william.scherk

You probably understand, JK, given your membership at the closed shop OActivists, that this place OL is on the blacklist and that by becoming a member here you have sinned against church teachings: To join the OActivists mailing list, you must meet two criteria: You must be an Objectivist, meaning that you agree with and live by the principles of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism as best you understand them. You must be committed to engaging in intellectual activism to promote Objectivist ideas in online or print forums as time permits. At minimum, that means engaging in some form of activism -- whether posting comments on newspaper articles or writing your representatives -- at least once every few months. Arguing with people already substantially familiar with Objectivism in online forums does not qualify as activism. Note: You do not qualify as an Objectivist if you consider yourself to be a libertarian (or associate with the Libertarian Party), advocate revising Objectivism (like David Kelley's "open system"), or associate with the false advocates of Objectivism (most notably David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, and Chris Sciabarra). -- the OActivist group seems like a very tight, constricting glove. I hope you can adjust to the more free-wheeling atmosphere here. OL is not haunted by orthodoxy, and as has been mentioned, not everyone who posts here labels themself an Objectivist, regardless of their admiration for Rand and her achievements. There are a couple of threads that deal with the labeling requirements for Objectivish people, including my rather sardonic take on this issue: I think the term can safely be dropped by those who do not follow the hard-packed road of Hsieh and Co.

I was most interested in what Wilders had to say to Canada and to Canadians, and as it turned out, he had no different message for Canada than for Netherlands: Islam is not a religion, but a philosophy of hate and domination, like Nazism; Canada must bar Muslim immigration; Canada must bar the building of mosques. Canada must bar Muslim education. Canada beware! you are in danger of a hostile takeover. There is no moderate Islam . . . His London, ON appearance at an invite-only event was sponsored by the International Press Freedom Society and the Canada Christian College's head nutjob, Charles McVety, MCed by Ezra Levant. He spoke at two other 'Signature' IPFS/McVety events, also MCed by Ezra Levant. Wilders also chatted on TV with Ezra Levant. He said there must be a dialogue . . . That isn't something I knew about, so I have just read up on it. It wasn't Geert who took the journalists notes, it was a move taken by his "public relations officer chairman Ms. G (Gaelle) de Graaff". It seems that she was concerned for security reasons. She was perhaps wrong and inept in what she did, but I can't find any indication anywhere as to whether or not Geert Wilders himself supported her action, or even knew about it (he was in fact giving his talk when the public relations officer did what she did). I've looked it up (again) too. Presumably Wilders, as a champion of freedom and possible martyr, gives his staff guidelines for protecting his security. Seizing a reporters' notes seems rather, well, incontsistent. This is your second Link Warning this week, Ms Lynam -- please provide context for your addled readers. Warmington: Freedom should extend to Canadians too, Geert http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2011/05/20110510-080815.html Toronto Sun reporter Jenny Yuen went to airport upon the Dutch parliamentarian’s arrival Sunday for several Canadian anti-Islam speeches and found out that freedom of reporting did not apply to her. Wilders was in a room spewing out all of his “Islam is bad” mantra when his Party For Freedom “public relations officer chairman Ms. G (Gaelle) de Graaff” not only demanded her notes but also confiscated them. She then handed them over to another clown named Naresh Raghubeer who later phoned Jenny at 11 p.m. and berated her, followed up with a snotty e-mail saying “in the future, it would be helpful for reporters to understand the security implications of stories they are covering. Last known locations and future locations should not be included unless they are approved or add to the context of the story (with the approval of the subject). “Second, when items are off the record, it should remain so,” and “third, as I had correct the reporter re the focus on Christianity/Bible Belt, it appears personal bias were already taking the story down a road which was not factual or relevant. Kory Teneyke and Pierre Karl Peladeau should strive for better.” Not too ironic, since the IPFS is not your regular press freedom society. They look only at some of the West and are most concerned with Mooslims. The speech they want protected is Geertish islamic freakout speech. Which is fine, and good on them, but it occurs to me that Wilders has no conception of what will and what won't fly in my country. So insulated was he from an actual 'dialogue' that he never heard anybody speak quiet good sense to him. All of his suggestions for Canada are non-starters. I would love to sit him down with the six or seven muslims from the House of Commons, with Aga Khan, and have Wilders explain to them that there is no moderate Islam in Canuckistan. It just won't wash. It is just not the way things happen in our freedom-loving land, to put restrictions on religious liberties. -- as for the thread digressions into war, Hitler, nuclear fixes, that is what keeps me reading OL -- the zany side-issues.

See the Rewrite Squad thread. I looked for it using the "Search" function and found this thread: [ . . . ] Is the public access to the thread still blocked? Nope. It has been tidied. A very informative thread indeed. The Rewrite Squad.

I do not believe that I engaged a lot in that discussion about the metrics and education as much as I wanted to. Additionally, I am extremely suspicious of the "scores" that are reported by the Department of "Education" which form the "metrics" that refer to the US position in the world rankings that you posted. Suspicion -- even extreme suspicion -- of metrics is a useful, skeptical starting point, especially when a long-standing bias or incompetence can be shown. Suspicion alone is not indicative, however -- we have to dig in to find the errors and correct misapprehensions. Before I get us in a snarl of issues, consider what I think you are hoping to illuminate: it looks to me like you are most disturbed by the dark spots where educational achievements are behind the norm, not the general light tint of 88% (77%) high-school completion by say the National Center for Education Statistics, but the pockets of failure that seem to have persisted and deepened. I dare say, Adam, that the bone-deep wound you want to cleanse is in central Detroit, LA, NYC, Cleveland, Miami and so on, places where all metrics indicate an entrenched problem. Maybe you are not impressed by the Guardian/OECD stats because they do not measure such things as Columbus, Ohio drop-out rates compared to the norm . . . It is true that you did not engage much in the couple of threads that featured quantitative measures, and I should point out that there were actually very few metrics put forward. In the main, we looked at the Guardian story of the three-measure international standings in education; in this case, Adam, the figures were not derived from US DOE figures but from actual international surveys by the OECD. This is the wound, then? If so, then I think you will like the tool at Edweek.com, where you can check the drop-out rates school district by school district. It is pretty dire, especially the underclass problem that Brant alluded to. We don't have anything like it here in socialist hellhole Finland Canada, the central racial/ethnic core concentrations and divergences: Here is another graphic that makes sense of the urban educational divide, from the New York Times Census Explorer:

Dang, what did I miss? Actually, a G-rated avatar pic that Brant uses from time to time. It's ready for a return, I figger. If you mean, what sweetness and innocence might you have missed in Brant, well, we see it here: in his real-life encounters with other humans he has been a soldier and a care-giver, a family man with deep loyalties and an individual in the maw of a war dragon. His instincts are to peace and order without coercion because he has seen the blade edge of coercion and he did not like it. His impulses are humanitarian and thus innocent of a thirst to revenge or punish, thus actually sweet and peaceable in personal devotion to his human values. I would definitely elect Brant as Sheriff of New OL-istan!

Credit Adam with the punch of the wound metaphor. I have not seen a wound to the bone, as have you, so your remembrances and associations will likely be more powerful than mine, Brant. Funny how the punch of the metaphor is not so easily derailed. There is a very interesting study Adam linked to which shows how a metaphoric framing can bias a response; this is one of the reasons I call for truce. Another reason is I don't see the indicators as slam dunk dire. We have been over a few stats on OL, not too long ago with Phil and Carol and me and you digging around for some metrics. They were not shockingly awful, but perhaps sobering for Americans to hear they were not number one in all measures. To my eyes America is in the top quintile in the world, in the top ranks of the developed world, is incontestably on top in higher education, scientific fruits, wealth of research, clout, etcetera, all derived from its education industry. America is slacking in some international measures of literacy, but against a backdrop of similar top-twenty mixed economies with state education, not bad at all considering its demographics and massive immigration in the last three decades. I mean, how close are the scores of the top twenty? If stats suggests that Canada and Finland top out America on math, reading and writing, could it be the more hellish socialism practiced there or a lessening hellishness or what? If say Canada is number one at 97 and Finland is number two at 96 and America is number nine at 93, all it would tell me is USA Top Ten, baby!! There is undeniable power in using a wound as a metaphor -- the oomph of the reference frames a response in terms of danger, crisis, destruction. Oh, and hey -- Brant, how about you put up your 45 year old shirtless hunk pic again, so we don't forget your sweetness and innocence?

I have a concept, or an inkling. We already have some fragments of solid research sprinkled across OL on this topic: how precipitous the decline has been. I would call a truce on further assertions. Two reasoning people can agree on measures that can and cannot accurately represent a 'decline.' Measure decline in American education according to useful metrics, by benchmarks and results, by comparison, by relation. In America, which measures have shown a decline, which measures have shown the greatest decline, which measures support a null hypothesis? Shayne and Adam can examine evidence to check conformance to the assertion. This is different. This assertion makes a statement about wound care. And it assumes that an infection or trauma has extended from the skin to the bone. The power of analogy lies in what is omitted in the comparison. The power and the punch comes from recognition. In this instance the actual wound analogy presumes a deep and dangerous injury that requires radical, if not extreme response. It does not show measures of temperature, heartrate, blood loss, history of infection, blood work, x-rays, patient reports, and so on. These are assumed to be dire, dropping off a cliff in the graphs: toxic shock, rampant infection, crushed flesh, blood, pain, swelling. Of course we have to go to the bone! Since these measurements are not shown, but assumed, how can we actually make the comparison that the analogy urges us to make? In the context of a wound that may need debridement or flushing, we are dealing with a serious trauma, damage and danger. The personnel dealing with the wound need to know the history of the wound, including its diagnosis and treatment. These items of knowledge have been measured and examined in the real world of wound care. There is agreement, protocols, trained responders. There is no disagreement on the necessity for active measures. So, the power of this analogy is its common-sense evocation of severe, deep infection or trauma of the body. It doesn't matter where the infection/trauma is located. It threatens the life of the patient. The wound or trauma may have touched the bone. It needs flushing, debridement, antibiotic infusion. If there are tears it needs stitching. If bones have been infected or traumatized it needs further urgent examination. It may be that the wound necessitates amputation of a limb or part of a limb. Adam, an analogy does work outside of its field. As can be seen in your example of metaphor in mathematics, metaphor can do work, in general terms. But to insist that your wound metaphor reigns over discussion of public education, to dismiss critical reflection on your actual metaphor, to misunderstand the basic objection to your assertion -- this can stall discussion. You have issued notice that all your prescriptions for education in America are based on the firm, unyielding diagnosis of a wound that needs emergency attention. You are reserving the power to make the diagnosis. Your insistence that only your diagnosis can rule treatment can then prevent Shayne and others from progressing in analysis of the problem. Cleansed to the bone, your argument would seem to be something like this: In the last thirty years, education has fallen off a cliff. Only by amputating can I preserve its life. Ayn Rand to the rescue: first, check premises . . . check the 'fallen off the cliff' stats across the board. If premises need adjusting, adjust, then adjust argument accordingly. Save conclusions for the end of the reasoning process . . .

I am hoping Aaron will give us a report on the events in Atlanta. If I had gone, I would have made sure I was in the audience (suitably disguised) at La Doktora's live webcast from Decatur! Speaker: Diana Hsieh Date: 05/29/2011 Time: 11:00 am EST to 12:00 pm EST Every Sunday morning, I answer questions on practical ethics and the principles of living well in my live Rationally Selfish Webcast (http://www.RationallySelfish.com). At AtlosCon, I'll be doing the same, but with the extra fun of a live audience! As usual, I'll choose six of the most popular and interesting questions to answer from my queue of questions on Idea Informer (http://bit.ly/e1Eee2). Seriously, her webcast is a guilty pleasure. I would have loved to have been in the room when she formulated and delivered the answer to: Question 1: The Rights of the Severely Retarded: What rights do severely mentally disabled people have? If someone is mentally disabled to the extent that he or she will never be able to be rational and/or live independently, does that person have rights? Who should be financially responsible for the care of such people? Not having proper camouflage, I ruled myself out of going to Atlanta. I will have to wait for our OL Great Lakers and Canuckistanis to organize a conflab in Toronto, I think. In the meantime, I console myself with this:

You, young lady, are about to be enrolled in OL's 'please give link' classes, which meet each day here. Phil will be available to assist via an awkward online teaching tool, Knucklerapper. [excerpt of Diane Francis's column "Americans voting against best interests," from yesterday's Financial Post]

Praise for the student of Objectivism in Australia, and his attempt to list the interpenetrating issues snarled about the Open/Closed discussion. I like how Andrew lists the questions that underly any attempt to delineate Correct [Randian] Thought: In a discussion backstage with Andrew, I laid out my take: From my point of view, there is no possible solution to the problem of Naming and sorting under the rubrics Objectivism/ists. There cannot be unity and there cannot be victory of one faction over another. Because the very idea of a unified/transcendant Randian philosphic corpus/guide brings out purity concerns and deviation concerns, and engages the sorry human propensity to groupthink, exclusion, sacralization and religio-political sectarianism.

I quite like confessionals, as sometime erupt on OL, little vignettes of Look What They Did To Me, especially from George and Ellen. Phil wrote out a few. And in each of the good ones was a tang, a stimulating aftertaste, a moral, an emotion, a moment of truth. In the really good ones you can't quite exactly 'name' that emotion, but you can taste it and you would recognize it again in a flash. I think you do your good writing in the way an experienced cook does her treats. She can whip them up while yelling at the TV and disciplining the kids, while mentally doing her budget. In your better writing that effortlessness is well-married to the tang, and in the best a sense of grace deepens the good stuff. I like this one a lot, even if I haven't yet been quite able to name that tang.

All the various orthodox exclusion rules for proper Objectivism seem marred by an unexpressed assumption that Objectivism is beyond criticism. It is the bright electric line beyond which all is deviation from the true, the plumb and the perfect. This is what separates out Binswangers and Peikoffs and Hsiehs. They do not deviate. What the hardcore Objectivists do is patrol a deviation line: on one side anathema, and the other side purity. In its most grotesque appearances this deviation patrol seems cultish and creepy to me. The totalism and the rectitude. I think only those who strictly hew to Rand's philosophy in toto can happily call themselves Objectivists. All others who call themselves Objectivists will have unhappy moments defending their use of the name and definition from misunderstanding. I say drop the label entirely and leave it to the exclusionists. If the Hsieh wing considers the Speicher wing vile deviationists and dishonourers of Him, then fuck them all. If the Hsiehkovian party wants to keep the name, no edict or lawsuit or peer pressure or fatwa can stop people from calling themselves Objectivists, but if the purity of the term is so danged important, and the exclusion criteria are so ferocious, I figure every single person who has been told 'you are not [a real, proper] Objectivist' should immediately agree and move on with relief. How do you want to be remembered: as being objective, as having a reasoning, objective mind -- or as being an Objectivist?

My apologies. I should have quoted you. I didn't raise the notion of lawful annexation. You did. Got me to rights, Michael. No need to apologize for pointing out error or misapprehensions or for clarifying a point. Yours was and remains a good question: So why the need for "lawful" annexation? (of the Golan) Brant had said Israel retains a longstanding legal claim to all the Golan, with an implied authority of the British Mandate. I pointed out that this was incorrect, that the Golan was part of the French Mandate territories, that Golan was never under Jewish control until 1967. I also noted that there are historical, religious and security justifications offered by Israel for keeping Golan under its control. I answered to my best understanding your question, Michael -- that the two parties will want a legal agreement to replace their truce line. If and when, gains accrue to both parties: Israel and Syria gain a formal end to hostilities with all that this implies. As now with Jordan, as now with Egypt, there would then be a mutually-recognized legal border. I made a comparison with other places in the world that have longstanding territorial disputes to illustrate that point -- that it is in warring parties interests to have secure, internationally recognized borders. I agreed with several of your general points in #389, Michael, so I guess we are now on the same page, except for the question: Was the war "lawful"?** There are few wars and warring operations that I might find 'unlawful' over modern history, though war and law intersect in general terms, in the Geneva Conventions. We can have war crimes, and unlawful combatants, and all manner of unique actions and sorties that might break our established laws of war, and have been prosecuted as such in this century and the 20th. The 1967 war -- I cannot think of any way to characterize that war as unlawful in the same sense we might call Iraq's invasion of Kuwait unlawful. So, yes, no laws of war were trampled on, especially considering the place and time and situation. The war has not ended, hostilities brewed in the waning days of the Ottomans have not formally ended. What I find so weird about this area is struck from the coin Brant introduced -- the first world war. As I think I have drearily pointed out before, law and legitimacy are not the same thing. Who was the legitimate representative of the people when the French and British carved up their interests at the end of the first war? The lawful representative was the League of Nations . . . it delegated administration, legally, and red lines were drawn, red lines that today form the basis for the border between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt. Today, I think we all understand some mutually-embracing realities: that Israel has drawn no red line on the map with Syria, and announced to the Syrians (and anyone else who cares): This is the final border between Syria and Israel. Nor have the Israelis said: This red line is the final border between the state of Israel and Palestine. So, I guess my underlying point is that Israeli itself would like a formal, legal, annexation of territories it gathered, a de jure reflection of their de facto rule -- or a comprehensive agreement that would involve the return of some territory pledged against the security of a peace treaty. Israel's stated fear of a democratic Egypt is fear for its treaty. I believe Israel wants to treaty with Lebanon, Syria and Palestine, and I stand by Israel's need for secure, recognized borders.

Thanks for the link, Brant. I like their slogan: "The truth may not always win, but it is always right!" There is no actual ring for wrastling at MythsandFacts.com, no discussion area, so I will have to wrastle with the facts as best I can.

If you ever get a chance to play this song by Mozhdah to your Afghani students, I would love to hear what they think the song means. Mozhdah's real work, she says, and one that protects her somewhat from criticism, is with girls in orphanages. One of her famous songs was dedicated to the victims of acid attacks -- girls whose sin was attending school, and whose punishment was disfigurement. I like that her message of freedom does not need to be articulated in so many words on her TV program: just broaching the subjects of forced marriages, child marriages, domestic abuse, child endangerment and child abuse -- this breaks new shocking ground in Afghani discourse. Her show attracts a huge audience, and extends the boundaries of taboo. I really am a supporter of this brave young woman . . . Here is part one of a CNN feature on Mozhdah, with some behind the scenes glimpses of her life:

True. Wars bring different outcomes. If Country A (let's call it Syria) decides to war against Country B (Israel), and if 38 years later the two parties Syria and Israel want peaceful, secure borders, then they will negotiate a treaty. In this case, Israel has stated its policy with Syria: provisionally, land for peace, but a peace that suits Israeli security concerns above all. I don't presume to speak for Israel or Syria, I simply note the difficulties of insisting on a fait accompli. Right. Borders change due to war. Intractable border conflicts are only with difficulty resolved. You raise the notion of "lawful" annexation, I suppose in the context of the Golan. Israel changed the rule of law in Golan, integrating it with Israeli administration, offering citizenship to its residents. This is not a formal annexation -- but could become a formal annexation were it to agree new borders with Syria. How this plays out in the future, I don't know. I am very pessimistic, and do not expect an agreement with Syria in the near term. We have to look at other situations in the world that are similar. Most of the war gains by one party are disputed by the other party. At best there are armistice lines and demilitarized zones separating the belligerents (as in Korea, Kashmir, Cyprus, Armenia/Azerbaijan) where formal peace has not been achieved.

No need to preserve my words, Michael. I don't mind if you delete the whole thing . . .

I stumbled across a reference to this woman on CBC. She was born in Kabul, raised in Canada, got a job offer on Afghan private TV channel TV1, and is now 'Afghanistan's Oprah.' Also a charting singer in Afghanistan. Not beloved by Talibani-style folk, and about as sexy as apple pie, but still making her mark in the business and her favoured activities, encouraging female education, human rights and dialogue on taboos . . . I liked this song for its weird almost-Appalachian, maritimey celtic hillbilly march feel. I am told it is a folk song and it has its hooks in me, but most will barf. Carol might join me in thinking it's an Irish Rovers song. For a glimpse of Mozhdah's work and projects besides Irish Rovers songs and packing a gun at all times, see this on the Vancouver gal gone big . . . in the war zone.

The 1920 Mandate for Palestine included the Golan Heights and what is now known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip plus Jordan. The British Mandate included present-day Jordan and present-day Israel & the present-day occupied territories. The Golan Heights were part of the French Mandate which included Syria and Lebanon. Palestine was hived off from the rest of the British mandate. Jewish Palestine (Jordan)? Jordan was not Jewish. Palestine and Jordan were adminstered separately by the Brits. The Golan border between French and British mandates were establised between the French and the British. Nope. Israel did not have anything till it declared itself, and it did not declare itself the owner of the Golan. Syria under the French, from 1923 to 1946, had the Golan. Well, as I noted, Syria obtained its independence from France in 1946. The borders in the Golan then are what is referred to as the 1967 Borders. Again, the 1948 independence made no claims to the Golan. Check the maps, Brant, please -- the situation was not quite as you claim. Yes. The Israeli occupation prevented this bombardment, and no give-back to Syria will be accomplished without a treaty with Syria. The Israeli claim and annexation was made on the basis of security, not previous agreements or borders. It might have been a while since you examined the maps and wars and maps and wars since 1920 in this disputed area, Brant, but have a look-over this map and see if your opinions and assertions shift a little bit. -- this map comes from a brilliant set of maps at the Foundation for Middle East Peace website.

I think you are wrong, or at least in a minority position holding this opinion: name me one country besides Israel that recognizes the de facto 1981 annexation as lawful. The Golan may have been in many Israeli minds as "Jewish Palestine," Brant, but if you look at any map of 1918, 1920, 1924, 1926, 1933, 1946, 1956, through each change of occupying empire or Mandate or foreign administration, the first time the Golan Heights was noted to be under Israeli military control was in 1967, the same year Israeli brought the entire Sinai desert under its control. The basis of the Israeli claim is historical/security/religion: 29 ancient synagogues. There aren't many people there, only around 40,000, half of whom are Druze and the other almost half are post-67 settlers from Israel (a little over half have a state or citizenship: 100 percent of the Israelis, only ten percent of Druze). The border between is essentially sealed by war -- this is a place with a Korean-style border, where folk hail and holler at each other across a valley where no one may cross freely, whether to visit family or to exchange news and goods. The whole land issue between Israel and Syria, the entire linchpin of peace between the two nations, is Golan. If Golan is never ever to be returned to Syria, then there will never be a formal peace with Syria. In any case, the Israelis and the Palestinians rarely discuss Golan.

PippaMarison, for one day only and only 45,680 rupees, you can participate in a state of the art symposium on "Post-Soviet Marketing Blunders for India's Real Estate and Building Industries." (NOTE FROM MSK - IMAGE DELETED TO AVOID PROVIDING A BACKLINK FOR A SPAMMER.)

<div style="background-color:white;width:549px;"> Boydstun: Remarks by the President on the Middle East and North Africa Gaede: Oh, I mis-read this. I thought it was "Remarks by the President of the Middle East and North Africa" hoping for a satire. Hudgins: Obama's a joke so you're not too far off! Scherk: Does this matter? Did it say anything new? Did he sell Israel down the river? Ninth Doctor: Probably not. Not really. Who cares what he said, what can he do? Obama called for the 1967 borders, Netanyahu says no. It's all hot air. Now don't tell me you disapprove of the bin Laden porn titles! I caught just a whiff of schoolmarm a minute ago. Scherk: Didn't really pay attention to the porn titles, but the 'whiff of schoolmarm' woke me from a hideously serious nap. Quick, William, an Osama porn reference, and quick! Ninth Doctor: Good one. This Israel 1967 thing is getting quite a bit of attention. But I don't get it, Israel doesn't have to do what Obama says. What am I missing? Selene: This is actually not the biggest problem, but those "borders" would seriously compromise the Israeli perimeter de fenses. Biggest problem is the "right of return" which would basically end Israel. Gaede: The proper and legal borders are post-1967.</div> Everyone is right. Everyone gets prizes. Israel gets a border somewhere around what it was thinking of in 2008: This is the famous 'napkin map' revealed in the Palestinian Papers leak.

The Jewish Virtual Library keeps some rough stats on the Jewish presidential vote since 1920. Which Podhoretz analysis do you mean -- this one: What Netanyahu did today? If so, here is an excerpt: Netanyahu's full remarks here.

I like that OL features at least one secular Jew in you, Bob, and that you have the wisdom of many long years on earth. You were probably around on the day of Independence, and you were probably attentive to the numerous wars and skirmishes and terror attacks over the years. It is a sobering history. I like what Brant wrote elsewhere about the knock-on effects of war and the knock-on effects of peace. He raised the first world war, and its effects in the lands of the former Ottoman Empire. I think that in some ways that war never ended in the troubled Arab world. I mean end in the way the first world war ended in 1945 and I mean peace as in a formal peace that led to an interlocking web of treaties between sovereign states, NATO and the EU (and with the fall of the Iron Curtain further treaties of accession). The partition of Palestine under the British Mandate did not come about and the only treaties between the state of Israel and its neighbours are with Egypt and Jordan. I do not think Egypt and Israel will ever go to war again. The goal of Israel and the US is on paper exactly the same thing -- a Palestinian State and an Israeli state with a formal peace between them. It is funny/peculiar to read commentary from Middle Eastern sources, from the free presses that exist and have just this year come into being. There can be no enduring peace between Israel and a Palestine until there is peace with a democratic Syria and a democratic Lebanon, in my view. If we (the Western We) stand with Israel, we stand for the universal values we share amongst us, and that are reflected in Shakespeare's famous passage. I am a Palestinian. Hath not a Palestinian eyes? Hath not a Palestinian hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer, as a Jew is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, do we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.