Netanyahu throws down the gauntlet

How likely is it that the US could slap Israel with sanctions, cut off funding, block participation in joint energy or defense programs, or slap it with outright sanctions?

And why has the US done nothing about the visa issue?

In an obvious gesture of defiance, the Netanyahu government in Israel intends to approve the construction of hundreds of additional housing units in West Bank settlements. All such settlements, it is worth noting, are considered by most of the world -- including some past U.S. administrations -- to be illegal under international law.

Guess he doesn't give a shit about the supposed negotiations that are going on with Abbas and the PA.

In the meantime, we'll have to wait and see what the US does. Doing something similar to what the US is doing unjustly to Honduras - cutting off some aid - would be a nice start.

Hi,

The Obama administration seems to be mostly centrist, believing that current US policies, and the US system, are basically right.

So they probably won't do anything to separate the US from Israel. The number of strongly pro-Israel voters and political campaign contributors is rather small, but they are a lot more numerous and committed than the people who favor a change in the direction of not backing Israel.

When you add in the fact that the Obama administration is currently having a very hard time just reforming the obviously broken US health care financing system, it doesn't seem likely that they will add a fight with the Israeli administration to the large supply of other fights it is already involved in.

Note that I am not saying that the Obama administration cannot change US policy, but it seems unlikely to me that they are looking for more enemies at this time.

The US may be drifting into a situation where it is very powerful, but its political system cannot adapt to changing reality. Of course, I always liked Paul Kennedy's comparison of the US to Spain in the sixteenth century. Others do not agree.

Ray,

"I would like to say a few words on the Middle East....Everyone knows perfectly well what must be done to achieve peace and how to implement it. We can no longer wait, for if we do, there will be more death and suffering. And we have waited long enough. Everyone knows that I am a friend of Israel and I shall be direct: an unequivocal and complete freeze on the settlements must occur.

The true friends of Israel must tell Israelis the truth. And the truth is that there can be no peace without a settlement freeze. Whether you like it or not, when you are a friend you have to be demanding and frank. A friend has the right to say that Israel is mistaken if it thinks it can pursue colonization and expect to have peace..."

Nicolas Sarkozy, August 26th.

Well, at least its a little more ballsy than "we shall have to write a letter to inform Israel of our displeasure".

Get a load of that photo of Netanyahu. He looks like a mobster running a stolen car ring in Ingushetia.

Mr. Walt writes "In an obvious gesture of defiance.."

A word of caution to Mr. Walt. VERY LITTLE IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS OBVIOUS!

So far most of this has all been based on media reports and subsequent reactions. This 'story' has yet to play itself out and is happening on a far bigger canvas than Mr. Walt evidences he comprehends.

Most likely explanation is that Israel, like all the parties, are positioning themselves preliminarily in anticipation of negotiations which are supposed to commence end of the month.

What has more punch. The latest comment states "regrets" and an earlier one by Ms Clinton stated that such activities were "unhelpful".
Assaults with a feather.
If this is what we can expect from an Obama government then it is no wonder that the look on Netanyahu's face says.......
'got the message yet? We do what we like our her in our patch, so there. We know that the support we get in your country means that we own your Middle Eastern Foreign Policy, so go whistle, Yankees. I mean, we don't even like you. Why do you think we spend so much money on the fawning, sycophantic Congress members, wining, dining, grafting, day in, day out. Got the message yet? We do what we want"

How sad it is that the so-called world's leading nation is captive to a universally disliked and arrogant country which accepts all the largesse they can squeeze out of their benefactors and mentors, knowing that no one will raise a finger to curb their expansionism on land they do not own, and never have.

The yardstick for Obama's success in government is to bring this uncontrolled country under control, to shown them that as the so-called representative of 'freedom', they can wield some weight and watch out Israel if you disregard what we say. The alternative is what we have seen to date, a great big tiger with no teeth. The US is a laughing stock right now.

Let me offer some suggestions, some rules to follow...

o Dual citizens may not vote in U.S. national elections.
(How can you be a citizen of two countries?)

o Dual citizens may not run for national office
(Make up your mind..are you a US citizen or an Israeli citizen)

o Congressmen/women who accept AIPAC money may not vote on any issues to do with the allocation of funds to Israel or US decisions on Middle Eastern matters

o AIPAC must be made to register as a lobby for a foreign nation.

Israel will get away with whatever they can and have done for 50 years and with AIPAC controlling all the weak, sycophantic but disloyal (to the US) Congress members, the US is losing respect all over the world.

Compliments to Rexw
and to SW for the great action photo of Bibi!

Bibi is Israel's Bully Guru...elected by the jolly citizens, high on the delicious sadism of Gaza----

and all the delirium is supported 100% by the USA--
Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Walt's question is "why should anyone expect Israel's behavior to change". The answer: no-one does. Nor does anyone expect the American behavior to change.

If Mr Obama is really interested in "change" we can believe in then he needs to "change" the same old rhetoric, and dogmatic, unquestioned, unconditional support of Israel. Level the playing field and be an honest broker of the "change" he is espousing. The same old empty rhetoric of 'regrets' is so disappointing. Jesus, why doesn't the man take a stand and do something?

I will be proud of the day when Obama puts the interest of America before the interest of Israel, if he at all has the balls to do it. The oath of allegiance that I said everyday in school was not to Israel, but America.

The time has come for the US to stop pandering to Israel and it's destructive, belligerent, failed policies.

As long as the Israelis pay no price for the occupation, the occupation will not end, and therefore the only way open to the opponents of the occupation is to take concrete means that will make the Israelis understand that the injustice they are perpetrating comes with a price tag.

Doesn't Obama realize his credibility is on the line here?

I agree 100% Mr. Walt- the US looks incredibly weak and how pathetic is it to issue a statement saying that "The U.S. commitment to Israel's security is and will remain unshakeable" right after Bibi has slapped us in the face in a very public way? It sounds a bit like "thank you sir, may I have another?"

Unless the US is willing to play hardball, Bibi and his far-right friends will keep upping the ante.

************************
Secretary Clinton Blog

Why does Prof Walt not support Sanctions and Divestment?

If Obama is really pissed at Bibi, he can cut off all funding for Israel. Obvious.

Prof., I can see why you don't support an academic boycott, but do you support divestment and sanctions? Show us your academic freedom please.

Prof. Walt's questions "why should anyone expect Israel's behavior to change"?

They should not because leading academics like Prof Walt do not support divestment and sanctions on Israel.

Prof., how about issuing a statement to zero out our aid to Israel?

One aspect of all of the recent state to state discussion and reporting of that discussion since Obama and Netanyahu has been in power, is of stealth.

Even though I read in depth on the Israel/Palestine, Israel/US relations, I don't have any basis to know what was said behind closed doors, what euphemisms were applied toward what meaning.

And, certainly not sufficiently to discern who is winning the "Go" game. (If you've ever played "Go", you know that among skilled players, the outcome of the game can change 180 degrees on the basis of apparently undramatic moves. An unpracticed, and many practiced, players cannot tell a mid-point, what is the outcome.)

To Professor Walt, are you sure that the term "regret" is not a prior articulated warning term, indicating some subsequent consequence?

I'm not.

Every bi partisan expert panel that has looked at the settlements and the occupation has come to the conclusion that they play a significant role in creating the hatred and unrest in the entire REGION that helps drive terrorist recruiting and funding, the very sort of recruiting and funding that made 9/11 possible, and will also make future 9/11s possible.

The occupation and settlements are the longest standing open wound (with a US stamp of approval on it) that the region has endured, and the Iraq Study Group, many in the CIA, members of the 9/11 commission, Bill Clinton Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, Tony Blair, and manyother experts agree that there will never be an end to the war on terror ( and the staggering costs that it generates for this nation in blood and treasure) until the settlements and the occupation are ended completely and for good.

There is a reason that the US State Department has deemed them to be illegal; They are the only example of a violently enforced colonial settler movement on the entire planet, and as such, are an affront to human rights and the values that virtually define the US.

There must be a political price for the Obama administartion for turning a blind eye to this travesty, even as we continue to FUND IT. Yes, we fund it in the sense that Israel would not need a dime from us (they are a relatively wealthy nation, where people live lives more or less on par with US citizens, although they have the advantage of a universal health care system) if it were not for the crushing costs associated with running the worlds only violently enforced colonial settler movement.

In other words, dump the settlements and the occupation they necessitate, and the US and Israel become safer, save money and lives, and are looked upon by the entire region and the rest of the world as having finally done away with a long standing evil.

The settlers are the Israeli equivalent of the KKK, but the government there actually dispatches their army to HELP them reign havoc and violence down on innocent people rather that fight to stop them.

We MUST make the Obama administration politically REGRET their inaction and enabling behavior vastly more than they regret the expansion of a patently evil program that even now is creating the hatred and unrest in the middle East that will lead to the next 9/11.

The Obama administration doesn't have the nerve to threaten Israel with anything concrete. As Walt is aware, their "lobby" is not challenged in Washington over peanuts or anything else. And Bibi can't be expected to do anything other than what he is doing without severe American pressure. Only if the administration announces a rejection of loan guarantees a la Bush, Sr. will Obama have a chance at the policy he claims to pursue. Still, there are no guarantees of success if he decides to ramp up the pressure. He has to decide where to place his bets--this conflict is almost insoluble, so he'll likely kick the can down the road and preserve his political capital despite an instinctive aversion to these Israeli policies.

Do you ever feel after reading the comments above that there is no one listening, that it is all just too hard to change the status quo, one that has gone on far too long and looks like being a never-ending saga.
You also get the feeling that Netanyahu is also content to allow things to remain the same. After all, it was the Israeli equivalent of the KKK, known as the 'settlers' that put him in power, a sad indictment of the hateful climate that exists in that ill-begotten country.
Why is the US a captive of these people? The regard by Israelis of the US as a country is as low as one would find anywhere in the world, yes, including Russia.
Face it Mr. President. Millions of Americans voted you into power to make changes. It is not too hard and just requires someone to bring a bill before Congress outlining the basis of a future relationship with Israel. JUST ANOTHER COUNTRY, please, that's all it is. It is self-sufficent, able to stand on its own two feet economically but right now is a continual drain on the political and economic resources of your country, desperately trying to finance a health care plan , something that is currently enjoyed by all Israelis. Think, of it...you are supporting a country that doesn't even like you, and whose citizens enjoy better living conditions that you do and show you daily by their actions that they disregard your aims and ambitions for the region. Do they try to meet you half way...never have and never will. This is the epitome of a selfish nation with total disregard for fair play and honesty.
Cut them adrift by way of a bill that all Congress must vote on and then sort out the sheep from the goats, the people loyal to the US and those who should be regarded as Israelis but residing in the US. When asked to make that choice, I am sure that even the most sycophantic Congress members will revert to type and choose to be Americans. Right now, they can be both.
Absolutely ridiculous.

While it's outrageous behavior, I can hardly say I'm surprised. Israel will always do whatever it thinks is best for Israel at the expense of the rest of the Middle East. The U.S. will continue to pay bribes both to Israel and whomever they decide to bomb next. Meanwhile, the Israelis and their U.S. apologists continue to fume and fuss over Iran's bad behavior. I guess Iran should just go the Israel route and renounce its support for the NPT.

The U.S. is too vested in Israel to be an honest broker, despite Mr. Obama's truly good intentions. We have never been able to get concessions from Israel because we can't give Israel a real stick. All we do is just throw more carrots, and when they behave badly, they get a stern talking to, followed by more carrots. While I would like to believe Congress is not just Israel's lawyer, I really have not seen otherwise. I think that the U.S. will not start really punishing Israel until a major country, say Britain or France, decides to suspend arms shipments.

What's so infuriating is that Israel talks a big talk, but they rely on the U.S. to do their own fighting for them. The IDF is a just a hussied-up police force harassing poorly armed Palestinians and Lebanese. That's why they want the U.S. to recruit its allies against Iran. The world knows that it's Israel's problem, and if Israel pitched sanctions against Iran around the world, they would get nowhere.

What's worse is that Israel is dragging us down with it. We need to clearly establish that the U.S. is NOT Israel, despite what some of its most esteemed apologists would have us think.

This is likely positioning for Obama's deadline for Iran later this month; since, as has been discussed here, Obama has unwisely linked a settlement freeze with getting tough on Iran, this may be Israel's way of indicating that it is not going to take Obama seriously if he doesn't take some action on Iran after his self-imposed deadline.

Other points to consider are that this move, from what I have read, is popular within Israel; and so domestic concerns likely play into this. Second, Israel is still very popular in the US, and vastly more Americans in polls blame the Palestinians, rather than the Israelis, for the problems in the Mideast, so Israel may be counting on US public sentiment to prevent Obama from taking serious action.

Raised by Jewish parents in a Jewish community of Brooklyn, New York, during WWII, I share the concerns of most Jewish Americans about Israel. My concerns are dominated by the future of the United States, which I do not view with equanimity. My forebodings are enhanced by the egregious mistakes of the Obama administration since inauguration with regard to the President's constitutional responsibilities and his responsibilities to Americans not represented by financial and imperial lobbyists. That is where I am, right now.

I am reading Mearsheimer and Walt, "The Israel Lobby", because I want to understand the authors' positions on what the policy of the US towards Israel should be. I cannot yet comment on their book; I have not read enough. I should hope that reading on will answer my question, because it is not enough to say that our policy should be determined by our needs and not Israel's. Why not? For several reasons: needs are both short-term and long-term; needs are both physical and moral; there are needs, but there are also commitments and obligations.

From the introduction and first chapter of the "Lobby", the changed nature of our confrontations since the decline of the USSR is an important theme. On it is based the claim that Israel is now more a liability than an asset, if it was an asset before (which is also questioned). The liability comes from the hostility in the Muslim world generated towards us by our foreign policy that "favors" Israel to the disadvantage of the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, "Palestinians".

In the discussions about the US, Israel and the Arab world, certain references are constantly made. One is the "favoring" mentioned above. Another is an "even-handed" policy. Another is international law. Another is UN Res. 242. There are others, but I look forward in my continued reading to see what the "Lobby" asserts. I want to read what and "even-handed policy" in practical terms would mean. I want to see how the authors would deal with Israel's alleged violations of international law. Would they recommend that the country (the US) which has probably been the greatest violator of international law in the world since the beginning of the Eisenhower administration first atone for and correct its own violations of international law, or would they have the corrections begin with Israel's alleged violations of Res. 242? Would we first make good our own killing and maiming (or complicity therein) of millions of Asians and Latin Americans, or should the accounts begin with Israel's?

It may be argued that who is the greater violator of international law, the US or Israel, is really not germane to our discussion. That what counts is protecting the US in the future. Quite so! This is where I live, and I made the points in the previous paragraph to remind those, not the authors, who are most critical of Israel that if they are Americans they do not have a moral leg to stand on.

Neither do the Arabs. They are the greatest oppressors of their own people. Though there has been a detente between Israel and Egypt/Jordan, no Arab country recognizes Israel as a homeland for Jews, a Jewish state. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Iran certainly do not. Even if they were to recognize Israel, that recognition would have to have a form that would take Israel's Jewishness into account. I wonder if the authors deal with this issue as part of an even-handed approach by the US.

This is a very difficult problem, because Israel is a source of Arab militancy, but an even greater one is the occupation of Arab countries by US armed forces. I think the latter is a far more embittering aggravation to the Arab and Muslim world than the existence of Israel.

The issue in the Middle East is often stated as: there will be no peace until the Israeli / Arab conflict is settled. I think that is misplaced emphasis. I think the statement should be: there will be no subsidence of terrorism until US military forces leave the Arab world. The US, according to the authors, has favored Israel since the end of the Eisenhower administration. Terrorism, as we now know it, did not begin until the US started sending Marines and other armed forces into Arab countries.

Reading on ...

RE: "the Netanyahu government in Israel intends to approve the construction of hundreds of additional housing units in West Bank settlements"

MY COMMENT: The Israelis and their neocon consorts are determined to forcibly ram this down Obama's throat; thereby making him "submit" to Israeli/Netanyahu "dominance"!

REFERENCE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Sade

Worth reading the entire thing below, but here is an excerpt. What Haaretz found doesn't support the picture that the Walts of the world are trying to paint, that of the Israelis building willy-nilly in the West Bank. It also appears that Obama was informed and the 'regrets' may simply be because they had to say something.

Only 20 of the 'newly' approved units lie outside of the large settlement blocs that Israel will very likely keep in any negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.

...In Ma'aleh Adumim, 89 units were approved yesterday in the Nofei Sela neighborhood. The area has had permission to build 3,000 homes for five years now. The Housing Ministry was issuing tenders little by little, but stopped two years ago. Now 89 units have been approved in an area slated for 300 units. Some 9,100 families live in Ma'aleh Adumim, and the new construction will increase the population by less than one percent. Mayor Benny Kashriel called the approval, a "poor man's feast."...

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1113073.html

At the West Bank city of Ariel's adventure park, whose construction Defense Minister Ehud Barak approved, nothing special was going on yesterday. Children were trying out the climbing wall and the mayor was walking around, proud as a groom on his wedding day. The facility was actually only approved yesterday, but has been in existence for a year and a half before receiving construction permits. In fact, a demolition order was issued against it.

Haaretz checked and discovered that these permits, are no more than another layer of permits on top of those already given, but that had not gone through for various reasons. In some places work was already underway. Haaretz has also learned that all construction permits were given on condition that the buildings go up within two months, or the permit will be rescinded.

The adventure park in Ariel is only one of the approvals Barak gave yesterday. The total number of new building starts approved yesterday in West Bank Jewish settlements is 455, mainly in the settlement blocs: 149 units in Har Gilo and 12 units in Alon Shvut - both in the Etzion Bloc, 84 units in Modi'in Ilit, 76 units in the Agan Ha'ayalot neighborhood of Givat Ze'ev, 89 units in Ma'aleh Adumim and 25 units in the nearby settlement of Kedar. The construction of 20 new units was approved for Maskiot in the Jordan Valley, the only settlement not in one of the large settlement blocs. Barak also approved public projects, like the adventure park in Ariel and a new school in Har Adar.

Yesterday, bulldozers were filling trucks with sand to level lot after lot in Har Gilo. The plan to add 234 units to the settlement, first established in 1968, was approved in 1999. Former defense minister Shaul Mofaz approved the construction of 34 units, and during Olmert's tenure 55 more units were approved. In 2008, Olmert approved another 149 units and Barak did not add to this number. Work had already begun, with Barak's approval yesterday of the 149 units coming on top of Olmert's earlier approval.

Kedar has an approved plan from 1989 for the construction of 260 units. Two years ago, the community asked for permission to market another 34 units. Approval came for 17, but it was not worthwhile for the local council to lay infrastructure for such a small number of units. Yesterday, Barak approved 25 more units.

In Alon Shvut, construction was approved in a neighborhood built 15 years ago in the center of the community. At the time, permits were issued for four buildings of 12 apartments each. For unknown reasons, only three were built. For three years the local council has been seeking permission to build the fourth apartment house, which it has now received.

Shaul Goldstein, head of the Gush Etzion Regional Council, said yesterday: We thank the government for approving continued construction. However the demand is at least ten times more than the permits. We are against the very term 'freeze,' because construction is not an obstacle to peace."

Construction began in 2000 on 600 housing units in the Agan Ha'ayalot neighborhood of Givat Ze'ev. In 2002, the intifada and shooting attacks brought about an end to sales, and the apartments remained unfinished. The contractors sued the government and the case is still in court.

In 2008, a group of ultra-Orthodox entrepreneurs took over the project, and the Olmert government approved construction of 330 of the apartments, although only 250 were actually built. The government has now approved an additional 76.

Council head Yossi Avrahami said yesterday: "I have been given a permit on top of Olmert's permit for a plan that had already been approved. This permit is foolishness."

In the Jordan Valley settlement of Maskiot, founded as a Nahal outpost by the Israel Defense Forces, Barak announced 20 new homes would be built. But work has been going on there since July 2008, when the construction of the 20 units was first approved. Yesterday he gave final approval, which means the houses can actually be put up.

The head of the Jordan Valley Regional Council, David Alhiani, said yesterday: "The fact is, these apartments were approved last year, otherwise we wouldn't have begun the infrastructure. How apartments that have already been approved and have begun to be built are approved again, you should ask the defense minister, not me."

In Ma'aleh Adumim, 89 units were approved yesterday in the Nofei Sela neighborhood. The area has had permission to build 3,000 homes for five years now. The Housing Ministry was issuing tenders little by little, but stopped two years ago. Now 89 units have been approved in an area slated for 300 units. Some 9,100 families live in Ma'aleh Adumim, and the new construction will increase the population by less than one percent. Mayor Benny Kashriel called the approval, a "poor man's feast."

In the ultra-Orthodox city of Modi'in Ilit, 84 housing units were approved. They had originally been approved long before, in the midst of an existing neighborhood, but the old plan was never implemented due to a legal battle between the city and the neighboring settlement of Matityahu. All in all, three new buildings are to be constructed in Modi'in Ilit.

"After the new building permits, we are continuing toward a freeze on construction in settlements in the West Bank for a few months," a senior official said yesterday in Jerusalem.

The official also said that American envoy George Mitchell and the U.S. administration have been informed of the approvals for the new construction, and that "it was not done behind their backs." According to the official, this is the first time since the establishment of the Netanyahu government that construction has been unfrozen. The source added that over the past six months only a few permits have been given, and even the present ones are to complete ongoing projects and to approve tenders discussed in the past.

But here's my question: If Netanyahu and Co. can count on this "unshakeable commitment" no matter what they do, why should anyone expect their behavior to change?

As far as I can tell there are only a couple means of changing Israel's behavior in this conflict.

1. As a democracy, it can do so in direct response to the demands of the electorate. (Given the far right elections, that is not likely.)

2. Influence of a Hegemonic power forcing Israel to change its behavior.

3. A change in Israel's relative balance of power; such that it see more advantage in bargaining than it does in its current position. (That is the USA and Europe through policy choices stop subsidizing Israel, and let it shift to something more like its actual power in the region.)

4. A change in the balance of power in the international system or internal system that brings a decline in Israel's relative power. Either because its backers are no longer in strength to lend support or because the Arabs have one of their factors of power increase, like relative population size.

At this point, the latter is the only option that seems possible.

I found much data that I cannot verify, because I do not have access to a university library. Probably the wealth of footnotes supports the text; otherwise the book would by now have been sharply repudiated on the basis of fact. I do not challenge, in any case, the authors' claims that the US has been greatly supportive, financially and diplomatically, of Israel in recent decades. I do not challenge that the Lobby has been very effective in having the wishes of the Israeli government, if not all their people, made a part of US policy. With that in mind, I decided to skip to the last chapter, "Conclusion: What is to be done?"

The authors describe US interests in the region as threefold: 1) maintaining the flow of oil into the world market; 2) discouraging ME states from obtaining WMD's; 3) reducing anti-US terrorism.

To accomplish these three goals the US should not invade and occupy Muslim countries; rather implement an "offshore balancing" policy, the authors assert.

We, the US, should treat Israel as a "normal" country, "like France"!

Israel should be pressured to withdraw in a final settlement to pre-1967 war lands, for the most part.

Israel should recognize the Arab "right of return" in terms of compensations.

My views are: first, I don't feel that the authors are anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. I do agree that the Lobby has been extremely influential, which is its right. I think all of our lobbies are too influential, and the interests of ordinary Americans are not represented by our elected officials. I find the suggested remedies "offshore balancing", treating Israel like France, demanding the pre-1967 boundaries, compensation for "right of return" unrealistic.

How would offshore balancing have worked with regard to the invasion of Kuwait by Suddam's Iraq? Would Saudi Arabia have stationed US forces in SA before the invasion in order to prevent it? I don't think so. Would Turkey? I don't think so. Would Israel? Possibly, but I don't think so. Jordan? Hardly! Where does the US put these forces that would be "offshore"? What might have prevented Saddam's invasion would have been clarity on the part of US diplomats. I am reminded of Dean Acheson's forgetting to include Korea in his list of countries that concern the US. Then we had the Korean War!

Treat Israel like France? Do the authors mean France before WWI, WWII, now? We did treat France as a self-sufficient country in the 20th century, and it was invaded twice. Now, it does not have hostile neighbors as does Israel. Israel now is more like France in August 1914.

To require Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 boundaries is counter-intuitive. Israel was attacked by all of its Arab neighbors. It defeated them. To require Israel to go back to the boundaries before it was attacked is, I find, ridiculous. Surely, I nation ought not to expand by warfare as an aggressor; but as a defender? Why not? I see no moral problem in a nation's successful self-defense and compensation in the form of expanded boundaries.

All of the pressures by the US suggested by the authors are to be on Israel. With "even-handedness" in mind, I wonder what the US pressures on the Arabs are to be. Are they just to sign a treaty of peace with Israel? A piece of paper for the security of the Golan Heights? A piece of paper for most of the West Bank? It does not seem very "even" to me.

I think that were the US to free itself from the Lobby and revise its policies towards Israel, that would be a wise course for us where it is possible. I just don't think that the authors have given us real possibilities. What they have done is make clear what a mess we are in.

I'll suggest a way out. Spend as much money replacing oil with renewable energy as we are in sending armies around the world and we shall no longer need to be concerned about the Middle East or Central Asia. A side benefit: mitigating global warming.

Far more effective in reducing the terrorist threat against the US would be a rapid US troop withdrawal from Iraq and Af-Pak than ending the US special relationship with Israel. A withdrawal would clot the flow of young recruits to jihad and murderous suicide.

Only a George Will can advocate an end to the US occupation of Afghanistan. He has already established himself as an intellectual among the conservatives, and "academic freedom" allows him to say things that would be traitorous for a liberal to say, at least among the media wingnuts.

Respectability in the establishment for pundits other than George Will requires no thought of withdrawal until it may be termed "responsible", whatever than means.

So it is much safer to concentrate on a secondary problem, the American support of Israel, even though it costs us far less each year by a factor of more than a hundred, maybe a thousand with long-term costs, than our wars in Iraq and Af-Pak. Yes, let's dump on Israel. It's much safer!

In the discussion upthread about the settlements, no one (unless I missed it) seems to have mentioned the West Bank barrier wall/fence that Israel built. One of the effects of the wall is to establish 'facts on the ground' that put limits in advance on the shape of any negotiated agreement, should one ever be concluded.