I am happy for and support HAMAS as long as they refrain from violence. I despise U.S. leadership for imposing unacceptable terms for aid to palestinians. They should not have to recognize Israel's right to exist. It has no such right. Arabs dominated these lands for 1200 years. I am no antisemite; I'd be glad to give jews and Isralis the pick of our red states if they'd clear out of the West bank. The U.S. should hire Rabbi Lerner as our lead consultant

Forgive me, Morley, for cutting-and-pasting off topic on your page. But this is a story that is being reported all over the world, except, it seems, in the US media.
It therefore qualifies as World Opinion Roundup. Or perhaps World Facts-that-the-American-people-are-being-protected-from Roundup.

US troops investigated over Iraqi massacres
By Patrick Coburn in Arbil
Published: 22 March 2006

The US military is investigating two incidents in which American soldiers killed at least 26 Iraqi civilians and then claimed that they were either guerrillas or had died in cross fire.

The growing evidence of retaliatory killings of unarmed Iraqi families, often including children, by US soldiers seemingly bent on punishing Iraqis after an attack, will spark comparisons with the massacre of Vietnamese villagers at My Lai in 1968.

US troops have been notorious among Iraqis for their willingness to shoot any Iraqi they see in the aftermath of an insurgent attack. But it is only now that convincing and detailed information is becoming available about the killings.

In the most recent incident, in the town of Ishaqi north of Baghdad last week, Iraqi police said that US troops had shot 11 people, including five children, in their home. The local police chief, Colonel Farouq Hussein, said that all the dead had been shot in the head, according to autopsies. "It's a clear and perfect crime," he said. In an incident in the town of Haditha in western Iraq on 19 November last year, US soldiers went on a rampage in a village after a bomb attack and killed at least 15 civilians, according to witnesses and local officials cited by Time magazine in an investigation.

The US military first claimed a roadside bomb had killed a US Marine, Miguel Tarrazas, along with 15 Iraqi civilians caught in the blast. Later, a military statement said "gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire" and in returning fire the Marines killed eight insurgents.

But after Time presented the US military with what Iraqis said had happened, an official investigation found that 15 of the civilians had been deliberately killed by US soldiers.

David Gillogly, Sr., is a looney. And these talkback forums about Israel usually have a way of drawing out all the wackos...

That comes from this article:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article352819.ece

Here's more:

The (Haditha) bomb attack on the US Humvee took place at 7.15am. Eman Waleed, a nine-year-old child, lived in a house 150 yards from the explosion. "We heard a big noise that woke us all up," she recalled later. "Then we did what we always do when there's an explosion: my father goes in to his room with the Koran and prays the family will be spared harm."

The Marines claim they heard shots coming from the direction of Waleed's house. They burst in to the house and Eman heard shots from her father's room. They then entered the living room, where the rest of the family was gathered. She said: "I couldn't see their faces very well - only their guns sticking in to the doorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and then in the head. Then they killed my granny."

The US soldiers started shooting in to the corner of the room where Eman and her eight-year-old brother, Abdul Rahman, were cowering. The other adults in the room tried to protect the two children with their bodies and were all shot dead. Eman and her brother were both wounded.

"We were lying there, bleeding and it hurt so much. Afterwards some Iraqi soldiers came. They carried us in their arms. I was crying, shouting, 'why did you do this to our family?' And one Iraqi soldier tells me, 'we didn't do it. The Americans did it'."...

This stuff has been appearing in papers around the world today and yesterday. But hardly at all in the US. Why not?

The WaPo is waiting for someone else to do the unpatriotic work of investigating these child-killings.

Sorry to spam your page Morley, but your paper is failing to do its job again.

There is little chance for a peace based on a unilateral move by Israel. Basically, they would be doing the same thing as the settlers did when they moved into the West Bank and Gaza. They would be creating a "fact on the ground" and not a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. The conflict will continue.
I think a truce might be worked out with Hamas, and it has been suggested that there be a Palestinian referendum where the people can vote on recognizing Israel. this might give Hamas an out for negotiations.
However, I think Israel is only interested in creating facts on the ground.

Leave Israel to the Israeli's. They, like our Indian "allies" have their own national agenda and we ought to keep either of them at arms length. Much if the technology that Israeli spies took from the U.S. got sold to the Chinese. Likewise, the Indian's have been busily selling weapons technologies to Iran, North Korea, Brazil, and even Argentina ---imagine Faulklin War, Part II, fought with nuclear weapons.

the truth of the matter is that as long as arabs see the settlements as a slap in the face,there will be no peace in the world period.the whole premise of the US policy is grounded in religion.when you have votes in the senate that are 270 to 1 in favour of isreal,you can not expect the US to do whats right only what is politically correct.and they are far from the same.the truth is we are in a religious war that has been amped up by the settlements, in the west bank and the hotly contested jerusalem.unilaterallism has been the sole plan of zionism for years.as much as muslim fanatics have hijacked islam.see what happens when the promised land does not come to fruition.that is if israel polotics remove all settlements to 67 borders , and then see how passive zionism remains.religion has a way of bringing out the best in people.

America armed Israel to the teeth and gave it unstinting diplomatic support as it illegally annexed huge swaths of land on the West Bank and in Gaza. Every single Israel government, whether of right or left, has expanded those illegal settlements, thus depriving already marginalized Palestinians of what little land they had left. And people still ask why, even before the Iraq war, America had such a terrible reputation in the Arab world. Shouldn't it be obvious?

Israel's commitment to unilateralism--peace on Israeli terms--is the smartest move at this point and perhaps ever in recent history. The country must act on its own terms. The "peace process" has proved a farce. Americans and Europeans who believe that an agreeable negotiation between the two parties is viable are as familiar with Middle East politics as our beloved President. We have seen the failure of Wilsonian self-determination over and over while we have seen "strong-men" such as Sharon pursue the best path towards reconciliation. To those who speak of a return to the 1967 borders and UN resolutions I say save the Palestinians and look to the future. You sit at your computers and pursue a pipe dream while fanatics continue their conquests. Kadima is hope.

Wake up, Gabriel, Israel has always been committed solely to unilateralism -- "peace" on its terms and on its terms alone, which of course is why Israel has never known peace. It never will, until it starts treating Palestinians like human beings and stops stealing ever more of their land.

Unilateralism and declaring others "irrelevant" means nothing remains to be said.

Unilateralism and declaring other people "irrelevant" is war. Nothing but perpetual war.

"War must be treated as a funeral service. Even victory is a funeral." (Lao Tseu)

Be prepared to die, and to mourn!

Concerning Citizen is right about the wackos.Robert
even doesn't know the number of seats in the US-Senat, otherwise he wouldn't have written such a
nonsense. If Israel wouldn't exist, the US would have to create it, because we need a strong ally in
that region and for lots of other reasons. Those who
assure us here not to be antisemitic are much worse
that those, who are not trying to deny their hatred
of Jews/Israelis.

Who "dominated" the lands prior to the 1200 years by the Arabs?

Testing