Excuse my cynicism, but it seems to me that Azzam Azzam's joining the Likud is Sharon's way of punishing Ayoub Kara, who opposes the disengagement.  Get rid of the troublemaker and bring in a friendly - and 
beholden - Druze MK.

There are any number of problems with what Uzi Arad cals "land for land."   He proposes giving away Umm El-Fahm not in exchange for the Jordan Valley, which we already hold, but for a renouncement of a claim for the Jordan Valley.  If he believes that this a concession of substance, he is fooling only himself and others who wish to be fooled.

Matan Vilnai criticized Ehud Barak's econimoic policies by saying that Berl (Katznelson) would turn over in his grave.

Berl was an intelligent man.  Moreso that Matan Vilnai.  There is no reason to assume that he would not have learned from what he would have seen had he lived another sixty years.

And while invoking Berl, Vilnai might have pointed out that he would truly have been revolted by his Labour descendants' rejection of Jewish tradition.

I caught a few minutes of PM Sharon's Knesset speech today and heard him say that the decisions he has had to make have been "more than I can bear."  I tarried a moment, expecting to hear that he was going to return 
this unbearable burden to the people and call new elections.  Fat chance.

Larry Derfner's piece about supermarkets struck a chord, but not quite the right one.  About ten years ago, Eli Lahav opened up a supermarket in Beer Sheva called "Mahsanei Rakevet."  It was cheap with wide aisles and had lots of free parking, baggers, thirty cash registers and special deals.  They stayed open all night Thursdays and before holidays had customer assistance people who walked the aisles asking if we needed help.  They didn't take a deposit for the carts.  Then the Histadrut's Blue Square bought them out.  The first to go were the assistance people and the baggers - no excess labor for this Histadrut facility.  Then prices went up.

So Eli Lahav opened a new place - Hutzot Lahav - and here too did it all right.  Until Supersol bought it.

It can be done right here in Israel and has.  Just not by the big chains.

Yosef Goell writes about "the implications of squeezing an additional seven to eight million cantankerous, contentious Jews into this tiny country."

Funny about that.  Increasingly, over the last couple of years, whenever I have seen Goell's essays, the word that has come to mind has been "cantankerous."

Your page 4 photo captioned "A woman gives charity to a beggar in Jerusalem" has no place in your paper.  It is wrong to display those poor who depend on tzedakkah - they have dignity too.

This is not the first time the POST has done this, nor is it the first time it has been protested.

The notion that the fact that two senior legal pro- fessionals - Meni Mazuz and Edna Arbel - have come to opposite conclusions based on the same facts, is dangerously simplistic.  Were it so simple, all Supreme Court decisions would be unanimous.  That too would be dangerous.

Of course the tendency of one of the above parties to make decisions based not on fact, but on politics, is a major problem and the decision of the other to point it out is praiseworthy.  But there is a wide gap between that and the notion that facts lend themselves to opnly one indisputable conclusion.

Whether Mark Steyn is right or not has ceased to be relevant.  He is too crude for a civilized paper.  At least what he sends the POST.

Your piece "A Cause In Need of A Lasky" provoked thought, but in the end, I believe you are in error.

Not all wars are the same, nor are all enemies.

The people of Satellite Europe were never enemies of the US and the work done to encourage them was good.  It was less effective - Lasky or no - with the 
citizens of the Soviet Union, for their political culture was more primitive and in the end, the Soviet citizenry had much less to do with the fall of the USSR than did the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians and even Rumanians in their own countries.  We see that today, as Satellite Europe has joined another orbit entirely, while Russia is still Russia and may ever be.

The Arab world is not even Russia, much less Poland or Czechoslovakia. Few exchange students from those European countries would have considered opening 
madrassas of Communism in the US. 

Lasky would have made little difference in the defeat of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan.  Those are better models for today's war.

This is not to say that we shouldn't try to influence the people in our enemies' lands, but it is clear that this is a minor element in the war.  And we must not let these projects get in the way of the real work.

Jonathan Tobin makes a series of important points in discussing what pictures of terror victims should be shown and to what end.

But his opening example of "the reactions of Palestinians to the September 11 attacks and to terrorist atrocities committed against Israelis" is a different 
kettle of fish entirely.  Here we are not talking about showing the victims, but rather the terrorist supporters in their purest state.

The Jewish student who "was appalled by the use of these images" was not concerned about the dignity of anyone.  She was simply embarrassed for the terrorist supporters for their being what they are.  It spoiled her version of multiculturalism. 

These images must be shown over and over, to remind us whom we fight and how hopeless it is to try to maintain a dialogue with them.

On the matter of soldiers' getting killed while searching for body parts, Larry Derfner writes "Maybe it's a religious thing, an unquestioning, haredi-like obedi- ence to the last detail of Jewish law and tradition."  Then he goes on to say the many secular Jews think this way too and the one Haredi he actually quoted thought otherwise. 

So Derfner's sentence quoted above is nothing more than gratuitous Haredi-bashing.  What he should have said is "In my ignorance, I (and perhaps others) 
thought that it's a religious thing..."

The critical part of your backpage piece last Friday - the headline notwithstanding - was the final column, the part about the right's not trusting the left to say "enough."  Well said.

Permit me to share with you two brief correspondences I had with Labour figures a few years ago.  (I cannot find the papers themselves, so you will have to take me at my word.)

In June 1988, I wrote to Yossi Beilin, then one of the two DG's of Sh.Peres' Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  Beilin was know for making much noise at the time, but it was not clear to the general public exactly what he had in mind.  I asked him something like "Assuming you were to reach an agreement with the PLO to give them whatever you would be willing to give them, what would you do if afterwards they..." and I gave him several scenarios from intifada in the Galilee to Iraqi arms shipments to terror bands crossing into Afula, Arad and Netanya.  Beilin responded quite promptly, writing that the PLO would be so happy to receive whatever we give them as a state, that there would never be such a problem, therefore there is no need for such contingency plans.

Second, some weeks after the first Oslo agreement was signed in Washington, I wrote to a dozen or so "leaders" of the Labour Party asking each if there were 
any possible concessions that would make them stand up and  say "no."  I gave several examples, including giving up Eilat in exchange for a peace treaty with Jordan and other far-fetched hypothetical conces- sions.  Three or four answered.  Typical was Shevach Weiss - then Speaker of the Knesset - who said that he would support any position that Rabin would take.  (Hence the scare quotes on the word leaders above.)

Khaled Abu Toameh reports that the two Mossad agents who botched the assassination attempt on Khaked Mashaal "were released as part of a deal 
according to which Israel was forced to release Sheikh Ahmed Yassin from prison."

Israel was not "forced to" release Yassin.  Israel chose to release Yassin.  The government could have declined the deal.  But as Dani Yatom, then head of
the Mossad, reminded us, the important thing was that no one was hurt.  The important thing used to be getting the job done.  This change of priorities gave us seven more years of Ahmed Yassin.

Your proposal to municipalize police services is good in all respects but one.  Unfortunately, the one is reality.

Even if we ignore that this new bureaucracy would add costs and jurisdictional strife, can the POST even consider that the majority of our municipal govern- ments would be capable of managing this new budget 
resource for the purposes for which it is intended?

For most municipalities (to be sure, not all of them), this new local budget category - in all its fungibility - would just be one more way to exhibit fiscal irresponsibility, while continuing to cry to the central government that it isn't enough to do the job. And those local 
govern ments who are too frightened of their own citizens to collect their taxes - would they really even try to police them? 

Local accountability you say?  Look around.  Is that really what you see in our towns and cities?

Edna Arbel has failed to convict Refael Eitan, Yaakov Neeman and Tzahi Hanegbi, but in each case, she prevented them from serving in the ministerial positions to which they were appointed.  But Arbel remains free to keep rolling the dice and this time it's Ariel Sharon.  We know that Arbel's motivations are purely political, both by whom she pursues and by whom she chooses not to pursue.

Isn't it time to put a stop to this - and not(!) by promoting her to the Supreme Court.

You surely realize that unless we here in Israel concentrate on our "little picture," your "big picture" will go on without us.

Hillel the Elder's injunction "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" was never more relevant - as is his "If not now, when?"

Bennet Ramber's template solution for dealing with nuclear non-compliance has a fault which makes it useless.  He would require a declaration of non- compliance by the IAEA.  But he himself says that such a declaration is the IAEA's last resort.  Such a declaration would be even harder to get from the IAEA, if they knew that it would trigger sanctions, without further debate.

The Court has extended Noam Federman's admini- strative detention for six months.  The little that has been made public - that he is running a terrorist operation while in solitary confinement - is absurd.  (If it were true, it would say much for the quality of the Prison Service!)

What is clear is that the state cannot bring charges - if they could, they would.

Why isn't the Post leading the protest?

Kerry had a dog called VC in Vietnam??  What would you - or the soldiers in Iraq or Iraqi civilians - were a US soldier to have a pet dog called say Baath.  Or Udai?

You write "Kerry saved himself by convincing liberal primary voters that he didn't really mean his war."

Be sure that if someone finds WMDs, he will suddenly be proud of his initial vote.  Again.

Matti Golan discusses why Israeli Arabs don't wish to have their municipalities transferred to the PA.  He doesn't discuss why the Jews don't want it either.

The Right, we understand.  "Give up no part of Eretz Israel blah-blah-blah."

The Left is another story.  Simply put, they can't even consider returning to power without the votes of Israel's Arab citizens.

Israel Pickholtz
Elazar blah-blah-blah

The Israel Prize for Social Work is to awarded to Prof Avraham Doron.  The decision of the prize committee contains the following sentence (my translation):

"Significant is his work today are his commitment to the principles of the welfare state and his struggle to limit universal rights to the general population."

I thought that the Soviet Union was history, but the Ministry of Education continues to confound me.

Evelyn Gordon wrote an excellent piece on the pro- posed referendum.  I would like to add two thoughts.

Gordon writes "And even genuine understandings would be void should Bush fail to win reelection in November."  More than that.  If Sharon - or a successor - wishes to make further concessions, all the under- standings in the world with Washington won't make a difference.  And if Bush wins in November and 
maintains those supposed understandings, what happens in 2009 and 2113?  The Arabs aren't in a hurry.  Our leaders are the impatient ones.

Second, let's consider what happens if the referendum is rejected.  Sharon won't simply say "we choose to ignore the rejection."  On the contrary, he will decide which item is the "cause of the rejection" and push ahead with a plan that will have been modified ever so slightly.  He will say "you cannot expect me to submit to a referendum twice a month, waiting for something the public will approve."  And he will be right on that score.

The issue here is not so much process as leadership.  The combination of policy and integrity of the leader- ship is the key and we seem to have neither.  And not for the first time.

Arieh O'Sullivan reports "The alleged grave robbers were from the village of Tzurif in the West Bank. Ganor said there has been a dramatic rise in the pillaging of ancient tombs among Palestinians, who hope to find valuable ancient artifacts."

I expect that we will now be told that it's our own fault, for if they weren't so economically depressed, they wouldn't have to resort to illegal activities.  And the moon is made of green cheese.

Maurice Ostroff writes "when the Jordanians struck Kibbutz Etzion, the battle lasted until the last handful of survivors, without arms and ammunition, raised their hands in surrender, only to be mowed down by machine gunners."

He means Kibbutz Kefar Etzion, of course, and the other three Kibbutzim of the "Gush."  And his "last handful" is more like forty-nine handsful."

Peter Kirsanow writes "If many of King's associates now embrace preferences, it's not unreasonable to conclude that he might also."  But let's remember that if Dr King were alive and if he did endorse preferences, we would be able ask him how he squares that with his dream speech.

Yosef Goell writes "our Knesset and government, while undeniably democratically elected, are not very representative of public opinion on many issues. In the last two elections, for example, Sharon was elected 
and reelected overwhelmingly together with a large Likud Knesset faction, by an electorate voting against Barak and Labor. "

Can we have that again?  Because the electorate voted against Barak and Labour - and chose the Likud from a long list of parties - our Knesset is not representative of public opinion?

Most people don't agree with every policy put forth by the parties they vote for, even when the parties have a clear policy.  That does not make the Knesset unrepresentative.  What Goell means is that the Likud doesn't represent Goell.  But then that's old news.

Recently there was another spat regarding the Mormons' conversions of dead Jews.  The Mormons, of course, mean well by extending the right of choice to the dead Jews who never had it, but we take offense even though there is no real harm.

Now the Australian Foreign Minister makes a pitch for emigration of young Israelis to Australia.  He means well.  It is a friendly and pleasant sort of gesture.  Even if taken up by only a few, it is more destructive to our future than the conversion of thousands of dead Jews to LDS.  Someone should make this point to the Australians and advise them that - good intentions or not - the Jewish People takes offense.

A few years ago, Tatiana Susskin went to jail for a drawing of Mohammed as a pig.  Now Yigal Tumarkin, who showed a "work of art" with tefillin on a pig, gets the Israel Prize.

It is the Israel Prize itself which suffers the most from this travesty.

You write:
But probably it would have been clearer and better if I’d said that Kerry and Edwards lack, not “courage,” but “boldness.”

But who ever heard of "Profiles In Boldness?"

Once again, you mention in an editorial the necessity for an equivalent to the Logan Act, to rein in Shimon Peres and his cohort.  As I recall, the United States didn't need any Logan Act to prosecute Aaron Burr for
treaso, when he plotted to tear the western states from the young republic.  President Jefferson said “Aaron Burr was the ‘arch conspirator’ in a treasonous enterprise to divide the nation.”  We certainly have a few of those and a treason law adequate to deal with them.

Brigadier General Gabi Shamni is quoted as saying about the woman who blew herself up at the Erez crossing  "the bomber was trying to disrupt future
cooperation." 

Rubbish.  She was trying to kill Jews.  Is there still someone who has to be told that?

The security establishment is fretting about what to do when Mordecai Vanunu is released from prison.  On one hand, he will have served his sentence, while on the other hand our enemies are waiting to hear what he
has to offer them to damage our security.  And he has promised not to disappoint them.

There is a quite simple solution.  Administrative detention.  If it is a valid solution for political challenges like Noam Federman, who has been
neither convicted nor charged and who has not shown any indication that he will do anything illegal, it should certainly be valid for Vanunu.

Or even better - release Federman and give Vanunu his cell.

Evelyn Gordon (with whom I generally agree) claims "had the threshold been 15 percent last election, only one party, the Likud, would have entered the Knesset."

That is wrong of course, for had there been a fifteen percent threshhold, people would have voted differently.  But columnists subject us to this sort of phoney analysis all the time and editors print it.

As I read David Horovitz' report of his conversation with Eival Gilady, it was hard to tell what he thought of it all.  At first, Gilday came across as hopelessly naive, but towards the end, his vision of hope seemed to win over the interviewer, despite it all.

The punch line came at the end. "With the eventual possibility of negotiation over territory in the context of final-status talks, he concluded, separation along these lines should constitute a 'real incentive' for Palestinian 
reform."   "Real incentive" in scare quotes.  Are those quote marks Horovitz' own or his interpretation of Gilady's attitude towards his partners.

In the end, those quotation marks make it clear that there is no incentive and no reform, so the POST is left supporting the disengagement simply because no 
other idea seems any good.  We can call it Oslo Redux.

Your next Oleg drawing must(!) be Clinton and Peres saying "Shalom Haver."

It was useful for Caroline Glick to remind us ("The Assault on Democracy") how Sharon and Peres avoided general elections in 2001 "for the sole purpose of blocking Binyamin Netanyahu."  It is also worth 
noting that it was Netanyahu himself who set the stage for this move be resigning after his defeat in 1999 and by declining the offer to make a special change in the law to allow him to run in 2001 without the benefit of general elections.

In some societies, the first would be called "taking responsibility" or "accepting the verdict of the people" and the second "respecting the law."  But here - where Shimon Peres still can't take the electorate's "no for an answer - it's called being a frier.

You quote Shmuel Hollander as saying "When a politician makes a political appointment, it's clear he expects some kind of return."  That is one of the most absurd and cynical declarations I have heard in some time.  Why can't a politician make a political appointment simply because he feels that things will get done the way he wants if he appoints someone of 
similar political philosophy?

In addition to the outrageous proposal by the JPPPI that a new world Jewish body be constituted to interfere in the affairs of the sovereign Staae of 
Israel, you tell us of another absurdity.

Their report, you tell us, "states that the government should consider 'accelerating religious conversion procedures in Israel.'"  The government is not auth- orized to do anything regarding what the report 
recognizes as religious conversion.  The government can only set policy regarding what the state recognizes, not what any religion does.  I would think that the JPPPI wants the government less involved in religion, not more.

Amotz Asa-El makes valid points in his letter to the PM of Turkey.  He might also have pointed out that had the Turks really wanted to emulate their ancestors who extended hospitality to the Jews expelled from Spain, 
they might offer that same hospitality to their Moslem brethren who have been languishing in refugee camps these past fify-odd years.

This morning, I once again was frustrated in my attempt to bring guests from abroad to the audio-visual program at Kefar Etzion.  The program is a very 
effective presentation of the history of the area and the valiant defense by the kibbutz members in 1948.

But the nature of guests is that they come in the after- noons and on Fridays, while the audio-visual closes its doors at three PM weekdays and will only open Fridays for groups of fifty.

I realize that this is Kefar Etzion's private venture on their private property telling what they consider to be their personal story.  It is staffed by kibbutz members and perhaps was even financed by the kibbutz without money from the Ministry of Tourism.  But it still seems to me to be wrong to turn away those visitors from abroad who are truly interested in our side of the 
story, if only we would tell it effectively.

When these particular guests come a few weeks from now, they will visit the Judaica Center and Hevron - but will miss the story of Gush Etzion.  And they won't tell their friends and families about it.

Sir, you write "Now, we certainly respect Jewish dietary law, but at the same time it seems small-minded for these Jerusalemites to insist on imposing it on non-Jews. Then again, isn't this exactly what our 
ultraorthodox smoking opponents have been doing right here in America?"

It seems to me that your analogy is wrong.  The correct one would be how New York City, DC, Chicago or Los Angeles would react if some enterprising US citizen wanted to open a dog and cat restaurant to cater to local Thais.  (I leave out Boston, because the Mass. courts might well allow such an enterprise...)

Eating pigs and shellfish but not cats and dogs is simply a cultural issue and unless there is some religious basis, the line between permitted and forbidden species is random.

The murderer, armed-robber and who knows what else, Moshe Ben-Ivgi, used his fifty-second vacation from jail to take flight, after the High Court insisted on his right to vacations.

Noam Federman, who has done nothing indictable sits and sits and sits.

More than anything else, this shows what ferkackeda judges we have on the court.

In your editorial advocating a unity government, you point out that Defensive Shield was one of the benefits of the last unity government.  That is indeed true, but it makes quite a different case.

Defensive Shield reminds us what Labour is all about.

Had a government without Shimon Peres and friends done exactly the same thing at exactly the same time and with exactly the same provocation, Labour (and 
the press and perhaps even the courts) would have been all over them with condemnation at every turn.  That's who they are.

Unfortunately, key parts of the Likud are no better - fighting Oslo when someone else is doing it, but adopting many of those same positions when they 
themselves are in power.

As usual, Evelyn Gordon's piece on the problematic nature of our Supreme Court - even without the particular problems associated with one of its new 
members - is excellent.

I take issue with her closing label "sterile uniformity."  It's about as sterile as a chemical spill - but with the added ability to reproduce itself.

Bret Stephens was right on target with his explanation of why the right doesn't trust the left on matters of security.  They have no red lines.

The truth is, it is the same issue with the High Court.  The opposition to the Court's high-handedness is due not only to what has been done, but to the perception that the Court knows no limits.

I would like to see a serious survey of our elites, asking them what could the Court do that would make them scream "Enough."

President Katzav - whose sole qualification for the job was that his name isn't Shimon Peres - tells us that artistic freedom a supreme value but that artists such as Daniel Barenboim should show more consideration for 
the feelings of others.

The problem isn't artistic freedom - it's the prize.  Baren- boim can do what he wants on his own time in his own place, but not a festivals sponsored by the Jewish State and he certainly has no right to expect a prize from us.

Amotz Asa-El criticizes Diaspora Jewry and implies the question why there is no outcry over the murder of Tali Hatuel and her family.  Asa-El surely knows why.  If he doesn't, he should turn the page and read Sarah Honig.

As the opponents of the Sharon disengagement plan gained strength over the past weeks, the spinmeisters in the PM's camp and in the media began harping on the fact that what is a majority of the Likud is still a minority of the nation.  They would do well to remem- ber that in that case, Sharon's own mandate - as a minority of a minority - is nothing to crow about.  In any case, the next spin will be something like "a true leader leads - he doesn't follow" - and that "leadership often requires ignoring the majority."

But we knew along what Sharon would do if he lost.  He will say that he is bowing to the majority and will make changes in the plan.  Nothing you can't identify with a good microscope.  The "new plan" will sail through the government and the Knesset and then be revised again when the US points out that these "changes" requires some additional compensation to the aggrieved Palestinians.

Ehud Olmert may be correct that there will be immediate "dire consequences" if the Likud rejects the Sharon plan.  Sharo, Olmert and friends might have considered this when they put forth a plan without checking for support beforehand.

Furthermore, if the plan goes ahead, the consequences will be more dire still - especially if (as Sharon has threatened) it happens in the face of rejection by the Likud's own electorate.

Zuriel Amior was found non-guilty.  According to your report, "[T}he court said...he will be released."  Hebrew reports said that he will be released soon.

Amior has been in jail for a year on a charge which the best efforts of the police and prosecution could not substantiate.  Why will he be released - future tense?  What happened to "you are free to go?"

In your editorial crediting MK Langenthal with the proposal to institute a weekend, you neglect to mention that this proposal was part of the platform of the party you endorsed in the last elections - Israel Ba'Aliyah.

Ahava Zarembski writes that "In Israel being Jewish is inherent in daily life," while in America "Jews struggle to remain connected to Jewish life." Maybe in her circles.

For many Israelis, their Jewishness is incidental and some public organizations would remove even that.  On the other hand, for many thousands abroad, their Judaism is their essence and the struggle Zarembski describes is foreign to them.

Generalizations may be convenient for institutes of policy planning, but they are no substitute for seeing the full picture.

On your Magazine cover, you ask "How much longer can Israel link religion and state?"

The founders of the state, recognized that such a link was proper - even necessary.  There was legitimate debate, of course, about the nature of that link. The founders dealt with the issue by opting for a precarious unity in the form of the status quo as a good alternative to a culture war.

But the fact is, the nature of the link has been much debated and the status quo has changed, mostly in the form of erosion of the link.

But to answer your question - Israel will continue to link religion and state for as long as the state exists.  Weakening that link beyond a certain point - and I wonder if we haven't nearly reached it already - will spell the end of the state.

The inability of Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom to take a position on the Sharon plan for Gaza and northern Samaria, demonstrates that he is nothing more than a political hack - trying to decide which position will 
be to his own benefit.  For say what you will about the Sharon plan - it offers a clear choice that should allow everyone to choose sides fairly easily.

The government's response to the Ashdod attack was pitiful.

We hear that the terrorists' intention was to cause an explosion near the bromine storage facility, creating a cloud of poisonous gas which would kill hundreds.  Our response should be the same as though they had 
succeeded.  What the hell are we waiting for?

Your lead editorial (10 March) says "It's no secret that for decades smalltime neighborhood bosses have wielded influence over local and lower-rung party politics in this country. Theoretically it's therefore not 
impossible for them to climb higher. "

You might keep that in mind the next time you get on your soapbox on the matter of direct election of MKs.  It's not as simple as you'd have us believe.

The logic of the Sharon-Tennenbaum story looks backwards to me.  Considering all we have learned about Tennenbaum, if I were his father-in-law, I'd have asked "my friend Sharon" to leave him in Lebanon.

The Post is being worse than naive in believing that direct elections for the Knesset would cause Arab MKs to spend "more time delivering schools, hospitals, and sewerage systems to the voters in their own towns."

The Arab municipalities - who are should certainly be held responsible by their own residents - have proven failures almost across the board.  Their residents want one thing from them - not being dunned for local taxes.  They still want all the services, but from the central government.  Locally elected MKs won't change that mentality, but will continue blaming the Zionists.  Why 
should they change?  Thusfar it works!

We hear of plans to give Elhanan Tennenbaum his freedom - and perhaps money - in exchange for revelations about how and to what extent he betrayed his country to the Hizbollah.

If everything they are saying is correct, why on earth does anyone think that the story he will tell will be either true or complete?

In your editorial "Why Not Mitzna?" you write "If the public overwhelmingly approves consolidation plus withdrawal, it would be a victory for Israel because for the first time we would not be divided over the issue of settlements."

Don't kid yourselves.  On both ends there will be those who will try to defeat Plan B, even if it passes a referendum overwhelmingly.

Those on the right will make noise.  But those on the left will continue hacking away at any benefits we might get from such a plan.  They will continue to be bankrolled by foreigners, whose interests are not ours, 
and they will continue to make common cause with our worst enemies.

Jay, I wish you folks would stop crowing about Kerry's service as Lt Gov to Dukakis, as though that will turn voters off.  Half the voters don't remember Dukakis and even fewer know what was so bad about him.  And even so, no one will hold that against Kerry - many Lt Govs are not exactly soulmates or even teammates with the Govs they serve (with).

Ray Hanson writes ("Letters") "If [George W. Bush] loses, I guarantee the implications for the Western world will be less than sanguine."

"Sanguine" also means "bloody."  "Less" in this context means "more."

You write:
$ 300 million belonging to Saddam located
By JPOST.COM STAFF

"Belonging to?"Really?  That's what your anonymous staff think?

How about "stolen by?"

After the latest Jerusalem bus bombing, you quote US Ambassador Kurtzer as saying "the Palestinians must take all steps to make this stop."

That is the wrong message.  The PA must not "take all steps" - they must simply desist.  Immediately.  Kurtzer would have us believe that the PA has some degree of influence over the terrorists in our midst.  But he surely 
knows that the PA is itself the terrorist hydra.

This is not a question of diplo-speak.  Kurtzer speaks as he does in order to promote his agenda.

Your online poll reads:

What is your opinion of the prisoner swap deal? 
     It will encourage more kidnappings 
     Any price is justified to bring MIAs home 
     No deal without Ron Arad 
     Too high a price 
     The families have suffered enough 

You also give us :
Sultan Yakoub families left out of prisoner deal

Looks like the POST has left them out as well.

If your editorial writers truly believe that administrative detention happens "only in rare cases such as national security or espionage, but also, disconcertingly, when the police commissioner contends that disclosure of arrest would jeopardize a crucial investigation," you might try having a look at your own editorial archives under "Noam Federman." 

Oh, so you don't see any editorials about that?  Well, maybe that says something about the POST's own priorities - and not to its credit.

Sir, what does the word "old" mean in the following excerpt:
Keep it short and sweet Mr. President. As my old high-school English teacher used to warn us of on essay tests: Unnecessary verbiage will be penalized.

Does it qualify as "unnecessary verbiage?"

Edna Arbel has it backwards.  Her job is to defend government policy.  She is not a neutral. If she feels she cannot defend the fence, she should tender her resignation, not demand a change in policy.

I don't understand the fuss about the plan for fighting in Iraq that former Secretary O'Neill has publicized.

The US almost certainly has plans for fighting against half the countries in the world, including some of our friends.  It is the job of the Armed Forces and the Defense Department to be prepared for all kinds of unlikely things.  Certainly for Iraq.

Ehud Olmert says than in contrast to the retreat from Lebanon, which brought on the current war, "the actual ramifications of [the Sharon withdrawal] are minimal, beyond the psychological impact."  Obviously Olmert misses the point.  What led from Lebanon to the Oslo War was exactly the psychological impact - ours, theirs and the way they see ours.  What is missing is what was missing in the Barak government - the willingness for our side to see the effects on the enemy.  One would think that our elected leaders would have learned better.