Collegiate Times

one only need to revisit the suicide attacks by the palestinians against israel to make a lie of this implied analogy between german/poland and israel/palestinian territories: In a similar fashion, Hitler once claimed that he had to invade Poland because the Poles were conducting "wild terror" against Germany. Does anyone believe him?

I am at a loss to understand people who consider Israel at fault for the current conflict, or even consider both parties equally at fault. Israel has shown it's willingness to make concessions to end the conflict on multiple occasions. For example, review the Camp David 2000 summit. Israel showed up to negotiate, ultimately offering the Gaza strip, 95% of the West Bank, additional land to make up for the 5% of the West Bank not offered, most of the Old City, and the Temple Mount. Yasser Arafar's response to this was to walk out and start another intifada. In light of this, how can anyone see this current situation as Israel's fault?

I'm glad this falls under the "Opinions" section. This kid keeps making references to "International Law" like the ICJ writes the law, when it really interprets actions in their own moral context. Yes, it's true the ICJ is a multinational collection of persons who have dedicated their life's work to the study of morals and interpretation of the law. But when they pass judgement on international actions, they do so with respect to what is the "morally upright" thing to do. This is plain silly - they embrace ideals without acknowledging the actual reality of situations, and they do so from quite possibly the safest place on earth, the Hague. This is the equivalent to someone being winning a Madden 2008 tournament and then thinking he has the knowledge/expertise to question Bill Belecheks play calling (excuse the lame analogy). For these reasons, this is why the US, and several other countries who have self-preservation in their best interests (not "Imperialism"), have kept a compulsory status with the rulings of the ICJ. Before you go jumping to the defense of terrorist supporting states (should we count the innocents they've killed?) you should drop the double standard held to the US.

"ending support" for Israel would not really be anti-semetic, so much as pro-isolationism, a policy that never worked out so well in the first half of the 20th century

Israel is like the US's 50 year old son whom everyone in neighborhood hates because he does terrible things. You still pay him an allowance (billions in military aid) because despite everything he's loyal to you, he also scares bullies and you helped create him....

Let me get this right. People can be anti-semitic and call Guliani "Jewliani" in the comments at this site and that can stand. People can even use other's names and impersonate them when making comments. BUT my comment stating the obvious; that the writer of this piece is probably anti-semitic and my comment gets removed? Why am I not surprised considering this thing is student run. 1st amendment only applies to other liberals when a liberal mentions the first amendment.

And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher's arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?

Would the US really gain from severing close ties to Israel? When you look at just a small sample of the innovations made by our Israeli friends, I'd say 'no'. It seems Brett Morris here is on his way to becoming the typical American journalist. The cell phone was developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel. Most of the Windows NT operating system was developed by Microsoft-Israel. The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel. Voice mail technology was developed in Israel. Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel. The AOL Instant Messenger was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis. Source: http://www.inreview.com/archive/topic/15785.html

Mr. Morris's letter is vitriolic in nature. He has trotted out the same "information" that is contained in most anti-Israel publications. I have lived in Israel. I was there during the first Gulf War. I lived through 18 SCUD missle attacks. I have both Jewish and Arab friends there. Most of my Jewish friends don't want to be in Gaza or the West Bank. But they also don't want to he attacked by rockets or blown up while riding buses. The application of Western ethics and morality to a Middle Eastern problem simply does not work. Need we bring up the President of Iran? Please Mr. Morris, do your homework before sharing your "knowledge".

I am surprised that people have been tricked into believing that saying that the creation of Israel was a mistake is equal to anti-semitism, stopping financial support for Israel is being anti-semitic, etc. It's assumed in Washington that policy makers have to be pro-Israel. If not the media and Jewish communities lash out, particularly in New York and Florida. This is the base of the problem, the lack of questioning. A two state solution with Gaza and the West Bank with Israel in the middle will never work. Look at a map. Secondly, the Israelis need to concede a territory to the Palestinians and let them work it out. Let them be on their own. Third, the US needs to cut financial aid outright. We cannot keep borrowing from the Chinese while we are in a massive deficit. The buck has to stop somewhere but nobody in Washington sees it that way.

Let's ask the questions: Why do we need to give so much financial aid to Israel? Why do we supply them with arms? The average American is not in favor of the governments support for Israel. People here in NJ say that it causes political problems for us in the Middle East and I agree. We need someone who is respected in Washington to stand up to the blatant pro-Israel lobby and get these ideas out in the open. Now if anyone comments on my writings as being anti-jewish then I have proved my point.