It's worth  considering the possibility that congressional democrats are cynically using the Armenian genocide to antagonize Turkey so that it makes its airspace unavailable to the US.  This would be a backdoor way to making the US military presence in Iraq harder to sustain.  Consider the timing of this resolution.  We've had over 90 years to condemn what happened there.  

Does anyone know if the resolution is condemning the genocide itself or Turkey's supression of acknowledgement and scholarship of it?

"...a mysterious accident in northern Syria, widely believed to be the result of chemical weapons development, killed both Syrian and Iranian engineers."

Couldn't have happened to nicer people.

I can't believe Halevy actually thinks that accepting a 10-year hudna with Hamas is actually a good idea, just because he thinks Hamas will keep its word.  It will also keep its word about never accepting Israel's right to exist and establishing an Islamic theocracy in its place through violent struggle.  Halevy should personally tell every Israeli boy in 3rd grade that they'll get to walk into a meat-grinder when they graduate from high school so that we can have ten years of "calm".

I'm with the first commenter here.  I wouldn't want A.B. Yehoshua operating on me just because he wrote "Open Heart".  What is it about diplomacy and security studies that the unqualified always feel qualified?

Right on.

The advocates for the immunity of religion (i.e. Islam) from criticism are conveniently ignoring an inherent contradiction in their argument.  The Quran itself is a severe critique of Judaism and Christianity.  The Dome of the Rock is decorated with calligraphy quoting the verses of the Quran that claim how Jesus was not the son of God.  There are many passages that accuse the Jews and Christians of having corrupted the word of God.  And let's not forget the suraat from the period when Mohammed was in Medina and Jewish tribes there were his political rivals.  Allah suddenly had less flattering things to reveal to the Prophet about the Jews.  Should this excuse me if I flush a Quran down the toilet because certain passages are offensive to Judaism?  -Or, by doing so, would I be inviting "understandable" retribution from Muslims?  How do you think the people at the U.N. or most journalists would answer that question?  

Semantic debates over what Ahmadinejad did or did not say are just academic.  The bottom line is that Iranian regional hegemony is an existential threat to Israel.  Iranian regional hegemony would not be so problematic if the country was free to express its secular, Persian identity.  Instead the country is firmly under the control of an Islamic theocracy.  Iran's historical role as a regional power is simply a vehicle for the curent regime to advance an aggressive, destabilizing, and arguably messianic agenda.  As Admiral Adama pointed out, Iran is responsible for brazen acts of terrorism against targets as soft as a Jewish community center in places as remote as Buenos Aires.  Iran is also the patron of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.  Imagine how much more brazen Iran would become if it had nuclear deterrence.  Imagine how DE-stabilizing this would be for the region and the world.

Don't let your opposition to the Iraq War or your hatred for Bush cloud your judgement.

In the segment of my argument that you focus on, you leave out relevant passages (intentionally or not, I don't know) and completely miss the point.  The Afghanistan example was to illustrate the dangers of supporting illiberal allies simply because it is in our short-term interests.  No, Afghanistan has no oil and is not a Gulf state.  How very sharp of you to point that out.  You may recall however, that in the 80's the army of the Soviet Union was fighting a war there, and Reagan saw fit to pay the USSR back for its support of the NVA and Viet Cong two decades before.  But as events of the last +/-14 years have shown, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. 

I'll take your silence on the 90% of the rest of my comment as implicit acceptance of its main argument.  Are W&M bigots?  Dishonest?  Cynical?  Whatever they are, their entire thesis is dead wrong.