[monkeyshine]

If they don't need our money, then why are they taking it?
Because we give it to them. It was a deal we made with them and Egypt (who recieves 2/3rds the same amount), that helps the balance of power. Israel is vulnerable to invasion, as we saw in the 1973 war, and providing them with these funds helped to convince Egypt and Israel that another invasion will assure mutual destruction. Do you think it is appropriate to reneg on deals we made?

Anyway, Israel is a liability to the US and has been.
In what way? Saying so doesn't make it true. How about you substantiate it. The USA is the world's hyperpower. How much more power would we have without Israel?

However, if they cooperate, really cooperate, and help to implement the two state solution, then I support the US being a neutral peace-keeping presence there along with other UN members.
Well I don't want our servicemen sent all over the world to keep the peace between warring peoples. That is certain to mean dead Americans, just like the Americans killed in Lebanon trying to keep the peace. The two sides should make peace. And Israel has made all the concessions. They have always had a 2 state solution in the plans, yet it's impossible to implement unless the 2nd state is going to renounce terrorism and violence, and prevent attacks. If Mexican were sneaking across the border and blowing up discos and pizza joints in El Paso and San Diego, we would hold the Mexican government responsible for breaking up the terrorist cells and helping to secure the borders. Israel demands the same of Arafat, but Arafat does not comply. Until the Palestinian Authority starts to act like a responsible nation, it should not be allowed to become a responsible nation.

Sharon is a worse terrorist than Arafat in many ways.
This is pure nonsense. Are you aware of the 200,000 dead people left in the wake of Arafat's terror and ambition, and how they came to be dead? The man is brutal. Nevertheless, Sharon is a convenient whipping boy for the supporters of Arafat. It's rather sick and cynical to say what you said, without acknowleging that Sharon was elected the 5th Israeli representative to negotiate with Arafat. There have been several doves who tried to negotiate with Arafat to no avail. At what point will you acknowlege that the problem is Arafat. 5 different Israeli leaders have tried to make peace, but the Palestinians have only had Arafat. Sharon, a military man, is a natural reaction by the Israeli populace (65% of the vote!) after 10 years of trying to negotiate peace, and only getting war in return.

[newzjunkey]

If Mexican were sneaking across the border and blowing up discos and pizza joints in El Paso and San Diego, we would hold the Mexican government responsible for breaking up the terrorist cells and helping to secure the borders. Israel demands the same of Arafat, but Arafat does not comply.

What you miss here is that you assume Sharon and Arafat are on equal footing, with comparable resources at the disposal. You would (rightly) assume Mexico and the US would be so positioned in the scenario you outline.

I'm not convinced Arafat has the polictical will of his people (more likely he has a price on his head not unlike the President of Pakistan or Saudi leadership) or the resources (made worse in light of IDF's obliteration of several Palestinian police facilities) to meet Israel's demands.

Seems like Israel's not too interested in Arafat's own problams and, not surprisingly, he's not too interested in meeting their demands.