Is There Nothing The Non-Interferer-In-Chief Can't Do?

At least the current US administration is not bending over backward to ignore all of Israel's violations. Israel must realize that Palestine has the right to exist and Palestinians have the right to property.

Canadians don't have the right to property T. Non-citizen, refugee, terrorists certainly shouldn't.

What's that new take on an old expression? "The US is a dangerous friend and an unreliable enemy"?

"Palestine has the right to exist and Palestinians have the right to property."

There has never, ever ever been a country called Palestine and Palestinians have a right to property as long as it doesn't belong to someone else.

Always remember the first name of the land was Judea and the Arabs who now refer to themselves as Palestinians brutally invaded and occupied the land until the Jews, the original Judeans, took back their land.

I can't figure why Lieberals, Dippers and the Oh-So-Holier-Than_Everyone have such great support for the militaristic Arabs who's armies invaded and then occupied the Holy Land for centuries, centuries in which they persecuted the Jews, destroyed their temples, stole their land, ruined their farms.

Maybe because they are Stuck on Stupid.

The model for Obamaland goes back to pre WW2 France where traitorous termites busied themselves in government while the credulous peons demanded better free bread and circuses.

The Israelis have without doubt made a correct assessment that in 2.5 years at the most, Obamagabe & Co. will be out on their asses and likely under criminal investigation. Until then they will be making sure that their security needs are fully met at all times no matter what.

I suppose Secretary Clinton wouldn't think of giving a list of demands to the Pals.

meanwhile, over in Iran, President Stupidintheheadajab is musing about Iran's role in the world.

http://www.irantracker.org/roundup/iran-news-roundup-march-12-15-2010

Nothing a little carpet bombing wouldn't fix.

I think that David Harsanyi left out a lot of data in his opinion piece; the attacks against Israelis and Palestinians are carried out by both sides, and on each side, there are some who revere those who carry out the attacks.

Lance, you are not, I hope, equating a non-citizen with a refugee with a terrorist; the three terms aren't synonyms.

That's a key problem; that the Palestinians aren't citizens of any state; that's hardly a constructive way to live. And no, it's not all their fault; there are two sides to the situation.

Obama's behaviour to Iran is reprehensible and disgraceful; Actually, all his foreign policy, all of it, falls into that description - including his behaviour to our western allies (Germany, UK, France); his support of Zelaya's anti-constitutional agenda in Honduras, his kowtowing to the Islamic states..etc.

Obama's act of denying his support for the demonstrators for democracy in Iran - fits in with his pathological narcissism. You see, they weren't demonstrating for Love of Obama. But love of democracy. Obama, as a narcissist, has no interest in anyone who is not focused on him as Him.
Obama is also enabling Iran to develop a nuclear weapon; I'd put this squarely on his shoulders.

As for Israel's housing in E. Jerusalem, yes, I'm against such an action (E. Jerusulem is 'supposed' to be the future capital of Palestine). But Israel has been expanding the W. Bank settlements and Obama hasn't had this kind of hysterical reaction. So - what is going on at a deeper level.

Israel has, as I've maintained, no interest in enabling a Palestinian state. What it thinks will happen to the Palestinians - without a state or citizenship - has never been stated. However, it is making economic and other alliances with the other democracies in the region (Jordan, Lebanon) and even with Egypt which does have elections but is hardly a democracy.

So, what is going on? Is Obama trying to upset the current Israeli govt and get it to move more to the left - as Jeffrey Goldberg has suggested? See his article:'What Obama is actually trying to do in Israel'. That convoluted explanation seems, to me, to be far too complex for Obama.

Or is it personal rather than political? Is Obama's rejection of Israel part of his pathology? Israel doesn't fawn on Obama; is he rejecting them because of this?

Is he dumb enough to think that IF he shows the Muslim world that he is anti-Israel, THEN, they will support him? Actually, yes, he IS dumb enough.

Is he equally dumb enough to think that if he shakes his fist at Israel that they will stop the settlements? Again, he's dumb and possibly yes, he is that dumb.

Is he hoping that Israel will attack Iran, to prevent its nuclear weapon, and that his anti-Israel stance will enable the US to keep out of the resultant crisis?

Obama's hostility to Israel - and it's been obvious since he took office - doesn't make any political sense. So, is it personal? With Obama, in my view, everything is personal and based on his narcissism.
But what about Hillary Clinton? Why is she involved in this?

It can't be as simple as being stuck on stupid. A relative had a refreshment stand and could only hire stuck on stupid "road scholar" types. They couldn't count beyond 10 unless they had open toed shoes. They couldn't make change for a dollar (back when the dollar was a paper note). Yet, if you made a ten cent error on their paycheque, they would bring it to your attention.

Something else is going on!

Is there nothing that President Teleprompter McFail can't do?

Somehow, I don't think this is the kind of change people hoped for when they voted for this douchebag.

T 10:54AM "... Palestinians have the right to property."
-----
Is that just a Palestinian right? Or are you implying that the Jews should be given everything that has been taken from them in the last century or more?

O'Hhm?
...-

"Hmm. Where in the Middle East is there a country with extensive hardened nuclear weapons, nuclear facilities, and[C3] facilities? Further, that country would be one which has consistently been the object of the hostility of the United States Government in general [at least in certain Departments], and of Buraq Hussein Obama in particular. Even further, an attack on that country would have to not provoke a hostile reaction from Russia, China, the EU, or OPEC against the United States.

I don’t know. Buckets, can you come up with any candidates?"

"Just something to add to the mix. The point being that the strategic indicators of an American attack on Israel are far stronger than any for an attack on Iran. And in these strange times; when as it has been said, the United States is more belligerent about Israelis building apartment buildings in their own country, than it is about Iran building nuclear weapons to use against the United States — the old order is overturned, all things are possible, and all one can do is follow the current indications with no reference to any past baseline conditions. Any comments?

Subotai Bahadur"

"Days of Rage"

http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2010/03/16/days-of-rage/#comments

Maybe, just maybe, the US is standing up to Israel on behalf of American interests.

There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA, the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military. While commentators and pundits might reflect that Joe Biden's trip to Israel has forever shifted America's relationship with its erstwhile ally in the region, the real break came in January, when David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. Maybe Israel gets the message now.

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story

Lost in all the indignant huffing and puffing is the fact that the housing in East Jerusalem is NOT covered by any treaty or agreement. Never has, look it up. While making the announcement (by some soon to be former minor official) was tacky with Joe there, an apology was quickly offered.

Shrillary saying that Israel has to make some commitment to peace is absurd. Every offer by Israel has been rejected outright by the Palestinians with no chance of negotiation. Even slick Willy is on record as saying that with the deal he helped broker back in 2000, Israel was overly generous. That was flat out rejected.

You know, even with all the Arab countries in the area, the only aid the Palestinians get is from Iran which is not Arab and the aid is weapons.

Where are the proverbial wontons when confronting China, North Korea or Iran? Oh! That's right! Only Israel should be picked on.
Israel owes the US no explanation or apology for its internal politics. Obama is seeing this as the excuse he needs to break it off with Israel and truly side with the House of Saud.
Just my thoughts.

The "Palestinians" are the intruders. Jerusalem belongs to the people of Israel. All of it. I fully support Israel's efforts to remove the "Palestinian" occupiers from Israeli soil. Push them into the Mediterranean for all I care. Just give them time to rejoin their Arab friends or neighbours. I hope Canada keeps supporting Israel. God will bless us for it.

I really haven't been following this closely but I was under the impression that the new apartments were to be built in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem.

As for President Oblamebush, there is an interesting article 'Obama is a Stranger in a Strange Land' up at americanthinker.com.

When Israel stops accepting US welfare, then it can justifyably be outraged that the US are making demands on them. But you take the dough, you'll have to respectfully listen.

I read somewhere in the last few days, that Obama's motivation in going after Israel is to force the government to drop it's right-wing coalition partners and enter a coalition with the lefties.
Trying to destroy Israel the same way he's trying to destroy America.

What ET said.

Israel owes the US no explanation or apology for its internal politics.

Israel has received tens of billions is foreign aid from the US in the past. They get 2.75$ billion this year, slated to grow to 3.15bn in 2013. When you take cash from someone, you invite them to 'meddle'.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

Wouldn't Sec't Hillary, Owe and everyone else in the world except the Koranimals in Pali-land know immediately when Israel isn't "serious about peace with the Palestinians."?

In earlier years it was accepted that there was great antipathy in the USA between Jews and Blacks. A casual reading of Farrakhan's speeches will confirm this. Thus there's no surprise that a US Administration largely run by US Blacks should seek to destabilise Israel. The Clintons, opportunists to the last, go along. It is almost beyond belief that a great nation's foreign policy should be grounded in the anti-semitic ravings of Farrakhan, Wright and the rest of the new Princes of the City.

I notice the NY Times did the bambam and cross. This is the same guy that removed the cross from Notre Dame while giving a speech. Maybe he is trying to prove he isn't Jewish.

Excellent article by David Harsanyi.
Covers the situation and the double standards being used by the Americans very nicely.

What is it with U.S. ex-presidents, secretaries of state and vice presidents?

Carter, Kissinger, both Clintons, Biden and others try the impossible.

What sillyness!

Iran through Syria is stabbing Israel with Hezbollah every way it can. Keeps the friction away from Iran too.

The real cause has to be choked off.

Talks never provide anything other than big dinners and photo-ops on our dollar.

O'narcissist's anger/rages.

"Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, "above the law", and omnipresent (magical thinking).

Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy."
(global politician)

O'anger has the Nukes Away buttons of the Doomsday Red Box in his hands.
...-

"Obama angrily orders a near-rupture of relations with Israel for a minor infraction like the recent settlement dispute".

"Allies everywhere feeling snubbed by President Obama"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/16/AR2010031603322.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

curmudgeon: the author of the article in your link was an advisor to Arafat. That juts might influence his viewpoint.

ET: the attacks against Israelis and Palestinians are carried out by both sides, and on each side, there are some who revere those who carry out the attacks.

Yes ET, this statement is true in the same way that biased media reports don't tell actual lies. What you conveniently leave out is that on one side such violence is institutionalized by the leadership, on the other it is marginal. Using your inferred definition, I can call Canada a Jew-hating country - or pretty much anything else I want to.

Agreed Patrick. The average American is ignorant to American Black culture, thus the predictable unpredictable-ness of TOTUS. I've tried to touch on this before.

Some parts of ET's argument suggest that TOTUS's motivation is to gain political cover for what many consider the inevitable strike against Iran. This, along with what Patrick said conveniently work in harmony for the time being. This also works well with the narcissist line of thinking; it must be very gratifying to “kill two birds with one stone”.

The obvious flaws in TOTUS's manoeuvring are the consequences down the road. In the short term though, these consequences don't exits in TOTUS's mind I suspect. As far as Billery goes, it's likely her calculations conclude that there WILL be time to clean-up the mess left behind by the Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers.

Finally, Mr. Harper please make a statement in support of Israel. Something so simple would mean so much. As the weight of the world pushes against Israel, has there ever been a country more in need of a true ally, an ally that will not be swayed by the political whims of the day? Someone needs to set an example for the people of this world. Someone needs to say “THE HELL WITH POLITICS” and let the Israelis know that at least one of us will say “NO” to these proverbial bullies!

Just my thoughts.

What is it with U.S. ex-presidents, secretaries of state and vice presidents?

Carter, Kissinger, both Clintons, Biden and others try the impossible.

What sillyness!

Iran through Syria is stabbing Israel with Hezbollah every way it can. Keeps the friction away from Iran too.

The real cause has to be choked off.

Talks never provide anything other than big dinners and photo-ops on our dollar.

The apartments are being built in E. Jerusalem, which is, to my understanding, 'contested land'.

But why is Obama creating a hysteric fuss about this, along with Hillary, when he doesn't do such for expansion in the W. Bank? And note, again, how he utterly ignored the demonstrations for democracy in Iran and supported the dictatorship and corrupt election.

I'm beginning to think of a reason. It's based on my estimation of Obama's pathological narcissism, his utter ignorance of history, his shallow understanding of politics, his stupidity about the causes of Islamic fascism and jihadism.

I think that Obama, stupid as he is, is setting up a policy, an actual policy, that views the causes of Islamic jihadism, as due to the existence of Israel. That is such a monumentally stupid conclusion, ...but I can see that the Democrats and the Obama gang have this view.

They seriously think that IF they show their rejection of Israel, THEN, the reasons for Islamic terrorism will whoosh, be gone and disappear. This, again, is so dumb as to be, frankly, believable. Because I think Obama IS dumb.

Isn't he aware of Muslims killing Christians in various countries of the Middle East and Africa? Of Muslims killing other Muslims (who are ethnically deemed lower on the hierarchical scale of Arabs) in the Middle East and Africa? And Muslims killing Muslims in Iraq, in Iran, in Pakistan..everywhere? Do these have anything to do with the Israel-Palestine situation? Is Obama that dumb? Yes, he is.

ET's "contested lands" are only contested because the Palestinians decided that after 52 years ('67 war) that they want to build a Palestinian "Capital" there. PM Netanyahu agreed with Obama to a ten month freeze on building but East Jerusalem was never in the deal. Check whatever reputable resources you want; Israel has time and time again made concessions while the scourge of the Arab world throw stones and call for "Days of Rage". Stone throwing seems to be their national sport.
Again, I ask why doesn't the rest of the Arab world accept these lost souls? Most Palestinians have no more recollection of the "their" land before World War 2 than Afro-Americans of being slaves, or Aboriginals hunting buffalo for that matter. It is time they all adapt, adjust and advance.

Britain and the world probably didn't handle the land issue back in the day but it is time to move on and get a life.

ET claims to be an informed academic but blurts out propaganda straight out of Hamas playbook.
Jerusalem like most ME cities was separated by various "quarters" based upon ethnic/religious differences. This was a tradition prior to the Ottomans and likely originated in the short lived caliphate.
East Jerusalem, by the fortunes of war, during the '48 war, was left behind enemy lines. In the period 48-67, the arabs systematically desecrated jewish cemetaries in East Jerusalem. In 67 the IDF, in the truest form of the term liberated East Jerusalem and the "wailing wall".
Over the centuries the arab invaders had taken over the "Temple Mount" for the Al Aksa Mosque. Now these beauties deny the the very existance of the 1st and 2nd Temple.
I agree with Herman.
[...."The "Palestinians" are the intruders. Jerusalem belongs to the people of Israel. All of it. I fully support Israel's efforts to remove the "Palestinian" occupiers from Israeli soil. Push them into the Mediterranean for all I care. Just give them time to rejoin their Arab friends or neighbours.]
The people ET styles as "the Palestinians - without a state or citizenship -" had Eygptian and Jordanian citizenship but refuted/rejected that.....Jordan had a desperate war with them ("black September") when these rejects from arab society tried to forcefully take over Jordan.
Yes rejects----Palestinians are considered the "white trash"....something to be used to continue their obsession with destroying Isreal.
If the Arab states had won the '48 war the Palestinians would still be in camps....

Hmm, I remember when Democrats fought for Israel, now it's the Republicans who furnish them with Military Aid.

Two things are fixin to happen, 1) Obama cuts off Military Aid to Israel 2) all those Politicians taking Jewish money are gona make Obama backdown on his rhetoric.

I pick 2.
,

texas canuck - the Palestinians were living in that land for centuries, under, for example, the Ottoman (400 years) and British mandates.

The 1947 UN plan saw Jerusalem as not belonging to either the Palestinian or Israeli nation. But Both sides want it as a capital or key city.

To declare that unless one has a personal memory of home and farm ownership, (or slavery for that matter) then this state of life 'has never existed' is invalid.

Netanyahu's agreement to a freeze didn't include the action of 'expanding' current settlements in the W. Bank - which are ongoing.

sasquatch - I certainly don't claim to be an 'informed academic'; that would be an invalid argument (ad verecundiam); I never say a word about myself; I deal only with the issues.

Of course I disagree with your view that Palestinians are the intruders; they were living there, and being taxed and paying rents and farming, for centuries. You choose to ignore these facts.

I don't 'style' them as the Palestinians; that's their valid name and has been such for many years; the UN, the Balfour, etc and etc, have used this term. I certainly didn't make it up.
The rest of your post is pure opinion and there's no point in debate.

I note that yet again, no-one wants to argue the issue but simply wants to 'vent and rant'. The issue is - what is going on between the US and Israel and why is Obama taking this particular stance?

As Texas Canuck says, Jerusalem was never in any settlement freeze agreement. The WSJ (I think it was them) pointed out that the announcement from the mid level Israeli government person was for the 4th in a series of 7 feasibily studies. Construction won't even start for another 3 years.

There were actually cameras back in the 1800s. Photos of Jerusalem show that there is no such thing as "traditionalArabEastJerusalem".

I like what FiveFeetofFury pointed out yesterday - there is no "P" in Arabic - makes you wonder why they call themselves "Palestinians" and have no other name for themselves.

ET says "I think that Obama, stupid as he is, is setting up a policy, an actual policy, that views the causes of Islamic jihadism, as due to the existence of Israel." Many many people think this - and then conclude that they will be safe if they promote the destruction of Israel. Simply put, this is the position of liberal Jews - "don't hurt me, I hate me too"

"The 1947 UN plan saw Jerusalem as not belonging to either the Palestinian or Israeli nation."

The UN was and is wrong.
Nothing new there.
Citing the UN as any kind of an authority on anything is as absurd as citing Realclimate.com as an authority on Global Warming.

Jerusalem belongs to Israel.
It is key to their entire existence as a people.

I gave my 2cents why I think the Americans are acting as they are.

ex-liberal, the name, 'Palestinian', as I'm sure you know, comes from the arabic 'filastin'. Both terms were in use long before the christian era. The Greeks used the term 'palestini' for that area and people. The name 'Palestine' has been used by the Romans as well as the Greeks.

So, they didn't choose the name all by themselves, as did, for example, the US, who named themselves the 'United States' of America.

You say that 'many people think this' (i.e., that jihadism is caused by Israel-Palestine). Such ignorance may well be true but such ignorance is not expected of the President of the USA. That role is supposed to be filled with someone knowledgeable in history and political realities, and to have a staff with great expertise in these areas.

OZ - citing yourself as an authority is as uncertain as citing the UN. I did not cite the UN as an authority on any truth but as a source of a proposed declaration about the status of Jerusalem. Such a declaration (1947) happens to be fact. That it was not accepted is another fact.

Palestine is from the Hebrew word for Phillistine - the enemy of Israel in the time of King David. After the suppression of the Jewish revolts of AD 68-70, the Romans wanted to eradicate all signs of Jewish political independence. They even wanted to eliminate the name "Judea." As has been pointed out many times here at SDA,the Romans looked in the books of the Jews, found there the name of a long vanished enemy nation, and imposed it on the area: "Philistia," which they Latinized to "Palestina."

Philistine in Hebrew is P'lishti (פלשתי).

Funny how my opinion is merely an opinion--worthless---but the illustrious ET states unfounded opinion and BS and it is declared fact---by ET. Self praise is no verification.
I am at a loss as to how an otherwise potent mind like ET, on other matters quite lucid----has this anti-semitic obsession....
Perhaps if part of her past included dodging Syrian shell-fire from the Golan, she would not be so intent on revising history.
Long ago Jordanian associates stated that the so-called "Palestinians" were indigent migrants seeking employment, the bottom end of the arab food chain.....the "untouchables" of arab society.
Then there was the myth that these "palestinians were the most educated arabs.....who couldn't read an atlas.....claiming the JOOS took our land when any 5th grader could see that Jordan and Eygpt had taken it (prior to 1967).
Then there is the standard reaction when it is pointed out that the early Jewish settlers purchased the lands from absentee landlords----"SEE, SEE, that is how the JOOS stole our land---they bought it." Some education!

"If the purpose in this manufactured angst is to pressure Israel into handing parts of Jerusalem over to a corrupt Fatah.."

Sorry Mr.David Harsanyi, bit more than that I'm afraid. Israel has just handed 'bama the very chemical he needed to start the let's-divorce-ourselves-from-Israel chain reaction he has so desparately been seeking. If you scratch the surface of this manufactured angst ever so slightly, you'll find jubilation.

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_14687526#ixzz0iTMsg2n2

"The name 'Palestine' has been used by the Romans as well as the Greeks."
~eT

I agree.
So while during the Roman occupation of Palestine the majority of the population was Jewish the Israelis are Palestinians, got it.

Conversely, since there were no Arabs in the area during the Roman occupation, the people who claim loudest to be Palestinians aren't Palestinians at all.
Works for me.

Just further to ex-liberal's excellent counter to ET's stupid assertion on the origin of "Palestinian," the word p'lishti evidently descends from polshim, which means foreign invaders. Seems about right.

Of course the name "Palestinian" was adopted in 1967. Prior to that they were just Arabs.

I don't understand why ET hasn't gone full Arab and started calling Jerusalem Al-Quds.

I just focus on the facts - and the origin of the term 'Palestine' is an ancient term for the region. It was used by Herodotus and the Romans and the Ottoman and the British. The term referred to the geographic region and all people living there, regardless of tribe or religion, were designated as such. That included Christians, Jews, Muslims. So, no, the term doesn't refer to 'foreign invaders'. Instead of the 'hate-ET' rants, why not simply look up the terms and read the facts?

sasquatch - kindly prove that I am anti-semitic. I'm sure you are not so irrational as to equate criticism of Israeli politics with being anti-semitic, so, I think you should provide proof for your declaration.

By the way the Jewish people of that ancient era were, as were all peoples, organized into tribes, and other peoples were all considered 'other' and 'invaders'. I'm sure you've read such designations in the halakhah.

The era of the Romans was obviously pre-Christian (at least before Constantine) and pre-Islamic. That doesn't mean that everyone was of the Judaic religion! Predominant 'religions' were not monotheistic but polytheistic.

The term 'filastin' to my knowledge came into being after the emergence of Islam in the 7th c.

The people of that era were all tribal (there were no 'nation-states) and migratory. The mediterranean horticulture functions by part settlements and part small animal migratory.

sasquatch - the UN 1947 declaration on the status of Jerusalem isn't an opinion; it's a fact. Look it up.

Now, why doesn't anyone bother to debate the real issue of this thread, which is what is going on between Obama and Israel?

Because there is nothing going on between Obama's ears?

Syncro

"As for Israel's housing in E. Jerusalem, yes, I'm against such an action (E. Jerusulem is 'supposed' to be the future capital of Palestine).
~eT

East Jerusalem may be "supposed to be the future capital of Palestine for you, but there are 2500 year old prophesies in the Bible that say that all of Jerusalem is supposed to be where the King of the Jews rules from when the Messiah comes and the Messiah is supposed to enter the city through the East Gate which happens to be in East Jerusalem.

Knowing these prophesies, it isn't any wonder the Israelis are building neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem with the expectation that the Messiah is going to visit those neighbourhoods full of His people some day instead of meeting a hail of "Palestinian" bullets from a bunch of Arabs who shouldn't be there.

Obama wants Israel destroyed just as he wants the U.S. destroyed.

He didn't give the Saudis, who happen to be in the flight path between Israel and Southern Iran, Patriot missile batteries for nothing.

The alternate explanation for Obama's actions are that he just isn't calling the shots on Israeli policy just like he didn't have a hand in designing the new logo for the Missile Defense Agency.

He is still in campaign mode and nothing but a narcissistic empty suit.

I think it's the former and I think Jeremiah Wright, one of his mentors, would agree.

Well, as is obvious, I'm very opposed to Obama, but I still want to know what is going on between him, as the White House, and Israel.

I'd bet that Obama, personally, is against Israel, both because of his narcissism and the 'influential people in his life'. But that doesn't explain the White House official reaction.

I also think that a lot, that's very many, people have the opinion that Islamic fascism is caused by the Israeli-Palestine situation. In my view, this is a shallow view; it ignores the emergence of Islamic fascism in the 19th c as a reaction against modernization, industrialism and democracy - and, it ignores the fact that a tribal political structure is disastrous in multi-million size populations.

So, the view by some (eg, Juan Williams on FOX news) that Obama and the WH raged this past week against Israel because they think that Islamic jihadism is caused by I-P and fear reprisals in Iraq and Afghanistan is, to my view, a weak argument. After all, the WH haven't said much before - and they ignore, totally, the violence by Muslims against Christians and other Muslims. How does their I-P theme explain this violence?

I don't buy the Goldberg analysis that it's all a plot to interfere in Israeli politics to take down the Netanyahu 'right' coalition and move it to the left. That's a rather complex analysis.

I simply don't get it, and revert to an equally weak view that Obama is just plain dumb.

Oh, and one last comment on the etymology of the name 'Palestine'. So what? Does having a 'name' mean that you are only then legitimate as a people? At one time there were no Canadians. Or US citizens. Or English. Or... People, identifiable as ethnic groups, are more real than a name. That's it.

We drove right past the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood. There's a narrow strip of treed area between the neighborhood of existing apartment complexes and a major street. Narrow, as in a couple of hundreds yards. This is the area that the development is going into, and the description of it as a settlement misleading in the extreme.

photo here

And it's in north Jerusalem, not east, a fact easily verified through Google maps.

Syncro... +1