Jeroen wrote: > > I note that you accused me of "gross misinterpretation of history" in > > your post, but did not bother to answer the question about the possible > > future history of a Palestinian state attacking its neighbours. >
Well, IMO, a future Palestinian state's likelihood to attack its neighbor Israel is probably pretty high. Yet that should not preclude them being given a state of their own. At the very least, it would put them both on equal footing. The lines would not be deliberately blurred by either side and there would be no excuse for conflict. And yes, if that new state then attacked Israel, then if asked, we Americans would (out of obligation) defend her as an ally. I have noted this before, and I will note it onlist again: you bandy the word "nuke" around a lot when you discuss America going into conflict. If I were you, I'd assume that if the WTC tragedy didn't propel us to use them, then a Palestinian State and a piddling little border war won't either. Jon
