America's interests as defined by you?
This means that I don't have undying loyalty to any maniac that the Israeli's choose to make their Prime Minister e.g. Sharoniac.
I find it interesting that "America Firsters" such as yourself express their "patriotism" by accusing others of being loyal to a foreign country. Yeah, you're a shining example of an "real" American.
Only a moron such as yourself believes that Isreal is more secure under his leadership.
Name-calling is another earmark of "America Firsters". It shows how grown up they are. As to the substance of your comment, when Israel took over the Arab camps, the rate of suicide bombing dropped. They withdraw, and it increases. What do these facts do to your "security" theory?
I suggest that you have your buddies in the illegal settlements
What makes them illegal? Name the law that says they are illegal. And don't bother with the Geneva Convention. That applies to occupied territories. These territories were occupied by Jordon and Egypt illegally without so much as a murmer of protest by the world. It was only when they were liberated by Israel in a defensive war that the world began to care about the "occupation".
vote a sane person into office...one that will enter into honest and realistic negotiations with the Palestinians.
Whom do you have in mind? Peres? Barak? Been there and done that. BTW, since Sharon has proven himself to be a brilliant general, your comment about his sanity reflects only on your frustration and maturity.
The liberal/conservative dichotomy does not work well when viewing opinions on the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Would you call Pat Buchanan a liberal/communist? I think not. This is probably difficult for you to understand since it is obvious you don't engage in independent thinking.
Well, Pat did form an alliance with that African-American woman. What was her name? Wasn't she a communist? How could Pat do that?
By the way, how would you categorize the killing of a seven year old Palestinian boy the other day by the IDF...was that "good" or "evil".
Assuming nothing else, I would call it "collateral damage". You know, the kind the US did in Afghanistan? Regretable to be sure.