I’ve never been more worried about Israel’s future. The crumbling of key pillars of Israel’s security — the peace with Egypt, the stability of Syria and the friendship of Turkey and Jordan — coupled with the most diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government in Israel’s history have put Israel in a very dangerous situation.
This has also left the U.S. government fed up with Israel’s leadership but a hostage to its ineptitude, because the powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the United Nations, even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s.
Israel has been trying to deal with the nations surrounding it for a very long time. Much of that effort has been directed toward a peaceful resolution of problems.
However, key Muslim elements in those nations don’t want a peaceful settlement of problems that they perceive that they have with Israel. This has been clear for a very long time.
What most of those anti-Israel elements want is Israel’s anihilation. And they haven’t been secretive about this goial. In fact, this goal and violence against Israel are the only two things that the Arab world has been more than less openly honest about.
Think of Israel as living inside a fortress surrounded by enemies. And think of the enemies as seeking ways of forcing Israel to leave the gates of its fortress open and to tear down key sections of its fortress walls.
One of Thomas Friedman’s best columns.
Blaming Israel on Egypt’s turn from peaceful neighbor to Islamic enemy? Blaming Israel for having rockets fired at it from Gaza without international condemnation? Sheesh. Thomas Friedman are going to be blaming rape victims for dressing provocatively.
Now, there is one person that holds much responsibility, the arrogant, ignorant, inept buffoon in the white house. (Hillary Clinton too.)
“But Israel today is giving its friends — and Barack Obama is one of them….”
Does Friedman remember Obama’s ‘chilly’ and ‘ufriendly’ treatment of Netanyahu during their fairly recent White House meeting?
Obama acted more like a seriously estranged partner at a marital counseling session than he did as the President of the USA.
In diplomacy, public statements and personal body language in the presence of a foreign leader by a President of the USA send ‘clear’ messages regarding personal relationships.
Remember Kennedy and Kruschev in Vienna?
RE: “The crumbling of key pillars of Israel’s security — the peace with Egypt, the stability of Syria and the friendship of Turkey and Jordan — coupled with the most diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government in Israel’s history have put Israel in a very dangerous situation.”
Fascinating — for a moment the obvious choice for “most diplomatically inept and strategically incompetent government” leapt to mind — but no, the author means Israel, not the US.
It is Israel’s fault that America’s current leadership supported the Arab “spring” [sic] which destabilized former supporters of Israel and now the country is surrounded by yet more gleaming-white-fanged enemies who loathe its existence. It is Israel’s fault that America’s current leadership has happily supported redrawing the boundaries of Israel and giving the land to the Palestinians. It is Israel’s fault that America’s current leadership has fumbled the ball on Iran. It is Israel’s fault that America’s current leadership has emboldened the Palestinians to demand UN statehood.
Priceless.
RE: “This has also left the U.S. government fed up with Israel’s leadership but a hostage to its ineptitude, because the powerful pro-Israel lobby in an election season can force the administration to defend Israel at the United Nations, even when it knows Israel is pursuing policies not in its own interest or America’s.”
Isn’t that sad. Poor old US government — having to boycott the Arab state because they are being held “hostage” to . . . [drum roll] . . . [i]having to please people in order to get re-elected[/i].
Not to worry. There are a whole lot of US citizens who are a “hostage” to our country’s leadership too.
The only thing Israel can do is to continue to pursue its own security avidly while hoping and waiting on sanity in the US, come 2012.
This column is about one thing–to convince Jewish voters that it isn’t Obama’s fault; that he is doing evrything he can to help Israel and its just those blasted right wingers who are running Isreal right now who are causing all the problems. This is Rodney King journalism–why can’t we all just get along. What total drivel.
David, you get the annual “Nail hit on the head” award!
None of the critical commentators above actually engage with the reality of the column, nor with its content – and pace robroy, it is not about blaming Israel for Gaza or Egypt. The column makes three broad points:
1) that Israel is threatened by the collapse of its regional partners and their replacement by a vacuum (Egypt) or critical dissent (Turkey) or civil turmoil (Syria). This is not blaming Israel. It is pointing to the reality of events.
2) that Israel’s leadership shows few signs of creative engagement with these changes.
3) that the rise of a nation-building West Bank offers Israel the best chance in decades of arriving at a settlement with the Palestinians. With regard to this point, we need to remember how the Camp David accords challenged the Palestinian leadership under Arafat to build a nation with which the Israelis could do business. The inept, pathetic Arafat failed. New Palestinian leadership has taken up the baton and is laying the foundations of a state – Friedman’s parallel here with the Yishuv of the 1930s is particularly interesting. The Jewish settlement built up all the organs of government (a national council, a cabinet, an internal police and legal system, in effect home rule) ready to roll into place when independence came in 1948, and it is no secret that Palestinians have been studying those tactics. Who can blame them?
“…that Israel’s leadership shows few signs of creative engagement with these changes.”
And just what sort of “creative engagement” must Israel engage in order to satisfy the Palestinian’s?
Any agreement between the Palestinians and Israel must either be one of ‘trust’ in each other that is ‘actualized’ by trustworthy behavior on the part of the Palestinians or it must be firmly enforced by a totally unbiased armed force that is capable of enforcing the agreement if a true relationship of ‘trust’ cannot be established and maintained between Palestine and Israel.
And who is going to guarantee the performance and objectivity of such an armed force?
Or must Israel open its gates and tear down its walls without any reason to ‘trust’ the Palestinians in order to satisfy the Palstinians and the the anti-Israel Muslim world.
A Muslim world, which in the Islamic abstraction represents a first step towards a Muslim caliphate involving the whole world.
#8–In your point #2 you make my point #1. Its all the fault of those right wingers–Barry has nothing to do with it. And why is the middle east falling apart you ask? Because of the naive and stupidic policies of the current administration. Obama has emboldened the anti-Jewish factions of Islam as no president in history. We seem to so easliy forget that the Israelis agreed to a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Arafat refused the deal (after signing it) because not because he was inept but because the sole goal of the PLO is and always has been the destrurction of Israel. In 1948, the Egyptians told the “Palestinians” to move out of the newly procalimed Israel for 2 weeks so they could roll in with tanks and crush Israel. They displaced themselves gladly with the expectation that all the Jews would be killed or expelled and they would get all the land in a couple of weeks. It didn’t work out as planned. Nothing has changed.
Anglican First has me baffled. Has s/he read the column? It answers his question. Palestinians have shown fruitful and sustained co-operation with their Israeli counterparts on security issues.
David, the point of the article is that we are not in 1948. And yes, Arafat failed dismally. Abysmally. Though we might remember that his Israeli counterpart was assassinated by an Israeli right-wing extremist.
I don’t think it helps to intone, again and again, the events of the past like you do with 1948. It used to be like that in Ireland. Then a new generation arose who said, let’s not be imprisoned by the resentments of the past. If you keep picking at a scab it will weep.
Terry Tee thanks for your very well reasoned comments. A point that is too often ignored is how dependent the current Israeli government (administration for us Americans) is on very small ultra-right wing political parties for its survival in the Knesset. These parties routinely demand outrageous concessions for their support and are a powerful factor in Israel’s continuing (and illegal) policy of colonization of the West Bank. Most of these ultra-right parties see ALL of the West Bank as divinely ordained to be part of a Greater Israel. And they see no future for the Palestinian people within that state. Israel’s colonial settlement of land that it has no legitimate claim to under international law is one of the biggest factors in fueling the rage of the Arab world against them.
#12 and #13–Huh? You can’t solve this problem without knowing history. In fact if you know history you might come to the conclusion there is no possible settlement. These folks have been bashing each other with various weapons for 4000+ years, and because of Obama’s stupidic policies they may be doing it with nukes pretty soon. Yes folks, Israel has nukes, and even Rabin would have used them. As to the “illegal” settlement of the West bank, that’s like saying the Union was illegally occupying South Carolina in 1865. The Arabs have started 3 attempted genocidal wars and lost them all. All of the map changes are due to the Islamists insistance that Israel be crushed. Abbas is now back in league with Hammas. And, BTW, the guy who put Egypt and Israel at peace, Sadat, was also assinated by a right wing extremist.
I fundamentally agree with Terry Tee. Even if we grant every point by commentators 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9 (and like Terry I think a lot of the criticisms are off base) they basically sidestep the thrust of the article. Is Israel acting in a competent way at this point in time? Given it is facing a shift in surrounding countries where undemocratic governments have been toppled and so a window has opened for popular anti-Israelite sentiment to be expressed in national policy, given it is facing a Democratic president in the U.S., given it is facing a Palestine that has lifted its game the last five years, is it pursuing wise strategies?
Was not apologizing to Turkey for the deaths of its citizens a *smart* move in terms of foreign policy? Could the expulsion of diplomats, and the fueling of anti-Israelite sentiment in Turkey, been adverted if the Prime Minister had stuck with the negotiated agreement to give a very minimal apology for the operational mistakes that led to casualties rather than reject it due to domestic political reasons? Is going ahead with settlements smart when you have a Democratic president in the U.S.? Is giving the Palestinians no signs that there is any chance that they might be anything other than stateless for the forseeable future whether they work with Israel or not?
That’s the thrust of the piece. If it’s wrong, make the case that Israel’s actions the last couple of years have been expressions of canny long-term statesmanship that are likely to strengthen Israel’s security situation over alternative courses of action.
David Keller (#14.) makes a good point regarding the long record of violence, both petty violence within and between Arab extended families and between Arab ethnic groups and nation states in the Middle East.
This Arab culture of violence still exists and there is no indication that it will go away, Arab Spring or no Arab Spring.
For Israel to trust people such as these by recklessly exposing its own people to the predictable Arab patterns of violence is simple minded and ridiculous.
I have a (hopefully neutral) question for those who appear to endorse an Israel-must-be-supported-at-all-cost position. To what degree is your position influenced by your eschatology and hermeneutic regarding promises made by God to “Israel”? Would you endorse the US going to the mat to the same degree for any other traditional American ally? I’m not an American and the position of certain constituencies within the US vis-a-vis Israel is, I think, often difficult for non-Americans to fully comprehend.
I thank Mark and Ad Orientem. I suspect that Ad Orientem, like myself, is acutely aware that around 10-15% of the Palestinians are Christians, and live in both Israel and the West Bank. It is surprising that contributors to this blog are so little concerned about them and see only an Israeli perspective. It is possible to be in favour of both a strong, independent Israel, and a peaceful, independent Palestine. Surely our shared faith with our co-religionists asks this of us, namely that we do not turn our faces away from our Christian brothers and sisters? And of course, that we do not betray the ancient people of God?
Israel should cower to Turkey’s saber rattling. That will help.
Israel was again attacked by the Palestinians through the new front in the Sinai. It should ignore that. Oh, and ignore the new rocket attacks, too.
It should drop it’s insistence that Palestinians recognize its right to existence.
Israel should allow the “right of return” so that it can be flooded with with Jihadists.
Then we will have peace!
Actually, Israel is doing pretty much exactly what it needs to do given the soldiers gathering on its borders and the pansy president.
Those deluded people, from the President on down, who breezily prattle on about so-called “two-state solutions” in the Middle East might find this interview with the PLO ambassador to Lebanon:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx#axzz1Ya5JM3af
Money quote:
The right of return that Abdullah says is to be negotiated would not only apply to those Palestinians whose origins are within the 1967 borders of the state, he adds. “The state is the 1967 borders, but the refugees are not only from the 1967 borders. The refugees are from all over Palestine. When we have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.â€
Wake up. The Muslim world does not want to cooperate or cooexist with Israel. It wants to wipe it off the map.
[i]Israel’s leadership shows few signs of creative engagement with these changes[/i]
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=israeli+bus+bombing&view=detail&id=01CC45CF496FDBB094E702445BA92F8EFD02F853&first=0
A british citizen was killed in this bus bombing in 2011 in Jerusalem and 39 injured.
What “creative engagement” would this suggest for Israel? Perhaps apologize for existing? Go back to the pre-1967 borders as Obama has suggested which would reduce even further the margin of safety against rocket and morter attacks?
Maybe develop a sense of humor? After all, all those Muslim Brotherhood threats to wipe Israel off the map can’t be real can they?
Thoughtful suggestions indeed from folks who live ~4000 miles from the often daily attacks.
Friedman knows the Middle East better than perhaps any other American political writer. It’s an excellent column. As I don’t get the Times other than on the weekends, being able to catch up here is very helpful.
The Palestinians and other Islamists are not subtle about their true aim. The useful idiot liberals like Friedman have to try really hard to ignore it. Don’t look at these! Close your eyes tight, stick your fingers in your ears and hum, “La Traviata”…
[url=http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/21/palestinian-authority-reps-handing-out-maps-of-palestine-at-u-n-that-erases-all-of-israel/ ]Palestinian Authority Reps Handing Out Maps Of “Palestine†At U.N. That Erases All Of Israel…[/url] (The [url=http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=216374 ]maps in school textbooks don’t show Israel[/url].)
[url=http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/19/iranian-ambassador-u-n-vote-on-palestinian-statehood-a-step-towards-wiping-out-israel/ ]Iranian Ambassador: U.N. Vote On Palestinian Statehood “A Step Towards Wiping Out Israelâ€â€¦[/url]
[url=http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/19/palestinians-choose-mother-of-four-terrorists-with-israeli-blood-on-their-hands-to-pass-on-letter-to-u-n-asking-for-statehood-recognition/ ]Palestinians Choose Mother Of Four Terrorists With Israeli Blood On Their Hands To Pass On Letter To U.N. Asking For Statehood Recognition…[/url]
[url=http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/13/palestinian-ambassador-to-u-s-reiterates-call-for-a-jew-free-palestinian-state/ ]Palestinian Ambassador To U.S. Reiterates Call For a Jew-Free Palestinian State…[/url]
[url=http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/13/turkish-pm-orders-radar-system-of-american-made-f-16s-overridden-to-allow-attacks-on-israeli-targets/ ]Turkish PM Orders Radar System Of American-Made F-16s Overridden To Allow Attacks On Israeli Targets…[/url]
[url=http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/12/turkeys-pm-says-idf-raid-on-gaza-flotilla-cause-for-war-with-israel/ ]Turkey’s PM Says IDF Raid On Gaza Flotilla “Cause For War†With Israel…[/url]
[url=http://weaselzippers.us/2011/08/29/palestinian-jihadists-in-gaza-acquire-anti-aircraft-and-anti-tank-rockets-from-libya/ ]Palestinian Jihadists In Gaza Acquire Anti-Aircraft And Anti-Tank Rockets From Libya…[/url]
And this from [b]less than a month ago[/b]:
[url=http://weaselzippers.us/2011/08/29/89409/ ]US-Funded Mahmoud Abbas: We Will Never Recognize Israel As A Jewish State…[/url]
And I still remember the Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11/01. 10,000 rockets into Israel. Naming parks after murderers of school children. Celebrating upon hearing that the Fogel family had been murdered, even slitting the throat of their baby.
No sympathy.
RE Nos. 23 and 24, perhaps you could directly address the post and indicate where you think Mr. Friedman’s analysis is mistaken. I have never found Friedman’s commentary on the Mideast to be particularly “liberal” or “idiotic.” However, if it is either of these things, it should not be difficult to indicate why to those of us who are not picking up on that.
Terry #18,
The plight of the Christians in Israel, particularly Jerusalem, saddens me, as well. From what I’ve read, the Christian presence has dwindled dramatically and there soon may be none at all. I don’t understand why this isn’t addressed, particularly by the pro-Israel hardline. Do they want Christians out of Jerusalem and does it have something to do with their apocalyptic beliefs?
And why the venomous reaction if Israel’s leadership and policies are questioned or even analyzed? Politicians are, well, politicians. No matter how much people might admire them or their causes, it’s still healthy to question. I guess I just don’t understand the rigid political dichotomies — always right/always wrong, noble/untrustworthy, angels/demons.
#26: “The plight of the Christians in Israel, particularly Jerusalem, saddens me, as well. From what I’ve read, the Christian presence has dwindled dramatically and there soon may be none at all.”
Quatsch. The number of Christians in Israel has steadily grown over the years. They are even sworn into the IDF on Hebrew New Testaments. They have full human rights in Israel. It’s in *Palestinian areas that Christians face extinction. You don’t seem to know many of the facts of the matter, regrettably.
Re #27
Clarin
[blockquote] Quatsch. The number of Christians in Israel has steadily grown over the years. They are even sworn into the IDF on Hebrew New Testaments. They have full human rights in Israel.[/blockquote]
I must respectfully disagree. I do not know the source of your information, but you are in error. The number of Christians in Israel has been declining for many years. And while I concede that on paper they enjoy full rights as citizens (as do Muslim citizens) in fact it has been widely reported by both human rights organizations and many of the Christian Churches including the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, that they are treated as second class citizens facing both discreet and overt discrimination. The Israeli government routinely meddles in the affairs of the Patriarchate and has even refused to recognize the legitimate Patriarch after his predecessor was deposed by a pan-Orthodox synod for illegally selling church property to Israel.
Some quick links. As with Ad Orientem, I’ve seen statistics and concerns mostly from the Orthodox and RC perspectives.
Evangelical involvement is complex, especially in regard to their interest in the End Times stuff and the rebuilding of the Temple.
http://www.ffhl.org/newsmanagerdotnet2/templates/template5.aspx?articleid=212&zoneid=7
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2008/12/israels-anti-christian-discrimination.html
http://www.hcef.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=106&Itemid=1
#25, here goes…Thomas Friedman:
[blockquote] I have great sympathy for Israel’s strategic dilemma and no illusions about its enemies. But Israel today is giving its friends — and Barack Obama is one of them — nothing to defend it with. Israel can fight with everyone or it can choose not to surrender but to blunt these trends with a peace overture that fair-minded people would recognize as serious, and thereby reduce its isolation.
Unfortunately, Israel today does not have a leader or a cabinet for such subtle diplomacy. One can only hope that the Israeli people will recognize this before this government plunges Israel into deeper global isolation and drags America along with it.
[/blockquote]
To suggest that Obama is a friend of Israel is a joke. Obama is a product of the code pink crowd liberal left that wore Arafat t-shirts and palestinian black and white scarves but ignored flagrant human right abuses. Obama is Israel’s friend is the big lie technique. It is pure damage control after NY9. Mr. Friedman’s subtle peace gestures are futile against those storming the Israeli embassy in Cairo. He laments Israel didn’t apologize to Turkey, even though the U.N. stated that Israel’s blockade is legal and any apology would hardly change Turkey’s turn to Islamism and Ergodan’s pandering to his Islamist faction with increasingly belligerent anti-Israeli statements. Friedman wants Israel to appease its hostile neighbors with pointless “peace overtures” that certainly won’t appease anyone. Friedman thinks that Israel going all Neville Chamberlain will help the situation. Israel sees the changing reality and the emboldening of its enemies by the wavering of the feckless, amateurish Obama.
[url=http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=238144 ]Rick Perry’s Wall Street Journal/Jerusalem Post op/ed[/url] piece lays out Obama’s mistakes which are not just born of Obama’s naivete. Some highlights:
* Obama’s demand for a settlement freeze, led to a freeze in Palestinian negotiations.
* It was a mistake to agree to the Palestinians’ demand for indirect negotiations conducted through the United States.
* “The United States must affirm that the precondition for any properly negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is the formal recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state behind secure borders.” (Amen)
We should also state the obvious: “Historic Palestine” (that is to say going back [i]all the way[/i] to 1922) included parts of Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Ask these countries to pony up some land (and then wait for the heads to start exploding).
Good morning. A new day here in London and soon on the East Coast. I hope the sun shines on us all – and the love of God – even if we disagree.
Facts: I fear that Clarin is wrong. Very few Arabs serve in the IDF (the Israeli Defense Force) except the Druse who are fiercely loyal to whatever state they are under. This inability to serve – it is a decision of the Israeli government – has severe consequences. For example, large swathes of public housing are available only to those who have served in the military. Here I want to add something I found particularly amazing, and it is to the credit of the IDF. Not all the allegedly Jewish Russians who emigrated turned out to be Jewish. Some remained Christian, others were not recognized as Jewish under halakha, Jewish law. If they wanted to, they could take the oath of loyalty to Israel sworn by all IDF personnel, – yes, on the NT. There is discrimination in Israel – but whatever its faults, it has important freedoms too. I firmly believe that a settlement with the Palestinians would increase those freedoms and anchor the stability of Israel.
I have a question for those of you commenting on Thomas Friedman’s oped piece. Particularly those of you who have expressed your appreciation of Friedman’s keen insight.
“What do you think the most likely outcome will be for Israel as a nation state and the Israelis as human beings, if today, Israel agrees to all of the Palestinian demands including statehood for Palestine?”
#17–Your first question ia an interesting one. For me , they are intertwined. I am assuming you are English, so you should know the answer to the second question. We supported GB, illegally under international law, from 1939 to 1941. We went to war in 1941 and in 1945 liberated Europe and the far East. We kept an nuclear umbrella over Europe, at great cost, from 1945 until the Sovier Union fell. We liberated Kuwait under GB #1. I think we are a very altruistic people.
When you talk about “Israel” remember that you are only talking about the current government which is held in power by a rag-tag assortment of small (usually right-wing religious) parties as Ad Orientem pointed out. There are many many Israelis (my husband among them) who feel that this government is doing nothing but leading Israel over a cliff. And that a political climate has been created in the U.S. such that any politician who even hints that this is true is denounced as “anti-Israel.” As a result, the U.S. has discredited itself in the eyes of basically everyone in the world as a negotiating partner. In the future, Israel and the Palestinians will either have to deal directly with one another or find another mediator. And the Palestinians will not appeal to the Americans, but directly to the rest of the world. This will be bad for Israel and bad for America.
The U.S. backed dictators in Egypt and elsewhere because the dictators were seen as good for the U.S. and for Israel. You don’t have to know much history to figure out that when the dictators are swept aside, you’re going to have to deal with an angry mob.
Israel has always taken the position that “we can pretend to negotiate but we don’t have to actually do it because we’re in the cat bird seat and the U.S. will back us up no matter what.” Its friends have been saying for a long time “the time is coming when that may no longer be true. Negotiate now from a position of strength before you find yourself negotiating from weakness.”
Catholic Mom (#34.) said,
“The U.S. backed dictators in Egypt and elsewhere because the dictators were seen as good for the U.S. and for Israel.”
And who else would we have treties with in the Arab world?
In Arab coutnries, democracy is at best a facade. Can you point out a single Arab country that actually practices democracy in its self-rule?
I didn’t say “had treaties wth” I said “supported.” We had treaties with Stalin. But when you are perceived by the population as keeping a hated dictator (Iran) in power, then you are going to face their fury (rightly or wrongly) when that dictator is ultimately overthrown. This seems to be a lesson the U.S. never gets. The view of the Egyptian man-in-the-street (or many of them) has been “the U.S. does Israel’s bidding, Mubarak does the bidding of the U.S. When we overthrow Mubarak we won’t have to truckle to either of them.” You can have treaties with somebody without giving the widespread impression that you are keeping them in power.
Actually, I said “backed.”
Actually Catholic Mom, there are many who would say that the Shah of Iran, acting as a monarch, was trying to bring a 9th century Iran into the 20th Century and that he was overthrown by peasants with a 9th century mentality who were being led in revolt by Muslim clergy who also had a 9th century mentality.
So who was the bad guy?
A shah who was educating thousands upon thousands of Iranians overseas in the West or the weirdos trying to return Iran and the world back to the 9th century?
And, today, these weirdos possess/will soon possess nuclear weapons.
You’re arguing a whole other point. Hey Stalin was trying to drag a 12th century feudal state into the 20th century. We’re not arguing the pros and cons of the Shah of Iran. The question for the purpose of my comment is only: W as he a dictator? Was he kept in power by the violent suppression of any opposition? Did his opponents disappear into prisons never to be heard of again? Did the U.S. consider him a important ally and do all that it could to keep him in power? Can you then figure out why the U.S. was hated in Iran?
[i]Can you then figure out why the U.S. was hated in Iran[/i]
By everyone in Iran? I don’t think so. A whole lot of Iranians got out of Iran before and shortly after the Shah went down. And a bunch of them came to the US. Some were my classmates in school. Who hated him and the US? Probably the same folks who are now working on the nuclear weapons to kill us all and who wanted to stay in the 9th century.
I’m not always happy with who we support, but the issues are sometimes more complex than mere sound bites. And by the way, those 9th century types were plotting to wipe Israel off the face back then also which was another unfortunate reason to try and prop up the Shah.
We’re getting way of the topic here, but do I take it you are saying the Shah and the U.S. were only hated by a minority in Iran?
That thousands of Iranians left Iran in association with the fall of the Shah says nothing about how people felt about the Shah. Only that thousands of people perceived the backlash that was coming. That thousands of people left Cuba after the fall of Batista says nothing about how people felt about Batista. That was another dictator supported by the U.S. Castro would never have had the base to come to power if Batista hadn’t made the country so ripe for revolution. Isn’t there something about “he who sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind?”
[i]you are saying the Shah and the U.S. were only hated by a minority in Iran[/i]
I don’t know how many. But probably tens of thousands came to the US. Probably not because they hated us.
And today, Iranians are signaling the US to come help save them from the same 9th Century-oriented bunch who deposed the Shah. Probably don’t want our help because they hate us.
So, you tell me, how many Iranians really hated us and the Shah? Or was it a vocal, determined minority that wanted to overthrow the nation? Kinda like in our own country.
David (#33), thank you for the feedback. I’m actually Canadian, and I know that some of the same views about Israel can be found in Canada. I suspect, however, that the constituency holding these views is much more limited and much less aligned with political parties (I think it is mostly limited to evangelical, conservative Christians – and a much smaller percentage of Canadians identify themselves as such than Americans). That’s why I asked about positions being influenced by one’s eschatology and/or hermeneutic regarding promises made by God to “Israelâ€.
The Palestinians do not recognize the state of Israel. They teach their children that there is no such place (as well as other fun stuff like how to be a suicide bombers). Catholic Mom wants Israel to negotiate: “Negotiate now from a position of strength before you find yourself negotiating from weakness.” Let us imagine how this will go:
Palestinians: We want you dead.
Israel: How about really sick?
Palestinians: No. Dead.
Israel: Partially dead?
Palestinians: No. All dead.
The U.S. position should have been, “no money, no recognition till you recognize Israel.” But even then, how does one know if they are telling the truth. They might just be practicing [url=http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/65699 ]taqqiya[/url].
RE: “Is Israel acting in a competent way at this point in time?”
Yes it looks as if it is.
RE: “Given it is facing a shift in surrounding countries where undemocratic governments have been toppled and so a window has opened for popular anti-Israelite sentiment to be expressed in national policy, given it is facing a Democratic president in the U.S., given it is facing a Palestine that has lifted its game the last five years, is it pursuing wise strategies?”
What do any of those things have to do with right and wrong, or practical matters of national security? Thanks in part to the crazed policies of the US current leadership we have these issues.
What Israel needs to do is pursue its own security avidly while hoping and waiting on sanity in the US, come 2012.
RE: “Is going ahead with settlements smart when you have a Democratic president in the U.S.?”
Why wouldn’t it be? What on earth does a president in the US have to do with Israel settling land that it took during three wars started by the same old people who want to wipe Israel off the map?
RE: “Is giving the Palestinians no signs that there is any chance that they might be anything other than stateless for the forseeable future whether they work with Israel or not?”
Other countries in the Middle East are perfectly welcome to go ahead and carve out some land for the “stateless” if they so desire.
RE: “Would you endorse the US going to the mat to the same degree for any other traditional American ally?”
If an enemy of say, Great Britain, declared that they wished to have Great Britain “carve out a settlement” land for them — we’ll call them the descendants of the Belgic Celtic La Tène — I’d support Great Britain to the hilt. If it meant building a wall to keep out the rocket-lobbing, suicide bombing Belgic Celtic La Tene, I’d clap my hands. If it meant moving forward and building settlements in SW London I’d cheer.
It has nothing to do with eschatology and everything to do with supporting the only free country in the Middle East, one that has defended itself against all foam-flecked comers, and one which I expect will continue to do so no matter whether it has any allies in the Middle East or an actually mentally-sound US leadership in its corner or not.
Yes, we know you think Obama is partly responsible for changes in the Middle East. I think he’s made himself an irrelevancy and so has little influence for good or bad. Both views are fairly irrelevant to the question. Neither the article or anyone here has said that Israel somehow caused the changes around them. The question has been about their response to the changes. Whether or not the President of the U.S. partly caused the changes seems fairly irrelevant to that question.
And let’s get this right, you’re saying that the fact that countries around it have radically shifted their political framework, with the result that arrangements that were in place with former authoratarian regimes are now in the air, the politics of its biggest ally, and the behaviour of the Palestinians are *not* matters of practical security?
If you define ‘practical security’ narrowly enough, I suppose that could be right. These things don’t have anything to do with border patrols, checkpoints, military strength and the like. But practical security involves more than those things.
[blockquote]What Israel needs to do is pursue its own security avidly while hoping and waiting on sanity in the US, come 2012.[/blockquote]
This is partly my point. It seems that the situation in America is changing and the view that says that Israel is almost always right in its firm hand with the Palestinians and should almost always be supported in whatever it does (and if that doesn’t describe your view, feel free to volunteer instances when you think Israel has been wrong or unwise in being too harsh towards the Palestinians) is now located on one side of America’s political spectrum. Future Democrat presidents, Congresses, and Senates, are likely to have similar approaches as Obama.
I would have thought that if Israel *needs* the U.S. it needs to take a path that will garner support from the U.S. from whichever party’s president is in the White Office. The alternative is that that support would be nice but not neccessary and so it can afford to take policies that will only get support when there is a conservative Republican in office (a smaller group than just a Republican).
Surely this changing situation in the U.S.’s political landscape and its stance towards Israel is a factor in Israel’s practical foreign affairs and security?
[blockquote][i]RE: “Is going ahead with settlements smart when you have a Democratic president in the U.S.?â€[/i]
Why wouldn’t it be? What on earth does a president in the US have to do with Israel settling land that it took during three wars started by the same old people who want to wipe Israel off the map?[/blockquote]
Heh heh heh. The President of the U.S., by virtue of being the 3000lb super gorilla, takes an interest in all sorts of things that are the domestic affairs of countries around it – both allies and others. It’s been happening for a long time now. And it’s quite appropriate as well for the U.S. to do that. If countries then choose to ignore the President’s preference, that can then have an effect on the U.S.’s behaviour towards them.
Not stopping, or slowing, settlements in response to the President’s desire for that to happen arguably makes it more likely that the U.S. won’t veto the Palestinians’ request for statehood if it gets to that stage. Having stopped the settlements would have made it more likely that the U.S. would have vetoed it. American presidents tend to stick their neck out politically for people who return the favour – sometimes they do it regardless, but they’re only human too.
Stopping settlements would help slow the drift of the Democratic party away from supporting Israel. As the U.S. is effectively a two party country at the moment with regards the presidency, that is something worth considering, for Democratic presidents will likely happen in the future.
[blockquote][i]RE: “Is giving the Palestinians no signs that there is any chance that they might be anything other than stateless for the forseeable future whether they work with Israel or not?â€[/i]
Other countries in the Middle East are perfectly welcome to go ahead and carve out some land for the “stateless†if they so desire.[/blockquote]
A nice candidate for the ‘red herring of the thread’ award.
Q: Is it wise to do this?
A: Other people/countries are free to do that if they want to.
It is an answer to another question. How does the freedom of other countries to extend citizenship to people living in the borders of the nation of Israel address the question of whether Israel should or should not arrange that these people should be able to get citizenship.
And feel free to explain which country Palestinians are citizens of to justify the scare quotes around ‘stateless’.
I noticed you passed over the issue of the apology to Turkey. Was it also smart in your view to not apologise to Turkey for the death of its citizens when a very minimal apology had been negotiated and such an apology would have helped avoid some of the thaw of relationship between Turkey and Israel?
Re: #14
I don’t think history has quite that absolute a control.
If you took that approach to the 400+ years of European history prior to the American constitution you would have concluded that it was impossible for there to be anything like the American constitution appear in Western civilization. The Arab world is undergoing change – the same modernity that has made the 21st century in our countries very different from the 17th century, has been at work at them. That doesn’t mean that problems have been solved, but I think it does mean that we can’t just draw a straight line from the last 400+ years to the future. They too have now come under the influence of the Enlightenment project and it is having effects on them comparable to what it has had on us.
If you took this 400+ year approach to Northern Ireland you’d also say that the current situation is impossible. Peace will never occur between Catholic and Protestant.
Only God is constant and unchanging, human life is flux and change, no work of human hands (including culture) is forever.
RE:#32
I think Israel would be wiped off the map, and all or almost all Israelites killed unless there was a massive military involvement by nations outside the area (most likely the U.S.). So it’s just as well no-one has said that that would be a smart way forward for Israel.
*Some* of us have said that we think that Israel’s situation has just gotten tougher, and that we think that Israel isn’t doing a good job of handling that at the moment. I’d be surprised if anyone thinks that Israel should give the Palestinians everything “they” want (which would be hard anyway, as the Palestinians aren’t a monolithic bloc and some would want things incompatible with what others would want), thinks Israel should tear down the security and open Israel up to its enemies, ignore its enemies’ desire to destroy it or the rest of the rhetorical flourishes that have been added to the thread by robroy and others.
Israel’s situation is getting tougher. Is it responding well? That’s the essay, that is (or should be) the thread.
robroy — Do you actually know any Palestinians? Any? A single one?
Strange how this argument works. I say that the U.S. support for the Shah was in large part responsible for the hatred of the U.S. by the Iranians after the fall of the Shah. We’ve all seen the endless videos of huge crowds of Iranians chanting “death to the Great Satan” etc. Then Capt. Warren tells me that the Iranians do not hate the U.S. — certainly he knows many who love the U.S. It’s not even clear to him that the U.S. lovers are in the minority. It’s just the “9th century” faction that whips up anti U.S. rhetoric for its own purposes.
On the other hand, it is well known by robroy and others that all the Palestinian are suicide bombers who teach their children to hate the Jews and wipe them off the map at the first opportunity. And dealing in a fair and just way with the Palestinians will not undercut the radical faction — they’re *all* the radical faction and it will just give them the opportunity to creep into every Israelis house at night and slit their throats.
I ask again — do you actually know a single Palestinian?
[i]Do you actually know any Palestinians[/i]
Can’t say I personally know a Palestinian……but I can read,,,,,
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/arabs-allegedly-throw-rocks-at-20-month-old-israeli-babys-face/
If only the baby had properly engaged the rock throwers, this might not of happened. Well, she’ll know better next time I bet!
Well, that certainly allows you to characterize an entire group of people as murderers. “Arabs” “allegedly” (and this from an extreme right wing article) threw stones at an Israeli vehicle which is how the baby got hurt. Drive through Mea Shearim some Saturday morning and a whole ton of ultra-orthodox Jews will come out and stone your car. Be more daring– walk through an ultra Orthodox section of Jerusalem any day of the week holding up a cross and a whole ton of ultra-Orthodox Jews will come out and spit on you. Obviously Jews are Christian-hating murderers.
Try to get out more — or at least read somewhat more widely. Or get to know any Palestinian anywhere before you start pronouncing on what they are all like.
RE: “Yes, we know you think Obama is partly responsible for changes in the Middle East.”
I think you’re confusing me with somebody else. I’m mostly indifferent to Obama and don’t think he has been responsible for nearly the things that others believe he has been responsible for.
RE: “Future Democrat presidents, Congresses, and Senates, are likely to have similar approaches as Obama.”
Sure — as they have in the past. Nothing particularly different there than from the past 20 years. I’m actually old enough to remember Jimmy Carter’s, um . . . efforts.
But . . . I don’t think Israel will need to worry much about all that in another 13 months. And at any rate — as is clear by this very thread, there’s not much that Israel can do to please those who support a “settled” Palestine, other than indulge in activities that will [i]hinder and lessen[/i] their national security. So it’s basically best to focus on their own activities since they can’t control others beliefs. It’s just standard functional mental health for countries.
RE: “If countries then choose to ignore the President’s preference, that can then have an effect on the U.S.‘s behaviour towards them.”
Yes indeed. Ah well, these things happen.
RE: “Not stopping, or slowing, settlements in response to the President’s desire for that to happen arguably makes it more likely that the U.S. won’t veto the Palestinians’ request for statehood if it gets to that stage.”
Okay.
So Palestine gets granted a “state” by the UN. Good luck with that! But I expect that even Democrats understand that there are *US* national security issues involved with announcing a Palestinian state that will encourage vetoing. At any rate, we’ll have to see.
RE: “Stopping settlements would help slow the drift of the Democratic party away from supporting Israel.”
Heh heh heh.
My turn to laugh.
Nah — nothing’s gonna stop that, because the party is firmly controlled by the MoveOn.org/CodePink segment for now. We’ll see if that someday changes, but for now, it’s pointless for Israel to attempt to “respond” to that party as a whole.
RE: “A nice candidate for the ‘red herring of the thread’ award.”
Not at all. Merely pointing out that if it’s “wise” for Israel to support this then it’s “wise” for others to deal with the land issue. Of course, we all know that’s not gonna happen.
RE: “which country Palestinians are citizens of to justify the scare quotes around ‘stateless’.”
Actually another commenter above already nicely explained which Middle Eastern countries should be carving out the land for the Palestinians.
RE: “I noticed you passed over the issue of the apology to Turkey.”
Yes, I don’t comment on things I haven’t researched — and [rather obviously] I’m certainly not going to trust your version of events.
RE: “Do you actually know any Palestinians?”
Yeh — and while you’re at it, Rob Roy, if you could let us all know if you know any real living women who really need abortions, that will let us all know if you’re allowed to have an opinion on the morality of abortion.
Because “knowing” a person — or even better yet *being* a person — is what allows you to have rational ideas about issues and events in the world.
So let’s make it a bit harder.
In order to have an opinion on abortion, you have to “be a woman” Rob. In order for you to have an opinion on what Israel should do or not do about its security you have to “be a Palestinian.”
Otherwise . . . stop having ideas about issues. We’re on to you over on this thread, Rob.
[i]that certainly allows you to characterize an entire group of people as murderers[/i]
Not at all. How is it that I pulled up a relevant article TODAY to address your question? Because this is a DAILY reality of life in Israel. I have not been to Israel, but I have friends who go every year to lead religous tours. And the stories they tell of the daily incidents, of people always being aware of where the nearest bomb shelter is and where the nearest gas mask is, doesn’t paint a very pretty picture.
As a nation, Israel does not chant daily about wiping muslims off the face of the earth. THAT is what they hear daily from their muslim “nieghbors”. And the US, under the Obama administration, has done nothing to help Israel feel any more secure in the face of intensifying rhetoric from the Arab world.
[blockquote] Try to get out more—or at least read somewhat more widely. [/blockquote]
I am quite sure that I read more in a day than you read in a week and from all sources. You apparently take exception with my statement that Palestinians teach their children of hatred of Israel and their school textbooks do not show Israel. You are the one the needs to read more. [url=http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=216374 ]Here is an article from the Jerusalem Post that summarizes a study of Palestinian textbooks[/url] by the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE). It looked at all of the 118 textbooks used.
[blockquote] “There is generally a total denial of the existence of Israel – and if there is an Israeli presence it is usually extremely negative,†said Eldad Pardo, an IMPACT-SE board member, and head of the organization’s Palestinian textbook research group. “For the next generation, there is no education at all about collaboration and no information about the many collaborations that already exist between Israelis and Palestinians in environmental and other areas.â€
In geography textbooks, Israel usually does not appear in maps of the Middle East, instead “Palestine†is shown to encompass Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Jaffa is also shown on maps of Palestine, but Tel Aviv and other predominantly Jewish cities, such as Ramat Gan, kibbutzim and moshavim, are not displayed.[/blockquote]
robroy states:
[blockquote] They teach their children that there is no such place (as well as other fun stuff like how to be a suicide bombers). [/blockquote]
Please note the clever conflation of two different things. Of course one side in a land dispute is going to teach their children different things about the land than the other side. Until very recently the Republic of Ireland did not recognize the existence of Northern Ireland and the constitution of Ireland specifically stated that the six counties of Northern Ireland were a part of Ireland — merely waiting on the appropriate time to incorporate them legally. I see bumper stickers in my neck of the woods (in my neck of the woods people have bumper stickers about these things) stating this belief all the time (“26 + 6 = 1”).
We also know that the provisional IRA (not to be confused with the actual Irish Republican Army that fought for independence, although they would like you to confuse them) is/was a bunch of murderous thugs. We also know they committed outrageous acts of terrorism resulting in the deaths of innocent children and many others. We also know that there were a lot of American Irish supporting the provisional IRA in the misguided belief that they were freedom fighters. From these facts we can conclude that 1) Irish Catholics teach their children to be terrorists and that there is no such place as Northern Ireland 2) Irish Protestants in the north should never seek peace or compromise with Irish Catholics since they are all terrorists and they teach their children that there is no such place as Northern Ireland. The logic is identical to robroys.
Sarah: What the heck??? Your statement is astonishingly illogical. I do not need to know any women who have had abortions to state that abortion is wrong. I do not need to even know any *women* to state that abortion is wrong. I *do* need to know some women to state that “women (as a group) have abortions” or “women (as a group) support abortion” or “women (as a group) support abortion because women (as a group) like to kill babies.” Indeed by your logic I can simply state that women are baby killers (well…most of them anyway) and I do not need to know any women to do so. It’s enough that I read in the paper that women have abortions. Or that polls say that they support abortion. Or that polls say that they elected a president who supports abortion. Or I can link you to the Ragsdale “abortion is a blessing” video. Baby killers…the lot.
I do not need to know any Palestinians to state that terrorism is wrong. I *do* need to know some Palestinians to state that Palestinians (as a group) teach their children to be suicide bombers. I do need to know some Palestinians to create an imaginary dialog in which “the Palestians” tell “the Israelis” that they want them all dead.
Capt. Warren. I read the Israeli press too. It will not surprise you that, just as in the United States, you can pick the appropriate paper to tell you whatever you want to hear. I will be happy to send you articles (from the Israeli not the Palestinian) press telling you what a bunch of murderous fascists the Israelis are. That does not make it so. But if I have no first hand knowledge or contact with Israelis I might easily conclude from a steady diet of this press that the evidence that the Israelis are all proto-Nazis is overwhelming and uncontravertible.
I’m married to an Israeli. All my in-laws are Israeli. We go there every year. Does that make me an expert? Far from it. I just throw this out, however– consider getting to know an actual Palestinian and having a discussion with him/her. You might get some insight that you don’t find from your current reading.
RE: “Your statement is astonishingly illogical.”
Yes, it certainly is.
RE: “I *do* need to know some women to state that “women (as a group) have abortions†or “women (as a group) support abortion†or “women (as a group) support abortion because women (as a group) like to kill babies.â€
Um actually — you do not.
RE: “I *do* need to know some Palestinians to state that Palestinians (as a group) teach their children to be suicide bombers. I do need to know some Palestinians to create an imaginary dialog in which “the Palestians†tell “the Israelis†that they want them all dead.”
Well — if you refuse to accept their leaders as actually representative of the people then sure — you’d need to scrabble around to try to find a Palestinian who regards Israel as a valid and worthy nation.
But blessedly we have their leaders’ precise words, as well as their frequent actions to describe their desires and goals.
And blessedly nobody on this thread said that 100% of all Palestinians do these things.
So no, we don’t need to know any single “Palestinian” in order to know what their leaders have stated on the record and in writing.
But if you’d like to assert that nobody can read anything written by *elected* Palestinian leaders and that nobody can have opinions on those statements and activities regarding what Israel should do in regards to their national security until that person actually knows a single Palestinian, then be my guest.
Catholic Mom’s ties to Israel provide a unique insight and perspective, as do Friedman’s years in the Middle East. This is a serious issue that merits serious discussion. Snippiness doesn’t really cut it on this topic.
I can’t see that there has been any material change in the US position vis-a-vis Israel over the last several administrations. The current president is handling this about as I would have expected any of his last five predecessors would have. Obama is not only the best friend Israel has, he (and the US) is really the only friend Israel has. By trashing a fairly consistent policy for cheap electoral benefit, the candidates from my party are undermining both US and Israeli security interests.
It is always a struggle to promote dialogue between Israel and Palestine given the internal political pressures on the leaders of each side. At the UN this week we saw each leader speaking to his base more than to each other, but that may be a necessary predicate to talking face-to-face. The reality is, however, that this move for recognition at this time could only have been forestalled by progress months ago, and, for whatever reason (I think the reasons are largely internal politics), this did not happen. Timing is everything, and the accession of more populist governments in nearby Arab states means that the failure to make gains in the last year now looms very large as a lost opportunity for Israel.
Catholic Mom writes, “Please note the clever conflation of two different things.” Wrong, but please not the unclever confusion of the word conflation.
[b]conflation[/b]  /kənˈfleɪʃən/ noun
1. the process or result of fusing items into one entity; fusion; amalgamation.
Palestinian textbooks having maps without Israel versus teaching martyrdom to children are two different things and are both done. See the [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkNE__TiMZo ]cute video of the Palestinian Mickey Mouse[/url] discussing “annihilating the jews” and glorifying martyrdom. Unfortunately, in another episode, the [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wiBwQ9fiho ]”jews” kills the Palestinian Mickey Mouse[/url]. But that’s OK. He is a martyr now (and they will name a park after him). AND they replaced him with a [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeii225G-HM ]cute, pink bunny[/url] who also desires and teaches martyrdom to all the kids.
So, Catholic Mom. There is no conflation, and I don’t remember any Irish Mickey Mouse or Pink bunnies teaching martyrdom and annihilating the British.
One can see more and more and more examples of the Palestinians teaching their kids hatred at [url=http://www.pmw.org.il/ ]Palestinian Media Watch[/url].
Some of the argument on this thread is becoming overwrought and potentially offensive. We encourage commenters to stick to the thread topic and to express themselves relevantly and with circumspection bearing in mind that this is a Christian weblog and readers take their view of Christians, rightly or wrongly from it. A good test is not to post a comment which you would not be happy for your mother, your employer and your best friend to read from you. We hope our guidance is noted and it will not be necessary for us to become further involved. Thanks – Elf
My point of the very disturbing references is that Thomas Friedman criticizes Israel for not negotiating and offering up even more concessions. Looking at the videos or the Palestinian Media Watch website, one has to ask why Israel should have any desire whatsoever to negotiate. The golden rule applies. The U.S. would never negotiate with an enemy such as this. (OK, Obama would and see how Syria and Iran has rewarded him for his diplomatic efforts). But anyone other than Obama would not be trying to portray Israel as the intransigent bad guy.
I found a [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268237/what-obama-did-israel-charles-krauthammer#http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268237/what-obama-did-israel-charles-krauthammer# ]great column by Charles Krauthammer[/url] who shows how Obama has complete undermined Israel. Krauthammer’s column completely eviscerates the ridiculously transparent and desperate lie that Obama is “Israel’s best friend”.
A couple of year’s ago, we had the left wing media caught red handed conspiring to advance Obama in what should have been a foundation rocking scandal. Instead, the journolisters were rewarded with other positions. Now, we have Thomas Friedman and others advancing the lie that Obama is “Israel’s best friend”. We even have the [url=http://nymag.com/print/?/news/politics/israel-2011-9/ ]New York Magazine[/url] portraying Obama in a yarmulke and claiming that he is such a good friend that Obama could be considered as the “first Jewish president”. No conspiracy here. It’s just a big coincidence that the left wing media has all picked up the same theme!
[i]It’s just a big coincidence that the left wing media has all picked up the same theme[/i]
And that will become even more evident in the future as the facade which is Obama is wearing so thin that more and more Americans are realizing the horrendous mistake they made in the last election.
Remember how in the manic push for Obamacare we had people on the Whitehouse lawn dressed up in lab coats? We’ll see more repeats of this scripting of the truth [which has nothing to do with the truth].
As the veneer wears off, the liberal/progressive media will go into overdrive trying to recreate the myth, the magic, the ecstasy that was “Obama”. The media will try to recreate the blind love that was “Obama” [eg, thrills up legs].
They have to do this in order to save liberalism; which predictably never ever works, no matter where it is ever tried.
Apologies to elves for being so very far off-topic.
Well, I wouldn’t expect everyone to buy into the “Israel’s best friend” theory, although in a small set, being best may not be saying much. However, I think it worth contemplating, before going to some of the stronger language being flung about, that this Administration’s policy toward the Israeli/Palestinian issue is not appreciably different than that of the United States going back decades. I’m not sure what the change is, other than that the diplomatic environment is turning very unfavourable for Israel. In these circumstances, worries from friends increase. The ability of the United States to do much about it is, however, quite limited.