If you do not understand my position, you can always ask me to clarify. But to assert what you propose to be my beliefs with the preface “who gives a flying fuck about Israel…” and the weasly follow-up “Don’t you feel better now that you’ve expressed the truth,” is not a good faith approach to an argument. Maybe you are not capable of understanding my position. But don’t tell me what I do and don’t believe is “the truth”.

You are a liar. And that’s being generous.

I stopped reading right there and our debate is officially over.

I’m embarrassed for your shilling. I understand being supportive of a candidate for President and even of that person when he becomes President as you have been to an extreme degree – so extreme that I believed and believe you were a campaign operative.

I don’t think that Obama’s intentions are bad and I actually believe that he truly believes this is the road to peace. He has every right to pursue this path and as I wrote, much of what he said is definitely what needed to be said to his audience.

But Obama can be criticized whether you like it or not. He’s just a person and he can be wrong.

There isn’t a single lie in what I wrote. You may disagree strongly and you may not like that I don’t lie down and accept your defense of Obama, but everything I wrote is correct and true from my point of view.

End of discussion. I won’t speak to you again.

Nearly every point I’ve made you’ve twisted into something unrecognizable from what was stated.

How long do you wait to read these before responding? Do you even read them? Do you actually take any time to think about what you write? It sure doesn’t seem like it. It’s like watching a batting cage. No thought. No processing. Nothing. Just a keyboard-ready trigger finger.

Because you are dishonest, I will not debate you. These issues go way beyond me. So do not think that your personal offensiveness is a problem between us as individuals. Your approach is making much bigger problems for your point of view (and any point of view of yours to which I might be sympathetic) than you realize.

But I do have one piece of your many thought-turds that deserves to be fully aired:

“Translation: “who gives a flying fuck about Israel if American interests don’t, in the opinion of the current Administration, consider it to be anything but a problem that needs to be rolled over while we assert ourselves in the globe as friends of the Arabs.”

Don’t you feel better now that you’ve expressed the truth?

Of course, if you had something other than a pseudonym on me (and who knows? We know how crazy you and your buddies here get about IP addresses.) then this would be a massive case of slander.

If you prefer to see the U.S. continually weakened in its relations with the rest of the world, including the rest of the Middle East, just own up to that. And good luck to Israel if that happens! I know that to you “friend of Arabs” must be the equivalent of “hater of Israel”, but that’s your problem. You work out a way in which Israel’s long-term interests are served while being eternally in a constant state of conflict with those Arabs – of whom you apparently think so little. Of course, you can’t do that, and you won’t do that. But as with the bigots who used to throw around the term “Nigger-lover”, you don’t understand that you won’t be able to maintain Israel’s favored position under the sun (like the privileged whites who threw around that aforementioned term) while maintaining a perpetual state of conflict with their neighbors.

What this conversation basically boils down to is that you don’t seem to care about public opinion, about what people think about Israel, about anti-semitism (Yo. It doesn’t just exist in the Middle East – even though events in the Middle East affect those attitudes elsewhere). You just think that if you make a sufficiently petty, inanely technical point, with a bitter enough tone, then you’ll have vindicated yourself on some level. Trust me, you’re doing anything but that. And for someone who loves to appeal to logic you sure are very, very selective about applying it. You may think you’re defending Israel, or the Jews, but you’re not. Not successfully at least. You’re leading a masturbatory and self-congratulatory conversation with yourself and you obviously have no idea of how to, and certainly no experience in, persuading people who aren’t already either inclined to agree with you or are so close to you on related issues or sympathies that it doesn’t matter. Smile at yourself all you want. The rest of the world’s not laughing.

To put it bluntly, your P.R. is worse than Israel’s.

Defend that.

And learn how to spell the word “non sequitur”, dumbass.

jpost.com/serv...

“I’m not confusing anything. Obama and his team are purposely using the term “settlements” without any qualifiers.”

And why shouldn’t he? The qualifiers don’t matter. In negotiations they might. But their status is all POST-1948, POST-1967 in fact. Making distinctions between this West Bank settlement and that has nothing, nada, to do with the legitimacy of Israel itself.

He shouldn’t because this position hurts Israel on many levels, not the least of which is the status of Jerusalem.

We are talking about a speech made for the sake of public opinion.

Not for the sake of a negotiation.

No, we are speaking about the position of the US government as stated by its leader. You’re either stupid or pretending a speech by the President of the USA that was touted for weeks in advance as a new path for the US and the Islamic world is just words. It’s not, it expresses US positions.

If public opinion doesn’t matter to you, then just state that. Just remember that if you do, you effectively remove yourself from any standing when it comes to successfully combatting anti-Semitism. Anti-semitism grows in strength, in response to what the court of public opinion has to say about Israel and Jews, and not in response to what goes on in some forum designed for negotiation.

Hahahahahahahahaha

That is the most ridiculous statement you’re ever made. Maybe you should study Logic with Muffti?

This speech was addressed to both masses and leaders. Obama was informing the masses and their leaders how he plans to proceed.

As for anti-Semitism, his speech had absolutely no impact on anti-Semitism and won’t have any impact on anti-Semitism in the Arab world. If you think that talking about Holocaust denial instead of talking about ending the nuclear program of an Islamic theocracy is good for America, then good for you. In my opinion it isn’t good for America and it also isn’t good for Israel. It also isn’t good for Christians or Jews and it won’t make a whit of difference regarding anti-Semitism. Although I find the fact that he brought it up touching, and even respect his good intentions in visiting Buchenwald, it was the throwing of a bone to silence critics who would challenge him (correctly) that he’s doing nothing about the REAL problem here: Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“He is claiming that Israel exists because of the Holocaust – a very conventional Arab argument that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of Israel because it makes it an interloper European country.”

Why should it matter what arguments the Arabs want to make? The Holocaust, in fact, DID contribute to the establishment of the State of Israel. Historical fact. End. Period. Finished.

Of course it did. But it is far from the only reason. In Obama’s speech, however, it is the only reason.

But because the Arabs want to manipulate that fact for their own purposes you believe that Obama shouldn’t mention it? Well, I’ve got a news flash for you. If Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all believed that 2 + 2 = 4, it would still be true as well.

I didn’t say he shouldn’t mention it. I said that he neglected to mention the other key reasons that Israel exists. You know, small piddly things like it being the home of the Jewish people 2000 thousand years ago, the longing over a period of 2000 years to return or the movement called Zionism that brought the idea of a return to Jews as early as the mid-1800s. If these items were put into the comment about why Israel came to be, then maybe the Arabs wouldn’t continue to claim that Israel is a European outpost created by European guilt.

He should have said it. Maybe he doesn’t believe it.

What a pathetic way to make an argument. You are so paranoid about what arguments your opponents will make based on certain historical facts, that you will deny them the legitimacy of those facts. What a way to look weak.

It’s pathetic to ignore facts like the connection of the Jewish people to a place for 2000 years even though that is the key reason the state of Israel exists. Your denials on behalf of Obama are pathetic. Since both Palestinian charters and the vast majority of the Arab world deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state and since you claim that this speech was geared to educated the masses and to prevent anti-Semitism, why wouldn’t he talk about the actual history? Unless he doesn’t believe it.

“So all the other Presidents who mentioned terrorism also didn’t know how to lead the US?”

They didn’t know how to lead the U.S., and by extension the world, to a place that curtailed the radicalization of the Middle East.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

“(Blah blah blah)… And to you this is a piddly little detail.”

Yes. It is a piddly little detail. In the court of public opinion, that’s exactly what it is. Obama is in Cairo and elsewhere to address an Arab audience, not as Israel’s chief negotiator. He is there to say the things that they need to hear, whether validating or challenging of their views, and not to say that everything that Israel wants is what Israel will get.

Do you seriously not understand this? Do you seriously think that by simply re-stating the most maximalist version of Israel’s every demand everywhere he goes, every time he’s asked, the U.S. president will be in a position to influence the Middle East, or the rest of the world, in a positive direction? Do you seriously think that to question as much makes someone an Obama “shill”, a partisan hack, rather than just a foreign policy realist?

If you think that, then you should really consider hunkering down in a concrete West Bank bunker and stop pretending that you have any idea on how to influence: Arabs, U.S. policy, gentiles, the world as a whole, people, etc., etc., etc.

Maximalist positions? Every time he’s asked?

What the fuck are you talking about? Do you think you can obfuscate with hyperbole?

Apparently you do.

“Obama is speaking to the leadership of the Arab and Israeli countries here, not just the masses. His words are followed up by the words of Clinton, Mitchell and Rahm. This is diplomacy, not speaking to the masses.”

This is false. And it shows how little regard you apparently have for Arab leadership and Arab public opinion. Keep trying to safegaurd the interests of Israel without the support of those things, though. You won’t be able to.

This is completely accurate and it is not a statement about the Arab masses. As for safeguarding Israel’s interests without the support of the Arab masses, I suspect that is doable. You may have noticed that in most Arab countries, the leadership is in control. The Syrian masses are not demanding war, Assad will determine whether or not there is war. The Lebanese masses were not demanding war, Hizbollah and Nasrallah decided there will be war. That’s not to say that Arab public opinion is irrelevant, even despots need the support of the people. However, this speech was intended to work on both levels, as a talk with the public and as diplomacy with the Arab and Israeli leadership.

“It has everything to do with negotiations, as well as the history of the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. And despite your claim about concessions, so far none have been seen. Don’t forget that Jerusalem is on the table here as well if you follow Obama’s language carefully.”

Well, I’m so touched that you care so much about the Land of Israel and the history of the Jewish people. But in a world where they do not exist by themselves, alone, in a vacccuum, but in the presence of such things as “gentiles” and “Arabs”, in order to survive and prosper they will have to factor in the considerations of those parties as well. What a bummer!

Non-sequitor.

Israel’s offers to the Arab states and to the Palestinians have not been those of a state that considers itself to be in a vacuum. On the contrary.

“Stupid remark. Netanyahu may have political views you dislike but he’s fairly smart and so are the people around him.”

He’s smart enough about some very narrow topics, but he’s missing the bigger picture here and there are others smarter than him.

I don’t care a fig about the legitimacy of his “views”. I am approaching this discussion in as de-politicized a manner possible and speaking as an absolute pragmatist. His views will have to accomodate certain realities or either he will be out of power or Israel will have much bigger problems than it can handle down the road.

There are also others smarter than Obama. Your point is? Oh, your point was that Netanyahu was stupid and Obama wasn’t.

A couple of years ago the American government forced Israel, against its leadership’s wishes, to permit Hamas to run in the elections. Did that work out well? Israel has to live with the consequences of any mistakes it makes, but what happens when others foist mistakes upon it? Should it also assume that Obama is smarter than Netanyahu even though Obama lives in the US and Netanyahu lives in Israel and even though this is one element of America’s many interests while it is a primary issue for Israel?

“I’m not making this up, read the Abbas interview in the Washington Post or what Erakat said yesterday when he said that for the first time the Palestinians feel they are in a position of strength against the Israelis.”

So what? What does the bloated, over-confident statement of some Palestinian official have to do with the ultimate course this will take?

Oh.

How stupid I’ve been all along to think that the head of the PNA could actually squelch peace talks. Maybe I should just ignore the history, like when the former head of the PNA said “no” to the previous Democratic President and then proceeded to launch a war against Israel? Yes, that’s what I’ll do. I’ll talk about how the speech is intended for the masses, not the leadership, and call the primary leader a “Palestinian official” and deem him to be unimportant because the US dictates to the Arabs what needs to happen.

At this point in the discussion, I’d say you’ve twisted yourself into a pretty tight pretzel.

Pretzel logic.

You seem to get obsessively caught up in such minor details and characters that you forget to understand that there is a larger process that constantly continues to take shape, whether you can see it or not. Whether you understand (or care) how to influence it or not.

Pretzel, Ahmed Qurei was probably the key reason Camp David didn’t work for Clinton and Barak. Not even Arafat. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

“If you prejudge negotiations, you end up with nothing regardless of your audience.”

Who’s to say that every public statement, in your mind, doesn’t “prejudge” negotations in some way that you disapprove of? Why not just never make public statements? Why not only consider whether they make Israel look “strong” or “weak” (whatever that means), rather than whether the court of public opinion feels that Israel is acting stupidly, belligerently, etc. or in a way that they can be made to understand?

No, we’re talking about a specific set of statements and then follow-ups by other senior US figures that are weakening Israel’s negotiating position by removing key elements of leverage. This is subsequent to a very generous offer made last year by Olmert and refused by the “over-confident Palestinian official.”

“If you call everything a petty internal Jewish squabble because it doesn’t suit your agenda, then you miss the point that Israelis have to be given a fair deal that will win in an election (chances are that any deal offered will bring about new elections and they will be a referendum on the deal).”

I call something an internal Jewish squabble when that’s precisely what it is. And right now I doubt that internal Jewish politics are well-disposed to mounting an entirely unnecessary fight with the U.S. as it attempts to re-assert itself as the country that shapes the global order, wins public opinion and gets people to a point where they feel less threatened and more easily persuaded to consider its (and Israel’s) interests.

Okay, well at least now you’re being honest. Translation: “who gives a flying fuck about Israel if American interests don’t, in the opinion of the current Administration, consider it to be anything but a problem that needs to be rolled over while we assert ourselves in the globe as friends of the Arabs.”

Don’t you feel better now that you’ve expressed the truth?

“Your conclusion is: if the speech appeases the Arabs, then that’s good. They’re the big picture here. If the speech pisses off the Jews, then so what? We can’t be bothered with piddly insignificant internal Jewish squabbles.”

The speech didn’t appease the Arabs. This is a massive, stupid blind spot on your part. They didn’t agree with all of it. In parts they were challenged. In parts they were probably a bit offended. Sorry if this messes with your black-or-white, weak-or-strong vision of Arabs and what they think.

Sure, but when it came to Israel, they weren’t challenged or offended. This post and discussion are about Israel. I’ve already stated elsewhere that other than that it was a pretty good speech and helpful regarding establishing better relations between the Arabs and Muslims and America.

“And there, MUL, you’ve captured the essence of what Obama is doing right now. Congratulations.”

Well, I think I have. Just not in the way you mischaracterized it.

“And we are permitted to be critical of those choices.”

Criticism is more effective when you know what you’re talking about and don’t oversimplify things. And when you ADMIT to FACTS and don’t proclaim certain FACTS unmentionable just because you’re afraid of how your opponent will misconstrue those facts.

Unless you’re a coward, of course.

Um, whatever.

More pretzel logic.

And why shouldn’t he? The qualifiers don’t matter. In negotiations they might. But their status is all POST-1948, POST-1967 in fact. Making distinctions between this West Bank settlement and that has nothing, nada, to do with the legitimacy of Israel itself.

We are talking about a speech made for the sake of public opinion. Not for the sake of a negotiation. If public opinion doesn’t matter to you, then just state that. Just remember that if you do, you effectively remove yourself from any standing when it comes to successfully combatting anti-Semitism. Anti-semitism grows in strength, in response to what the court of public opinion has to say about Israel and Jews, and not in response to what goes on in some forum designed for negotiation.

“He is claiming that Israel exists because of the Holocaust – a very conventional Arab argument that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of Israel because it makes it an interloper European country.”

Why should it matter what arguments the Arabs want to make? The Holocaust, in fact, DID contribute to the establishment of the State of Israel. Historical fact. End. Period. Finished. But because the Arabs want to manipulate that fact for their own purposes you believe that Obama shouldn’t mention it? Well, I’ve got a news flash for you. If Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot all believed that 2 + 2 = 4, it would still be true as well.

What a pathetic way to make an argument. You are so paranoid about what arguments your opponents will make based on certain historical facts, that you will deny them the legitimacy of those facts. What a way to look weak.

“So all the other Presidents who mentioned terrorism also didn’t know how to lead the US?”

They didn’t know how to lead the U.S., and by extension the world, to a place that curtailed the radicalization of the Middle East.

“(Blah blah blah)… And to you this is a piddly little detail.”

Yes. It is a piddly little detail. In the court of public opinion, that’s exactly what it is. Obama is in Cairo and elsewhere to address an Arab audience, not as Israel’s chief negotiator. He is there to say the things that they need to hear, whether validating or challenging of their views, and not to say that everything that Israel wants is what Israel will get.

Do you seriously not understand this? Do you seriously think that by simply re-stating the most maximalist version of Israel’s every demand everywhere he goes, every time he’s asked, the U.S. president will be in a position to influence the Middle East, or the rest of the world, in a positive direction? Do you seriously think that to question as much makes someone an Obama “shill”, a partisan hack, rather than just a foreign policy realist?

If you think that, then you should really consider hunkering down in a concrete West Bank bunker and stop pretending that you have any idea on how to influence: Arabs, U.S. policy, gentiles, the world as a whole, people, etc., etc., etc.

“Obama is speaking to the leadership of the Arab and Israeli countries here, not just the masses. His words are followed up by the words of Clinton, Mitchell and Rahm. This is diplomacy, not speaking to the masses.”

This is false. And it shows how little regard you apparently have for Arab leadership and Arab public opinion. Keep trying to safegaurd the interests of Israel without the support of those things, though. You won’t be able to.

“It has everything to do with negotiations, as well as the history of the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. And despite your claim about concessions, so far none have been seen. Don’t forget that Jerusalem is on the table here as well if you follow Obama’s language carefully.”

Well, I’m so touched that you care so much about the Land of Israel and the history of the Jewish people. But in a world where they do not exist by themselves, alone, in a vacccuum, but in the presence of such things as “gentiles” and “Arabs”, in order to survive and prosper they will have to factor in the considerations of those parties as well. What a bummer!

“Stupid remark. Netanyahu may have political views you dislike but he’s fairly smart and so are the people around him.”

He’s smart enough about some very narrow topics, but he’s missing the bigger picture here and there are others smarter than him.

I don’t care a fig about the legitimacy of his “views”. I am approaching this discussion in as de-politicized a manner possible and speaking as an absolute pragmatist. His views will have to accomodate certain realities or either he will be out of power or Israel will have much bigger problems than it can handle down the road.

“I’m not making this up, read the Abbas interview in the Washington Post or what Erakat said yesterday when he said that for the first time the Palestinians feel they are in a position of strength against the Israelis.”

So what? What does the bloated, over-confident statement of some Palestinian official have to do with the ultimate course this will take?

You seem to get obsessively caught up in such minor details and characters that you forget to understand that there is a larger process that constantly continues to take shape, whether you can see it or not. Whether you understand (or care) how to influence it or not.

“If you prejudge negotiations, you end up with nothing regardless of your audience.”

Who’s to say that every public statement, in your mind, doesn’t “prejudge” negotations in some way that you disapprove of? Why not just never make public statements? Why not only consider whether they make Israel look “strong” or “weak” (whatever that means), rather than whether the court of public opinion feels that Israel is acting stupidly, belligerently, etc. or in a way that they can be made to understand?

“If you call everything a petty internal Jewish squabble because it doesn’t suit your agenda, then you miss the point that Israelis have to be given a fair deal that will win in an election (chances are that any deal offered will bring about new elections and they will be a referendum on the deal).”

I call something an internal Jewish squabble when that’s precisely what it is. And right now I doubt that internal Jewish politics are well-disposed to mounting an entirely unnecessary fight with the U.S. as it attempts to re-assert itself as the country that shapes the global order, wins public opinion and gets people to a point where they feel less threatened and more easily persuaded to consider its (and Israel’s) interests.

“Your conclusion is: if the speech appeases the Arabs, then that’s good. They’re the big picture here. If the speech pisses off the Jews, then so what? We can’t be bothered with piddly insignificant internal Jewish squabbles.”

The speech didn’t appease the Arabs. This is a massive, stupid blind spot on your part. They didn’t agree with all of it. In parts they were challenged. In parts they were probably a bit offended. Sorry if this messes with your black-or-white, weak-or-strong vision of Arabs and what they think.

“And there, MUL, you’ve captured the essence of what Obama is doing right now. Congratulations.”

Well, I think I have. Just not in the way you mischaracterized it.

“And we are permitted to be critical of those choices.”

Criticism is more effective when you know what you’re talking about and don’t oversimplify things. And when you ADMIT to FACTS and don’t proclaim certain FACTS unmentionable just because you’re afraid of how your opponent will misconstrue those facts.

Unless you’re a coward, of course.

If you want to confuse the arguments for Israel’s founding (not colonialist) with the arguments for continued settlement of the West Bank (colonialist) you go ahead and do so, Middle.

I’m not confusing anything. Obama and his team are purposely using the term “settlements” without any qualifiers. He is claiming that Israel exists because of the Holocaust – a very conventional Arab argument that seeks to undermine the legitimacy of Israel because it makes it an interloper European country.

“Did Obama mention terrorism?”

I don’t know remember what the specific terms were. But if you don’t think Obama made pointed (and more effective) denunciations of violence, extremism, whatever the Arabs call it, than any other president, then maybe you don’t understand the difference between what it takes to lead America and what it takes to lead Israel.

So all the other Presidents who mentioned terrorism also didn’t know how to lead the US? You’ve made some silly claims in defense of Obama in the past but this one takes the cake. He wanted to be conciliatory so he didn’t use a buzzword that pisses off Muslims when talking to them. But he did mention settlements…

“After all, if you enter negotiations by attacking one side and not the other, you not only predetermine their outcome, you place the side you’ve weakened to danger.”

This is bullshit. One of the most effective ways of weakening one’s position is by obsessively hanging on for dear life to a piddly little point of contention. Conceding ridiculous details is healthy. This is a piece of advice that you would do well to apply to your own arguments, which could stand to go on a healthy diet. For their own sake.

So Israel has to give up settlements and the Palestinians have to give up terror. The President brings up removal of settlements but doesn’t mention terror. In fact, he just mentions the displacement of the Palestinians and how Israel was formed out of the Holocaust and you think that’s a good setup for negotiations because the settlements are just a piddly little point of contention. And, in fact, terror need not even be mentioned at all because it ranks even lower than this piddly little point of contention.

Have you considered that it’s one thing to defend Obama and shill for him as you did throughout his campaign, but it’s another thing to make ridiculous assertions in his defense that expose your partisanship more than anything else?

Negotiations have to happen. The Israeli view all along has been that they are willing to give up most of the West Bank except for the small pocket of communities that have been built near the Green Line and surrounding Jerusalem and where about 85% of the settlers live today. That amounts to about 3% of the West Bank’s land and Israel has offered to exchange that land with land from Israel proper on a one to one basis. Then along comes Obama and doesn’t say anything about Palestinian obligations or terror but demands that Israel deal with its settlements without any discussion as to what he means or how this prejudices the outcome of negotiations.

And to you this is a piddly little detail.

Bloated, meandering arguments that go nowhere might serve some useful purpose to a litigant. But they do nothing for influencing public opinion.

Obama is speaking to the leadership of the Arab and Israeli countries here, not just the masses. His words are followed up by the words of Clinton, Mitchell and Rahm. This is diplomacy, not speaking to the masses.

As for the incredibly meaningful distinction between different kinds of settlements, American officials and Netanyahoo’s people have already hade their perfunctory discussion on that. You’ll likely get your concession to Israeli centrists. Just don’t pretend that has anything to do with peace.

It has everything to do with negotiations, as well as the history of the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. And despite your claim about concessions, so far none have been seen. Don’t forget that Jerusalem is on the table here as well if you follow Obama’s language carefully.

“Except that Obama and his advisers are a very sophisticated bunch and they knew what they were doing.”

Which is more than we can say for Bibi and his minions.

Stupid remark. Netanyahu may have political views you dislike but he’s fairly smart and so are the people around him.

So let Obama do his job. Apparently he is sophisticated enough to tell the difference between an internal Israeli squabble, internal Arab politics and the differences between what the Israelis and Palis can live with.

Really? How do you know this? What has he done so far to indicate this? So far all he’s done is treat Israel differently than any other country by ordering it to do something that its (democratically elected) government opposes and has prejudged negotiations. In fact, what he has done is given the Palestinians confidence that they can sit back and wait; Netanyahu’s government will be brought down by Obama and Obama’s baseline views favor them. I’m not making this up, read the Abbas interview in the Washington Post or what Erakat said yesterday when he said that for the first time the Palestinians feel they are in a position of strength against the Israelis.

Except that just several months ago the Israelis made an extremely generous offer to the Palestinians and the Palestinians rejected it. Now Obama is pressuring Israel and not the side that rejected the peace offer. That seems like a major error. I understand pressuring both sides but this approach is simply wrong.

You keep making the mistake of not understanding audience, and throwing internal Jewish squabbles at me and the world as if they are more important than an acceptable resolution between Israel and the other parties. But they’re not. Sorry to break the news to you. They just aren’t. Stop confusing them with the larger isssues.

Um, the bigger picture is that both sides have to agree to peace. If you prejudge negotiations, you end up with nothing regardless of your audience. If you call everything a petty internal Jewish squabble because it doesn’t suit your agenda, then you miss the point that Israelis have to be given a fair deal that will win in an election (chances are that any deal offered will bring about new elections and they will be a referendum on the deal).

Your conclusion is: if the speech appeases the Arabs, then that’s good. They’re the big picture here. If the speech pisses off the Jews, then so what? We can’t be bothered with piddly insignificant internal Jewish squabbles.

And there, MUL, you’ve captured the essence of what Obama is doing right now. Congratulations.

Except it’s a wrongheaded approach from many levels, not just pragmatic ones like having to find a reasonable compromise, but moral ones like how one treats the only real democracy in the region. Bu who cares, says the Obama team, we know what will work and what won’t and Muslims and Arabs are our target audience here, not Israel and not the Jews.

Fine, the US government is permitted to make choices.

And we are permitted to be critical of those choices.

If you want to confuse the arguments for Israel’s founding (not colonialist) with the arguments for continued settlement of the West Bank (colonialist) you go ahead and do so, Middle.

“Did Obama mention terrorism?”

I don’t know remember what the specific terms were. But if you don’t think Obama made pointed (and more effective) denunciations of violence, extremism, whatever the Arabs call it, than any other president, then maybe you don’t understand the difference between what it takes to lead America and what it takes to lead Israel.

“After all, if you enter negotiations by attacking one side and not the other, you not only predetermine their outcome, you place the side you’ve weakened to danger.”

This is bullshit. One of the most effective ways of weakening one’s position is by obsessively hanging on for dear life to a piddly little point of contention. Conceding ridiculous details is healthy. This is a piece of advice that you would do well to apply to your own arguments, which could stand to go on a healthy diet. For their own sake.

Bloated, meandering arguments that go nowhere might serve some useful purpose to a litigant. But they do nothing for influencing public opinion.

As for the incredibly meaningful distinction between different kinds of settlements, American officials and Netanyahoo’s people have already hade their perfunctory discussion on that. You’ll likely get your concession to Israeli centrists. Just don’t pretend that has anything to do with peace.

“Except that Obama and his advisers are a very sophisticated bunch and they knew what they were doing.”

Which is more than we can say for Bibi and his minions.

So let Obama do his job. Apparently he is sophisticated enough to tell the difference between an internal Israeli squabble, internal Arab politics and the differences between what the Israelis and Palis can live with. You keep making the mistake of not understanding audience, and throwing internal Jewish squabbles at me and the world as if they are more important than an acceptable resolution between Israel and the other parties. But they’re not. Sorry to break the news to you. They just aren’t. Stop confusing them with the larger isssues.

Um, I don’t know what it means to “target…as”. To target something means to take aim at something. You don’t take aim at something “as” something, you take aim at it, at what it actually is.

Wow, thanks for the lesson in blowing hot air.

Now please address the point. He targeted Israel as a colonialist regime. That’s what he means when he says that the Holocaust explains Israel and the fears of Israelis. It’s the Arab claim (false claim to be sure) that Israel is the product of the Holocaust (”why should the Palestinians be punished for the sins of the Nazis?”) and therefore it is a colonialist regime with European colonialist overtones. Never mind that over 50% of Israel’s Jews are or descend from Jews who are Mizrahi or Sephardic and arrived from Arab and Muslim countries. Never mind that Zionism as an ideological movement precedes WWII by 100 years and as a political movement by 50 years. Never mind about the continuous presence of Jews in the Land of Israel or the yearning of those who lived outside of it to return for 2000 years.

He never said one particular thing was “the key problem”. He spoke of obligations both sides have. You probably didn’t see the equipoise because you might be obsessed with gamesmanship.

Really? Well, he spoke specifically about the settlements needing to be gone his underlings are going around saying to anybody who will listen that the settlements must stop growing. Can you tell me what they’re saying the Palestinians need to do? Did Obama mention terrorism?

Which Arabs refused to compromise? Hamas or the party that’s legitimately supposed to be in charge in the territories?

Abbas and the PNA.

Any campaign promises he gave on U.S. policy were in keeping with the Democratic platform of getting more involved and trying to bring about a resolution.

He spoke about defending Israel and the special relationship with Israel being maintained. The second part is already proven untrue and the first part is debatable. After all, if you enter negotiations by attacking one side and not the other, you not only predetermine their outcome, you place the side you’ve weakened to danger. Abbas is telling the press he plans to wait now while his associates explain that it’s because he knows Netanyahu will clash with Obama. Even if they do negotiate, Obama has taken the settlements card off the table for Israel. So what do you call it when you strip one side of part of its leverage but don’t do the same to the other side?

Whatever you think of settlements, it makes no sense to defend them as some kind of reward for Israel to reap in exchange for Palestinian malfeasance.

You’re making the same mistake as Obama. There are settlements and there are settlements. If I go by the reading of some people, east Jerusalem is a settlement wherever Jews live. Why is Obama giving the word “settlements” its maximal reading? Why not qualify carefully and properly? Why ignore the history of these settlements?

Nor is it entitled to see them this way, under the road map, under any previous agreement, or under the dictates of common sense. Go ahead and defend the settlements on some kind of quid-pro-quo, tit-for-tat basis… as a punishment for terrorism. But like the Palestinians when it comes to their terrorism, you may only be amenable to the utilitarian argument if not an ethical argument: Defending them is just not an effective tactic.

I don’t defend the settlements. I actually think most of them need to disappear. Obama has indeed created a situation where defending any settlements is counter-productive, but not all the settlements are the same and there is no reason that Israel should return to 1949 armistice lines. In fact, that goes against the purpose and meaning of UNSCR 242. Since Obama has made any propert discussion of this something akin to opposition of his plans for peace, you can see how the debate has been unfairly and mistakenly curtailed.

Except that Obama and his advisers are a very sophisticated bunch and they knew what they were doing.