it's hard not to scold the nyt when it comes up with some of its looney bloopers esp on the mid east

and this time is a whooper of a looney notion, it says in its op ed that they have known since 2000 what a mid east deal would look like, well they do, do they, except they are totally wrong.

the boys on dw tv dont like me bawling out the nyt or somethang, but what can we do, even in 2000 there were huge doubts whether what was being talked about was viable for Israel and now we totally sure that whatever it looks like, first there will be no full fledged Palestine State, there already is a Palestine State, it is called Jordan.

Second, the borders will not be anything resembling 1967, unless the NYT still wears underpants from 1967, no scratch that, even if they are scrawny enough to wear their underpants from 1967, Israel cannot go back to those borders, even with the swaps, they have to have a defensible border and that includes the airspace and water rights.

Third of all, the nature of the entity in Palestine can be 3 autonomous regions but not a full state, thereby ensuring they dont have their own airfield or air force or navy or army.

A Palestine autonomous region, or 3 regions to be specific is about all that can be accomplished, I know the NYT is very smart, well, then, what can we say, when they say silly and stupid thangs. They practically sounded like the official press agency of Riyadh.

There is a clear reason Israel has not been able to tell them anything, it is becoz they keep saying silly thangs.

We agree the Sauds should comply with what a peace treaty accomplishes, however, Saud influence has drastically dropped, both in the Western World and in the Muslim world, clinging to a retro past. Time to move on. If the world endorses the peace treaty, that will put pressure on the Sauds to endorse it too, they are just too retro.