I'm supporting Kerry because he's our man now, but...

I wish that he could come out strongly about the Middle East. We need an honest discussion in this country about what this 3-decade-old problem has done to us and the world. If there was ever a tinderbox for a world war, we're sitting right on top of it. Seriously, this situation is extremely dangerous.

that when Bush took over from Clinton, he refused to take over where Clinton left off in the negotiations. In fact he ignored the entire world for nine months!!!

this is a problem which goes back more than 50 years. If Clinton couldn't resolve it why would you expect shrub to be able to. What diplomatic skills does he have. His approach to foreign policy is to announce what we are going to do and drawing a line in the sand to separate those who are with us and those who are against us.

Back to the underlying question, when did it become the United States responsibility to solve the I/P conflict. When the Palestinians are ready to stop killing civilians, then they should approach the US and ask us to act as an honest broker. Right now we have an ally and friend in Israel and we shouldn't abandon them while they are under constant threat of terrorist attack. We were attacked on our mainland exactly once; for the Israelis it's a regular occurence.

and the bombings stopped for years. What he did worked while he was INVOLVED. THAT is the key to I/P. Stay involved. The chimp ignored it and it is now out of control. I agree that we can't abandon Israel...they are the ONLY Democracy in the region...surrounded by Militant regimes who what every Jew dead. I lay the blame for the escalation there right at the feet of BUSH, he's to blame, too. Had he stayed engaged, we wouldn't be having this discussion. JMCPO

in our observations. The US has an obligation to solve the IP conflict because Israel is supported financially and militarily by the US. It would cease to exist without the support of the US. We are absolved of any responsibility to settle the conflict only if we abandon our support of Israel.

As for the killing of civilians, both sides are guilty and we'll go nowhere fast if the debate remains focused on who is most wrong. You are right about the US acting as an honest broker though, something that I understand is an unacceptable term to many Israelis.

Because we have an ally who is defending itself against terrorism we are somewhat obligated to act as an honest broker and help the terrorists solve their problems. If the various Palestinian factions could get their acts together the violence would stop and real talks could begin, with or without US help. In the mean time, we should support our ally, even if we don't necessarily approve of their methods. If there was a suicide bombing in the US every other day, there's no way we would tolerate it. Why should we expect Israel to.

No. If we disapprove of their methods, and I agree with you, I do, then we cannot be an honest broker by condemning one side's contemptible actions while giving a wink to the contemptible actions of the other. You assert a tired, worn out, dead end argument: that the actions of one side are more justifiable than another. It's like friggin' kindergarten: "He started it!" "No, he did!"

The solution cannot be held hostage by giving justification to deplorable actions. Both sides are guilty of killing innocents, provocation and hatred. Making a case for whose wrongs are the least criminal is a distraction.

that you never "solve," .....but at very least, you DEAL with them. No, Clinton did NOT "solve" the problems in the Middle East, but he sure put a lot of sincere effort into dealing with them. Bush has taken a terrible approach -- violence and Haliburton investments. He has made things worse, far worse. It's an important issue that we need to consider in this election.

Religion + Money + Power = no hope for peace