wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] hjs from 11211 January 14, 2008 - 11:10AM

  bush lives in a fantasy world.

  if he wanted to be known as a peacemaker he should have started 7 years ago, continuing Clinton's work.

  
  
• [2] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey January 14, 2008 - 11:14AM

  Bush set the deadline for one year so that in November there is the illusion of a historic Mideast peace deal to bolster a Republican candidate. If it should collapse the day after the election, who cares?... as far as they're concerned.

  
  
• [3] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey January 14, 2008 - 11:17AM

  I mean if you need any more proof of that, the fact that EVERYTHING has to be solved by this deal and not just SOMETHING shows that this has been crafted for American consumption and not for real consideration by the involved parties.

  
  
• [4] ab January 14, 2008 - 11:18AM

  Totally agree with comments #1 and # 2

  
  
• [5] eric from jersey city January 14, 2008 - 11:19AM

  gaza and west bank are geographically separate and the occupants have selected different governing parties. so why the fixation on a two state solution? why not a three state solution?

  
  
• [6] Rick from Connecticut January 14, 2008 - 11:21AM

  With Bush, Ohlmert, and Abbas's combined popularity at around 45%, these talks are a farce, as one Israeli newspaper calling it the Mother of all Photo Ops. Nobody really wants to make actual compromises.

  
  
• [7] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey January 14, 2008 - 11:23AM

  eric, because a three-state solution is objectionable to the Palestinians and because that third state would be a Hamas state which would be completely unacceptable to Israel. No one wants two Palestines least of all the Palestinians.

  
  
• [8] Paulo from Paterson, New Jersey January 14, 2008 - 11:28AM

  The question is: What kind of referendum will Hamas possibly ALLOW? Does anyone think they will allow free and fair elections in Gaza on this referendum? No. And even if they did, Israel would say they wouldn't and thus declare the results invalid.

  
  
• [9] Prof Reiss from NY January 14, 2008 - 11:29AM

  Shared Jerusalem

  The best way to bring 2 groups together is to unite them against a third. Why not let the Catholic CXhurch oversee the sharing of Jerusalem for all 3 groups?

  
  
• [10] Robert from NYC January 14, 2008 - 11:34AM

  Tell us another one, David. I have NO doubt that Israel is concerned about REAL security and rightfully so but the obvious is the obvious, land grabbing IS another important matter.

  
  
• [11] mgdu from hell's kitchen January 14, 2008 - 11:34AM

  to claim Israel is not land-driven is absurd. Israel could have peace tomorrow if it would simply return all the lands it has occupied since 1947 and allow the return to their ancestral properties of all Palestinians displaced since that time. Israel's greed for land is the only cause of war and discord in this matter.

  
  
• [12] Edward January 14, 2008 - 11:37AM

  How can Israel make peace with the Arabs when Arabs are killing each other? Look at what happened at the recent anniversary of Arafats death - competing groups killed each other.

  Arabs have to get their own house and live in peace with each other before anyone will believe they are serious about peace with others.

  
  
• [13] Carl from East Village January 14, 2008 - 11:40AM

  "Why does America matter?" Are you kidding? We give Isreal tens of billions of dollars per year. Isreal wouldn't last a year without American financial and political support.

  There is no "2-state solution". To use a line from the civil rights movement: "No Justice, No Peace". A 'jewish state' in which Palestinians or any other ethnicity, can not buy land or vote is fundamentally unjust.

  I am part Jewish myself, and I sympathize with the inspiration for the creation of "a Jewish state", and I am also part African, and I sympathize with the inspiration for the creation of Liberia. However, confiscating land in a place that has an existing population, and saying the native peoples can no longer live there is a horrible crime against justice.

  
  
• [14] Edward January 14, 2008 - 11:45AM

  Any ethnic European and ethnic African who crys "occupation" is wrong should set an example and return to Europe, Africa.

  Only Native Americans belong in the Americas.

  As far as money, oil is $100 per barrel. Think of who gets your after tax money.

  
  
• [15] Prof Reiss from NY January 14, 2008 - 11:57AM

  In defense of Carl, I thought NYC was "purchased" from the Indians, albeit for a dollar but a money transaction still and better than a peppercorn.

  
  
• [16] Carl from East Village January 14, 2008 - 12:41PM

  What happened to the native americans was truly a horrible crime, and no one disputes that, in contrast to what happened to the Palestinians.

  And what's more relevant: Imagine if native americans were not allowed to own property or vote in the U.S.!

  
  
• [17] maureen January 14, 2008 - 12:46PM

  Thank-you for a reasonable and sincere discussion this morning.I was so upset by your handling of the Iranian President's visit to Columbia University a few months ago that I stopped listening to the show for a while,you seem to have returned to balanced and dispassionate coverage of these difficult and long-standing conflicts.

  
  
• [18] Edward January 14, 2008 - 01:08PM

  There are over 1 million Israeli Arabs living in Israel who do vote in Israel and whose elected representatives sit in the Israeli parliament.

  Contrast that to the Palestinian death squads who kill rival Palestinians who battle each other for control. As I pointed out earlier, the Arafat memorial became a bloodbath between rival Palestinian gangs.

  Additionally Pakistan, a Muslim country, carved out of Hindu majority India in 1947 has the right to run according to its own wishes.

  
  
• [19] megan from Park Slope January 14, 2008 - 03:32PM

  "Israel could have peace tomorrow if it would simply return all the lands it has occupied since 1947 and allow the return to their ancestral properties of all Palestinians displaced since that time."

  bizarre analyisi.

  how about Arabs could have peace tomorrow if they stopped drenching their children in hate education , strapping bombs around their own children with the intent of murdering Israeli children & then glorifying it with Allah-babble, return all homes and financial compensation to Jews who were forcably expelled from their homes in Arab countries, stop Islamist supremacist policies in which non-Muslims are persecuted in Arab countries???

  the hypocricy of some the posters, and the Islamist policies which tey support, reeks...

  
  
• [20] Carl from East Village January 15, 2008 - 10:54AM

  Edward, your comparison of Isreal to Pakistan is fair.

  You've managed to focus right in on two of the most screwed up, unjust countries. What's most strikingly astute about that comparison is that they are both screwed up for the same reasons, mostly dogmatic, exclusive, religious extremism.

  
  
• [21] Edward January 15, 2008 - 02:38PM

  Carl,

  If your limited knowledge leads you to conclude that "Isreal" and Pakistan are the "two most screwed up, unjust countries", you should do a bit more reading.

  You conveniently forgot about Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe...