Israel Stands Alone

Eight months into President Barack Obama's administration, his Middle East peace "road map" is crystal clear. First, he dialed down the pressure on Iran, whose nuclear weapons program presents an existential threat to Israel. Second, he shifted the blame for Islamic extremism to Israel and solely blamed it for the Palestinian's plight. Then he unilaterally ratcheted up the pressure on Israel to cease building settlements and to ease its self-defense blockade of Gaza. Now, Obama has upped the ante even further, framing lasting peace in the Middle East as requiring Israel to retreat to its 1967 borders. Although he blandly claims that there are "no preconditions" to relaunching negotiations, in truth he has doomed the peace talks before they even start. Obama has set up Israel as the fall guy for negotiations that will ultimately fail and is the architect of that failure.

When Obama was elected -- with 78 percent of the Jewish vote -- there was concern about what his administration would mean for the 60 years of unwavering support America had provided Israel. Unlike his Republican opponent, John McCain, or his predecessor, George W. Bush, both longstanding supporters of Israel, Obama had no such track record and was championing a different course, one of détente with such hard-line regimes as Iran and Syria. Jews took heart when then-President-elect Obama selected a Jew, Rahm Emanuel, as his chief of staff, and Hillary Clinton, previously a staunch supporter of Israel from her days as senator from New York, as his secretary of state.

An examination of the first 250 days of President Obama's administration convincingly demonstrates that the earlier concerns were well founded and the mitigating cabinet appointments mere window dressing. From his first telephone call as president to a head of state -- Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian National Authority -- and his first one-on-one television interview with any news organization -- Al Arabiya TV -- to his bowing to Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, then embracing the Muslim world at Cairo University and, most recently, rebuking Israel in an address to the United Nations General Assembly, Obama has shown far more concern for strengthening ties with authoritarian regimes on the Arabian Peninsula than to maintaining the historically close alliance with the region's only true democracy.

His Cairo speech scaled back his support of Israel in favor of establishing new diplomatic channels in the Arab world. He also equated the suffering of the Palestinians with the loss of 6 million Jewish lives in the Holocaust. Worse yet, Obama's affirmation of the Arab propagandist idea that Israel was created as a response to the Holocaust greatly undermined its legitimacy as a state and ignored Jews' forced diaspora and Judaism's historical ties to the Middle East that predate all other religions.

Instead of seeing Israel as the oasis and model for democracy that it is in the Middle East, Obama views the country and its conflict with its neighbors as "this constant wound ... this constant sore, [that] does infect all of our foreign policy." It is as if the president has blinders on: in effect repeating the red herring that blames the atrocities of 9/11 on America's support of Israel, in July 2008, Obama stated:

The lack of a resolution to this problem [the Israeli-Palestinian conflict] provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, so we have a national security interest in solving this.

Sound familiar? Former President Jimmy Carter, author of the canard, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," asserts, "lack of progress in the Middle East is one of the main causes for animosity, hatred and even violent acts against America." Both presidents conveniently neglect the fact that Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, perpetrators of multiple attacks on America, never cared or linked any of their actions to the Palestinian cause until after 9/11. Islamic extremists are at war with the spread of Western culture, and the United States is the chief exporter of Western beliefs, so it is a pipe dream to assume that America can achieve détente with "anti-American militant jihadists" by, in effect, offering up Israel as a sacrificial lamb.

In his United Nations address, Obama called for Israel to establish "a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967." Like Bush before him, Obama referred to the territories Israel won in the Six-Day War -- a preemptive defensive strike against armies from nine Arab countries massing on its borders -- as "occupied territory" but, unlike Bush, Obama's proposal has Israel retreating from its own land, returning to indefensible 1967 borders and trusting in the peaceful intentions of its neighbors. Bush didn't go nearly that far, citing in his 2004 "road map" that "in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

Obama went even further, linking America's continuing support for the Jewish state's very security with his demand that it surrender the territory, stating, "The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians." Of all the countries in history that have won wars, only Israel is being denied the fruits of its victory in 1967.

Obama appears to have adopted as policy the controversial agreement Carter reached with Hamas last year to establish a Palestinian state in the territories won by Israel 42 years ago. Additionally, and again in sharp contrast to the Bush Administration, which opposed a Palestinian national unity government, Obama has communicated his support, through Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell, for the formation of a Hamas-Fatah coalition government. Obama has even gone so far as to request Congress amend the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 to enable the United States to continue to provide financial aid to any Palestinian government if the President determines that it is in the interests of national security.

As the United States, the European Union and other countries have classified Hamas as a terrorist organization, America under Obama would appear to have strange new bedfellows. Perhaps the president has forgotten that Hamas' charter (Article 7) advocates the killing of all Jews by Muslims, its leaders are Holocaust deniers, that his own FBI director, Robert Mueller, in testimony before the U.S. Senate, cited "the FBI's assessment that there is a ...threat of a coordinated terrorist attack in the U.S. from Palestinian terrorist organizations, such as Hamas," that Hamas has never accepted Israel's right to exist and is committed to "obliterating" it (preamble to Hamas charter), and that, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates last January, Hamas and another terrorist organization, Hezbollah, have joined with Iran in fomenting "subversive activity" in Latin America. Or perhaps he believes America's stated policy of not negotiating with terrorists -- established by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and reaffirmed by Obama as a presidential candidate in April 2008 -- should be scrapped.

The United States is proving to be a fair-weather ally, abandoning Israel in the face of an impending existential threat from a nuclear Iran. Obama's self-declared "evenhanded" approach to solving the Middle East "problem" would appear to consist of continually pressuring Israel to give up its secure borders while simultaneously enabling grave threats to Israel's very existence, refusing to engage the United States in taking action to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program. Last May, the president connected the dots thusly:

To the extent that we can make peace... between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I think it actually strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat.

This idealistic view misses the point -- Iran isn't interested in a two-state solution. In the words of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "Israel must be wiped off the map," is a "stinking corpse," "is on its way to annihilation" and "has reached the end like a dead rat." Not a lot of room to negotiate there.

Nor is there room to negotiate Iran's nuclear weapons program. As Obama belatedly acknowledged on Sept. 26 regarding the country's newly disclosed nuclear power facility, "the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program." Iran desires global power and to spread the religious and political ideology of the Islamic Revolution, so what's left to negotiate? Access to nuclear energy for peaceful uses isn't on Iran's shopping list.

Iran and Syria rank as the leading state sponsors of terrorism, yet the president has removed a longstanding export ban on American technology to Syria, allowing the transfer of spare aircraft parts, information technology and telecommunications equipment, all material that could also benefit the air force of Syria's close ally, Iran. At the same time, Obama actually suspended the sale of military equipment to Israel -- holding up the shipment of Apache helicopters after Israel moved to defend its citizenry against daily Hamas-enabled rocket barrages earlier this year -- equipment necessary to safeguard Israel's security against overwhelming odds. Syria, an unrepentant state supporter of terrorism, was exempted by Obama from the longtime ban on the sale of sensitive, dual-use technologies. Yet, it is only Israel that stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States as America's most important and dependable ally in combating terrorism. Can the president see the difference?

Obama spoke eloquently to the United Nations about having compassion for "the Palestinian boy in Gaza who has ... no country to call his own." Where's his concern for the 3,000-year-old Jewish communities in Arab lands that were ethnically cleansed between 1948 and the early 1970s? Commencing with Arab League retaliation for the declaration of the State of Israel, 1 million Jews were forcibly removed from their homes and personal property, forfeiting 62,000 square miles of land (nearly five times Israel's 12,600 square miles) and assets worth approximately $300 billion. What of their "right of return?"

By tying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to improving Muslim-U.S. relations, Obama has forced Israel into the position of answering for U.S. failures in the Muslim world and making the sacrifices necessary to mend that relationship. Obama has placed immense pressure on Israel to halt settlement building. Where is the equal pressure on the Palestinian Authority to ensure Israel's security? Obama's far greater pressure on the Israelis has emboldened Arab intransigence and moved the Middle East farther away from the prospect of peace.

Case in point: Last weekend, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian chairman of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, asserted that Israel's nuclear weapons program, not Iran's, is "the number one threat" to Middle East peace. In the words of Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, "Israel seeks Iran's recognition; Iran seeks Israel's destruction. So of course it is Israel that poses a threat." Obama's strong-arm policies toward Israel have created the opening Arab countries have long sought to solve "the Jewish problem" once and for all.

President Obama's new, "evenhanded" policy in the Middle East is anything but fair and balanced. His policies increasingly endanger and isolate Israel. At the United Nations, Obama forcefully stated that "the United States of America will never waiver in our efforts to stand up for the right of people everywhere to determine their own destiny," that is, of course, unless the people are Israelis. Without the Jewish state of Israel as a standard bearer for Western ideals of democracy in the Middle East, the world will be a far more dangerous place. Then it will be America's turn to stand alone as "Public Enemy No. 1" for Islamic fundamentalists.

This article originally appeared in the Jewish Journal.

 

Comments

[jrutle]

Our Founding Fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew how deeply America has gotten involved in an age-old ethnic conflict in the Middle East which should be none of our concern. The sooner our country begins to militarily disengage from the entire region, the better off everyone will be, including Israelis and Palestinians who truly desire peace. I voted for Obama but am one who is disappointed that more pressure has not been put on Netanyahu to end all Israeli resettlements. The expansionist view that its Israel's manifest destiny to hold all of the disputed holy lands is absurd and only leads to endless suffering, by conquering and conquered alike. And, simply, the U.S. can no longer afford to be policeman to the world. We're behaving like an empire and getting our just desserts like all empires before us - we are going broke. The hundreds of billions of dollars America spend in the Middle East annually through military occupations and foreign aid could be put to much better use at home. Mr Greif wants America to remain forever embroiled in Israel's quagmire. I hope we don't.

[danielet]

Greif's statement is a litany of ideological givens. Many Americans don't see Israel so special to putting self-interest at for, nor can this litany serve as dog whistle only we hear. Israel claims right to sovereignty, insisting on total freedom of preemption when deeming its interests at sake. Why should America be denied the same freedom to put its interests above those of Israel? Every Israeli action of war will demand a pulse of billions of US$ to recover its spent arsenal whenever Israel rains ordnance on neighboring nations. We are expected to see the Israeli attack on Gaza as self-defense. Yet, just reading Israeli newspapers one is unable to come to that conclusion. So what to do when Greif's declaration--DEVOID OF SUBSTANTIATING ARGUMENTS-- is unpersuasive? It is then that the hyper-drama begins, the Holocaust guilt trip is dumped upon us and, the less persuasive the declarations become, the more slanderous the reaction to lack of enthusiasm
for blind support of Israel. Goyim who do not willingly swallow Greif’s presentations are deemed "anti-Semites" if they argue against it and Jews are deemed "self-hating Jews." It would be far better if the case for and against would seek common ground from which to originate meaningful dialogue; America really owe Israel nothing but it owes America a great deal.. Starting from common ground could produce convincing arguments to the contrary.

[WBMD]

Starting from common ground is essential in any rational, reasonable debate and discussion. I agree with most of your points, and have called for Israel to unilaterally decline to accept further grants from the U.S., with all the consequences on both sides that that entails. I also agree that the Holocaust, while a monumental historical episode, if not THE monumental historical episode in the story of the Jewish people, while it affects the perception of many Jews, should not be a prime argument or discussion point when dealing with the rest of the world.

I will, however, disagree with you on the U.S. role. I do not believe any country, including the U.S. has acted, or would act, in anything other than what it sees as its best interests. If the U.S. supports Israel, it is because successive administrations have seen the benefit accrued to the U.S. in that relationship, much of it unbeknownst to the general population.

Finally, I don't know what newspapers you read, but if theIsraeli actions in gaza, after 8 years of rockets, is not self-defense, what is?

[LincolnParkChicago]

Fact check:
A working cease fire was in place and the rockets had ceased. Hamas was actively working to stop the rockets and was succeeding. israel broke the ceasefire.
For some reason, you neglected to mention this.

[jrutle]

The rocket attacks do not justify the expansion of Israeli settlements. The settlements only make a bad situation worse.

[trccommission]

"Of all the countries in history that have won wars, only Israel is being denied the fruits of its victory in 1967."

Hmm, not true, in 1975 Uganda invaded Tanzania, but was defeated. The Tanzanians deposed Idi Amin but did not lay claim to Ugandan territory

[trccommission]

If I recall, Iraq was also denied the fruits of its victory in 1990.

[DC]

And Russia and the US and France. The commentary is filled with delusions of victimology.

[GoldsteinD]

Israel is fighting a proxy religious war for us against Iran's proxy war (they are using Palestinians and Syrians). Whether you want to admit it or not, the West is at war with radical Islam and will continue to be regardless of the fate of Israel.

Whom among you will thank Israel when they bomb Iran's illicit nuclear industry?

[WBMD]

When will they ever learn?

[Sentientbeing09]

Quite an imagination.

[lbsaltzman]

I think the world will curse not thank Israel when it launches an unjustified attack against Iran. At worst Iran is emulating Israel in its' desire for nuclear weapons. Iran is simply the latest excuse for Israel to use to justify it's unjustified and brutal attacks on both Palestine and Lebanon.

[WBMD]

There is no Palestine.

The Israeli responses to Palestinian attacks (including the latest rocket into southern Israel today,) are fully justified.

The world will continue to curse Israel whether it defends itself or not. Iran has clearly stated that it is arming itself to exterminate Israel.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes the most important task of the Iranian Revolution was to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam, who disappeared in 874, bringing an end to Muhammad’s lineage. The Shiites have been waiting patiently for the Twelfth Imam for more than a thousand years, but Ahmadinejad believes he can now hasten the return through a nuclear war. Ayatollah Hussein Nuri Hamdani explicitly said in 2005 that “the Jews should be fought against and forced to surrender to prepare the way for the coming of the Hidden Imam.” It is this apocalyptic world view, Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis notes, that distinguishes Iran from other governments with nuclear weapons.

Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani explicitly said he wasn’t concerned about fallout from an attack on Israel. “If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession,” he said “the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world.”

[ray01]

Another illegal attack on an oil producing Moslem country that refuses to open up for US energy corporations & has the audacity to trade in the dollar. One that challenges Israel's regional hegemony as well.

One day the birds will come home to roost . Tiny Israel is going to take a hit. I will thank the country that takes out the #1 threat to World Peace.

[Wisdo]

Israels casual disregard for International law, Its secret nuclear arsenal, its daily illegal settlement activity (judged illegal by every country, including the US) its brutally inhuman treatment of the Palestinians with all the attendant deliberate cruelty of an oppressor grinding its boot into the face of the oppressed has made the jewish state" an international pariah.



Israels finds itself in this position because of its own actions, not because of some elaborate international conspiracy of racism.

It is time for Israel to address the glaringly unjust situation of the Palestinian people with some dignity and courage, if not Israel deserves to stand alone, in the corner - wearing the Dunce's hat.

[GoldsteinD]

the international community's disregard for Israel's soverignty and right of self protection...

[cj124]

How about palistinian's right of self protection?

[lbsaltzman]

Israel constantly claims that every war crime and crime against humanity it commits is an act of self protection. That argument has long since lost all validity, and the vast majority of all governments of the world rightfully reject that argument.

[ray01]

Wisdo

Well done. Music to one's ears.

[Wisdo]

Yes Israel stands alone. It is the worlds only violently supported colonial settler movement.

Civilised nations gave up doing that over 100 years ago.

[Sentientbeing09]

Heh. When the US takes its support down a notch, Israeli supporters whine about "standing alone". It shows how little support Israel and its violent policies really has in the world.

Supporters of Israel should instead be questioning their behavior and why theyre isolated in the world. Ill give them a hint: Its the occupation, stupid.

[lbsaltzman]

Well said! Israel should stand alone as the civilized world rejects its' neo-colonial, nationalistic philosophy. that philosophy is used to rationalize war crimes by Israel.

[whiskeytangofoxtrot451]

Yeah, Israel stands alone, with a meager $2.4 billion in annual aid from the U. S. taxpayers.

[CroatianCritter]

Since Israel has decided to stand alone, can we keep the billions of dollars we give you every year that is paid back through extreme arrogance by the leaders of Israel? I can continue to support your nation's quest as the only democracy in the Middle East if we can save ourselves from this billion dollar commitment. Something tells me Israel would be much more willing to negotiate if that "money" suddenly disappeared and they had to fend for themselves.

[Wisdo]

If the money suddenly disappeared, Israel could easily sell US arms technology to China in return for the same deal they had before.

[GoldsteinD]

Israel does not need money from us. We buy technology from them

[Thabit]

And thats not counting the secrets Israel has already stolen from the USA and sold to the russians and chinese in past years , Some Ally huh

[doughnut70]

Great column. But I would point out that President Obama also said that he would be wiling to station either UN or American troops in the area to guarantee Israel's security as part of any deal. I suspect that he was posturing on all of it to try and get people to the table. I may be wrong, but I would like to think President Obama would be smarter in the end than to give up on the only consistent American ally in the region.

[Sentientbeing09]

The US doesnt and has never needed Israel for regional expression of power. Thats Israeli hubris at its worst. The US / Israeli relationship is overwhelmingly one-sided.

There is nothing Israel provides that cant be provided by a sigle US aircraft carrier or one of the vast number of purpose-built military bases in Iraq or elsewhere in the region.

Any benefit to the blind, unquestioning US / Israeli alliance is always in one direction.

[ray01]

Fanned.

[DC]

Why does the US need its ally in the region?

[Black North]

Israel “retreating to its 1967 border” is not a bad thing, in fact, the 1967 borders are all that Israel is, under international law, allowed to occupy. Just because the Israeli government have gotten used to treating the West Bank and the Golan Heights as theirs by right does not, and cannot be allowed to stand. Israel may treat the UN and other international bodies with disrespect and carry out shameful personal attacks on individuals, such as Judge Goldstone, but the world needs governments and particularly democratic governments to obey the principles of law, for if they do not then what hope is there that undemocratic countries will follow suit? So the only thing at existential threat here is the very concept of international law or do we really want to revert to a world where the bully with the biggest stick gets to do whatever they want?
Finally, Mr Greif might want to rethink his bio intro because the phrase “widely respected investment banker” has a curiously hollow ring these days, only a thought!

[doughnut70]

Actually if International law and precedent are binding, the League of Nations resolution after the Balfour declaration promised a Jewish Homeland to be created with it's borders as the entire area of Palestine. That would make Israel about four times larger than it currently is.

[Black North]

When you say “if” here you seem to be suggesting that adhering to international law is perhaps an optional choice? Yes, I think I can see where you are coming from. Don’t like the present off-side rule in soccer then argue that the previous rule was much better. The League of Nations ceased to exist in April 1946 and it was under the UN, not the League of Nations, that the state of Israel and its legally binding borders were created. This wanting to change the rules reminds me of PM Netanyahu’s recent suggestion that the laws covering war crimes should be updated to suit the modern (Israeli) world. That man may lack many things but certainly not Chutzpah!

[WBMD]

When "international law" is applied singularly to one country, unequally, it is no law. Only when a law is applied to all, in a just manner, can it be respected. Thsi is not the case here.

[Black North]

So International Law is just another one of the many ways that Israel is victimized?

[mikep]

What an hysterical post. LOL! Yes, Israel stands alone. Except of course for the entire world. The reality is that the anti-semites constitute and have the support of maybe 1-2% of the world. They are openly being laughed at, as are the Palestinians' absurd claims to be the victims, not the aggressors. The reality is that there are many nations that support and have relations with Israel, while Palestine remains a pariah in the world, with not a single nation recognizing it. Even the Arab nations don't want them. The BDS campaign against Israel has been a total failure, with not a single nation or major company supporting it, while the blockade against Gaza remains solidly in place, with even Muslim nations such as Egypt strongly supporting it.

The reality is that it is the Palestinians who are at the end of their road, and it is they who stand completely alone. They are now completely isolated, have no arms, no money, no respect, no allies, and no hope of ever defeating Israel in any way. They are entirely dependent for their subsistence on the generosity of other nations. They have been solidly, conclusively and permanently defeated in their illegal war and their attempts to steal, occupy and plant settlements on Israeli land. By contrast, the Jews are in the best shape that they have been in in their entire 5000 year history. Wealthier, better educated, better armed, more human rights, more everything. And they are getting stronger.

[skaprt]

An accurate summary of the situation -excellent.

[Zonie]

The best shape in 5000 years, eh?

Very good for Israel.

.....then they certainly do not require US aid, nor our children to fight their wars.

[ray01]

Good comeback.

[Sentientbeing09]

Oh please. One-hundred and one states recognize the State of Palestine, and 21 more grant some form of diplomatic status to a Palestinian delegation, falling short of full diplomatic recognition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Authority

Dont tell lies. Naughty mike!

Ill remind you to check out the number of countries that dont recogise Israel. Like er..most of its neighbors. Even the vatican only recogized something like 15 years ago.

The rest of your post is aspirational fantasy. Support for the Blockade, Divest and Sanction of Israeli goods and the Israeli economy is growing around the world. Excellent! More please!

If Israelis dont want to be members of a modern, peaceful, fair and just international community well isolate them more and more. Enjoy your economic wilderness.

[WBMD]

It is true. Isn't it ironic, though? The Jewish people have existed as an identifiable groupd for 3000 years. Today they have a country, with a government, a capital city, control over territory, speaking the same language, practising the same customs and religion that they did 3000 years ago. And the Vatican only "recognized" them, grudgingly, conditionally, 15 years ago.

The "Palestinian Arabs" only identified themselves as an individual entity 50 years ago, control no territory, have no sovereign government, never had a capital city, have no identifiable characteristics identifying them as a seperate group, are recognized as a
"state" by over a hundred countries in our upstanding "modern, peaceful, fair and just international community ".

Doesn't that tell you something?

SentientBeing09, why do you want to see that one Jewish country destroyed, so much?

[jasjohn128]

Great post and spot-on summary, thx.

[doughnut70]

Actually most people know that outside of this country Anti-Semitism is still very strong and numerous public opinion surveys show that large numbers of people in all parts of the world think that Jews are in some way a different species from the rest of humanity. It's getting better because the establishment of the State of Israel forces respect, but it's still not bad. In fact in the years before WWII Roosevelt discussed buying unused land in South America for a Jewish homeland and the discussion caused riots. After WWII there was a discussion of putting a homeland in Europe and all leaders opposed it with Stalin saying it would lead to a resurrection of Nazism. Because early religions preached a stereotype of Jews, they are still hated by large numbers of people throughout the world. The question is if our generation will finally take the necessary steps by supporting Israel's survival to end this sick hatred that has been passed down through the generations.

[Caru]

Oh woe is Israel, abandoned in the night.

[Enliberate]

Israel endangers and isolates itself. The concept of "homeland" needs to be analyzed then dropped as the outmoded and dangerous concept that it is. (Anyone recall where it comes from?) The concept of an "ancestral homeland" has nothing to do with Planet Earth in the 21st century. Israel as an "oasis" of Western democratic ideals? That's one way to put it-I prefer a "base" for attempted Western control of the Middle East. The primary reality is that Israel has not accepted the right of a Palestinian state to exist and would like to expand.

[WBMD]

I don't know. The Turks have a homeland. The Irish have a homeland. The Greeks have a homeland. The Palestinians want a homeland.

And you are absolutely INCORRECT. Israel has explicitly accepted a Palestinian state in most of the West Bank and Gaza. Even Netnayahu. a late holdout, has put an offer clearly on the table for a Palestinian state, with the proviso of temporary limitations in the interest of Israeli security; but limitations which would not prevent Palestinians from living, controlling their own destinies, establishing infrastructure, schools,farms; issuing passports, etc., etc.

[Sentientbeing09]

The Palestinians never left. Theyve already got one.

Its occupied by Israel remember?

[cj124]

As soon as they establish infrastucture, schools, farms, etc. the aggressors will bulldoze over them and cry victem. Don't rewrite history. What about the Palestinian's safety with concerns of israel aggression. And why haven't israel ever recgonized international borders, is it that they are not done expanding on other people's land.

[Wisdo]

The Romany, or Gypsises do not have a "homeland". Should we forcibly deport millions of romanians to accomodate the Romany in their "ancestral homeland"?

After all "fanatical white caucasian christianofascists" have HUNDREDS of countries to choose from - the romanians could just go there.

Remeber the romany also suffered huge losses in the Holocaust - why cant we give some country to them too, and boot out whoever happens to be living there?

Fairs fair no?

[unitron]

"...he shifted the blame for Islamic extremism to Israel and solely blamed it for the Palestinian's plight."

I guess I missed hearing about how Greenland, Jamaica, and Tahiti helped chase all of those Palestinians away from their land back in the day.

[VS007]

Ha ha ha

[theaetetus]

if the US is a "fair-weather ally" to israel then i'd hate to see a staunch unwavering ally.
what a joke.

policy against new settlements has been in place for a long time. difference is now we will mean what we say... hopefully.

this whining about the obama admin is pathetic.

bush was great for israeli hawks and garbage for america.

hopefully with obama we will get our priorities back in line and pursue some diplomacy rather than

feed chickenhawks

[LincolnParkChicago]

How does the USS Liberty sit with any discussion of ally.

[nanderson65]

SNAP!
That's right!
Or the Levon affair?

Israelis dressed as 'muslims' blowing up bombs in Egypt.