mr. tarasen has no last words, except to say that he already noted that your personal attacks might lead him to territory we'd all regret.

but on the issue of Sharon and Lieberman:

I don't understand how someone who claims to be a neocon and at one point contemplated voting for bush cna then turn around and embrace Lieberman.

a quick scan of his homepage reveals this fun story:

"Ony May 11, Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) released a white paper arguing that the threat of offshore outsourcing is not just about losing American manufacturing and low-end services jobs to overseas competitors, but about losing America’s ability to create new high-end services and research and development (R&D) jobs."

now, any good conservative--or properly educated university of chicago student--will tell you that opposition to free trade--and especially opposition to the outsourcing of labor--is indefensible. that mr. bush raised steel tariffs was rightfully seen as a blatant, cheap political move, and this should be seen as such as well.

in fact, Liberman seems a moderate of the worst kind. if he were socially liberal and fiscally conservative, that would be one thing. but he's fiscally irresponsible--wanting lower taxes and higher spending--and socially authoritarian. where's the good policy there?

what's to like, again? and, recalling my previous question, does it matter? because even if Lierberman's platform were a shining example of good government policy, one still must deal with the fact that he's boring and unelectable to national office. Lieberman just isn't likeable--he doesn't charm people. Kerry has HUGE issues being likeable to voters...you think he's going to choose a running mate who's full of the same, while at the same time allying himself with someone so closely linked to Gore?

I doubt it. highly.

as for Sharon, I'll admit I admire some of what the man does. he's got a tough job, and I don't know if any of us could do it better--and certainly his position as a hawk lets him get away with a lot on the peace-nik end, which is respectable. nevertheless, I think he needs to recognize that the lack of moral legitimacy of any settlement that he unilaterally imposes will in the long run be crucial. Israel can't rest on military superiority for long. the time is quickly approaching where Israel will be outnumbered, and (see Robert Gilpin), eventually outgunned. a lasting, legitimate peace is really the only tenable solution, lest we find ourselves in fifty years' time with another threat to Israel's security.

now I know you, Mr. Cohen, like to talk about Israel's nuclear deterrent. but here, again, I think this is a dangerous and foolhardy move. Israel's nuclear deterrent encourages other states around it--including the nascent Palestinian state that Sharon seeks to unilaterally create--to wish to balance with their own such deterrents. do we really want Israel-Palestine turning into a nuclearized conflict? I think not.

furthermore, I think it's completely indefensible that Sharon's wall and the border of the unilateral state do not follow either (a) the Green Line or (b) one-for-one swapping along said line. there's no justifiable rationale for that. at all.

might may make right in your eyes, mr. cohen, but only as long as you retain the might. and israel's days in the might--and thus the right--are numbered. the time for a lasting peace is now.