself? 

That, sir, is not the question.  The question is what does SOUTH Korea want.  The answer seems simple, at least to me.  It wants to achieve nuclear status via reunification.  And it has distracted everyone enough
to allow it to happen.

You write:
Often — too often — this boils down to the racist and maternalistic deceit that any barbarity can be condoned if it is committed by darker-skinned peoples against lighter-skinned peoples.
 

Except in the Sudan!

Naomi, the following is from www.memri.org, from an article about why Jos Lieberman is good for the Arabs.

"The [first] reason is the Jewish reservation itself, the fear that 'the Jews will be blamed for everything done by the American administration' - as stated by the [Zionist] Anti-Defamation League - this fear which could lead the Jewish president to offer the Palestinians what was not offered by the sole Catholic president (John Kennedy) and the heads of all the Protestant denominations who followed him to the White House, ending with George Bush." 
 

Now what exactly was not offered by JFK?  Certainly not Judea, Samaria and Gaza.  They already had those.  So what is it that Kennedy didn't offer and that they expect from Lieberman?  And does Lieberman know it?

You write:
Labor cannot afford to be too moderate, for fear of offending the screwballs in Meretz
 

Amram Mitzna and Shimon Peres do not care to be "moderate."  Their positions are not influenced by Meretz but by their own delusions.

The POST editorial staff is free with its advice to foreign media who use the word "militant" rather than "terrorist" and similar instances where the choice of words expresses an editorial viewpoint.

The POST might consider its own position in similar instances.  Arutz 7 is not "pirate."  It broadcasts from outside Israeli territory.  "Pirate" (which might be relevant for many other radio stations heard in Israel) is
an unwarranted pejorative.  "Offshore" is a neutral word which accurately describes Arutz 7.

"Illegal settlements" is another such term - and one which the POST would not consider using for the Gilboa fence, for instance.  A better term is
"unauthorized."

A few days ago, I left Jerusalem and got in the left turn lane for Giv'at Shaul.  There were about twenty passenger cars in front of me.  The light is long enough for six or seven left turns, so the prospective wait was
reasonable.

But as I watched the traffic, I saw that only eight of the cars in front of me actually turned left.  The rest made U turns.  This not only increased the length of the line, but slowed it down, since only three or four cars made it on each light.

It seems to me that someone should find out what traffic problem all these drivers are trying to solve.  Solve that problem and then prohibit U turns at the Giv'at Shaul intersection.

If a married couple were to decide to clone themselves, wouldn't we expect the two clones to be attracted to one another just as the originals were?

Would these two siblings be dabbling in incest or would we say that the whole marriage has been cloned on to a next generation?

When Amram Mitzna says that he has no common language with those who dream of "Greater Israel," he does more than imitate Shinui's demonization tactics.  He reminds us that when Labour speaks of "painful concessions," they mean something well beyond the surrender of Hevron and parts of Jerusalem, which they wouldn't consider painful at all.

Labour told us that back when one of the Oslo agree- ments was approved and Binyamin Ben-Eliezer cackled famously "That will put an end to all those dreams of a complete Eretz Israel."

Maybe now people will pay attention.

Sir, you are very naïve if you believe that Pres Katzav will not offer the PMship to someone other than the leader of the largest party.  Katzav wants nothing more than to be liked, especially by the press.

The only way he would even consider such a step is if Mitzna as number two could convince him of his viability.

You tell us that according to Meir Sheetreet's latest proposal "Candidates to a party's central committee would also need to have been party members for at least four years to be eligible [for a party's internal elections]."

Doesn't Sheetreet know that this is the country of Roman Bronfman and Gesher and the  Center Party?  Would he disallow Yossi Beilin and Yael Dayan from Meretz and David Levy from the Likud?  Or would he be more lenient with these transfers of party loyalty (and party funding!) than he would with "ordinary" new members.

I for one am getting tired of all the amateurish tinkering and patchwork solutions-du-jours.