I don't think anyone knows what the answer is in the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict. Wiser men than we have tried to solve their seemingly intractable problems.

My point before had only to do with covert operations versus dozens of hard to find targets. It wouldn't work at all with a situation like Iran whereas with the Incirlik reactor in Iraq back in the 80's it was a great solution. The Israelis likely kept the Iraqis from gaining nuclear weapons. While our politicians slapped Israel's wrists for their incursion, behind closed doors they were back slapping and high-fiving the Israeli ambassador. Iran had learned from the Incirlik operation and had made sure their facilities were diversified beyond the ability of even the United States from taking them out in all likelihood.

On virtually all of what you said, I agree with you 100%. Education is important in the region to try to erase centuries of blind hatred. The Arab behind the curtain really isn't a monster, neither is the Jew around the corner. While I think hatreds can be eased over time, especially in this day and age when information is so easily discovered and so hard to suppress, it'll take many lifetimes, I think.

The democracy experiment in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories is one of those educational experiences. If people feel they are part of a government that they helped to create, then those preaching hatred and blaming Israel for all their problems will find fewer and fewer audiences willing to listen to their messages of hate. With Iraqis concentrating on becoming a unified nation, no matter how rocky the path, they no longer pose any sort of threat to Israel. There's no guarantee in the future, but for now, Iraq is not a problem for Israel.

Zarqawi realized the dangers of democracy several years ago. An intercepted letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden showed how much he feared democracy and what it would do to their movement. He felt that a democracy taking hold in Iraq would force them out, requiring al Qaeda to find a new home. If democracy were to spread further, that could destroy their cause, which is why they've fought so hard to destroy the nascent government.

There will always be the completely unreasonable ones like al Qaeda where no amount of negotiations or attempts at being friends will ever work. Those are the ones to keep an eye on, the ones for which the military option must always be open. Even with Iran, though, there is always hope. The population is very young, half 25 or under, who have been exposed to western culture to some degree. Many of them aren't happy living under a theocracy controlled by the mullahs. Some day the theocracy could end, which could potentially end the threat from Iran. For now, though, they are the main ones to keep close tabs on.

For most of the Middle East, I think that eventually there could be a solution. Every so often, we feel like we're so close to finding a resolution all parties can agree upon and then somebody tosses a hand grenade into the room, sometimes literally. Carter came very close and brought together Egypt and Israel. Jordan came to an agreement with Israel and ceased being a blood enemy. Clinton tried and came close with the Palestinians. I thought Bush's proposal for a homeland had great promise, especially since real elections were held in Gaza and the West Bank.

Who knows? Maybe someday a president will succeed in bringing them together. The United States is the only country with the clout on both sides to do it. If democracy can hold in the Palestinian territories, perhaps the Palestinians and Israelis can finally come to an agreement and live in peace. Once that happens, maybe the military option can be shelved once and for all.

I'm hoping right with you there, Paul.

-- Roger

"The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin