Readers may be interested in viewing this recent Dispatches special from Channel 4, on Britain's Israel Lobby:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POtk6G7q4Bw

Let me say up front that I have no great sympathy for the Palestinians, or at least for their political leadership, and even less for their patrons in other Arab states. Iran, making trouble in the area for no good reason at all, is beyond the pale altogether. I am also well aware that a great deal of the objection to Israeli policy, and more generally to Israel, in this country is basically the same objection to Jews that has been around for centuries. This fact has undermined the arguments of those who object to the American government being so reflexively supportive of anything the Israeli government chooses to do.

Having said all that, the appearance presented in this briefing is one of weakness that borders on pathetic. Fundamentally, the issue is the Obama administration's having allowed itself to be completely intimidated by the domestic political implications of challenging those aspects of Israeli policy that serve no American interest and complicate our relations with many foreign countries. The administration appears to accept the logic that any disagreement with Israel will be interpreted in the United States as the administration's fault, and will put its foreign and domestic priorities at risk.

It is hard to imagine a more persuasive explanation for following the President's speech in Cairo with a performance like the one quoted here. On top of that, the political calculation is wrong. American supporters of Israel who feel strongly enough about expanding Jewish settlements on the West Bank and in disputed areas of Jerusalem mostly view President Obama with the same contemptuous disregard the Netanyahu government does now, and most of those who don't are unlikely to object so strongly to a firmer policy that they will withhold support for other administration policies.

At worst, some Obama supporters who support Israel might be uncomfortable and even disappointed if the administration showed a less obsequious public face to the Netanyau government. That is no great danger. In fact, this administration will be forced to run much larger domestic political risks on other issues before Obama's first term is out. If it is willing to accept this level of indignity on this issue, how will it stand up to the much more difficult challenges in its near future?

Bibi must just love Barack; after all, he couldn't ask for a better political ally. Bibi came into office after his party placed second in Israel's recent elections. His coalition was bickering and shaky and pundits were taking bets on how long it would last. Now, after just a few short months of "change we can believe in," Bibi is more popular than ever in Israel, Barack Obama is so unpopular that he can't bring his approval numbers out of the single digits and Obama's "Cairo Speech" looks like the pandering that it actually was. The pies de resistance is that Obama's approval numbers in the Arab world are beginning to decline and are surely about to fall off a cliff.

The most interesting part of the interview is where the questioner says. "...the previous administration actually had them sitting down talking to each other. You guys can't even get that far." The best Kelly can say is "all right...give us a chance."

Maybe its time for President Obama to get Dubya on the phone, apologize for all of those nasty things he said about the Bush foreign policy and beg Bush for some advice. Maybe Clinton and Mitchell can get Condi Rice and Elliot Abrams on the phone and ask them for some pointers too. After all, even Steve Walt has commented recently that the Obama policy on the Middle East just might look even worse than the Bush policy.

Of course, Steve Walt is just as deluded as the Obama Administration is. In this post he ridicules the Obama Administration for not standing up to the Israelis. What Walt neglects to tell us is exactly how he expects the Administration to do that.

After all, Israel is fervently supported by millions of American Jews and Christian Zionists. American polls consistently show that approval rates for Israel inevitably hover in the 50-60 percent range regardless of what Israel does or doesn't do. Congress is overwhelmingly supportive of Israel as the recent House vote on the Goldstone Report shows. If AIPAC pushed for a vote on the Goldstone Report in the Senate (which supposedly it isn't doing at the request of Senators Kerry and Lugar) the vote to condemn Goldstone would have been even more overwhelming. While the vast majority of Americans don’t care about the Israel-Palestine dispute one way or the other, those that do, vote. And those votes are crucial in swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio and in big states like New York and California.

Contrast this to the way Americans react to the Palestinians. The American view of Palestinians is overwhelmingly negative. To the extent that Americans think about Palestinian aspirations at all (and the vast majority never think about it) they view Palestinians through the lens of airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers and Nidal Malik Hasan's terrorist act at Fort Hood.

What Walt can’t seem to fathom is that Obama can’t do anything but complain about Israeli behavior he doesn’t like not because he doesn’t want to, but because he doesn’t have the political support to act. In case Walt and his fellow travelers don’t realize it; the United States is a democracy; there is a large, energized base of Israel supporters who vote, contribute to political campaigns and otherwise avail themselves of their First Amendment rights. Whether you denigrate them as being a member of some nefarious “lobby” as Walt does or whether you think that they are operating in the finest traditions of American Democracy doesn’t matter.

Conversely, supporters of the Palestinians, to the extent they exist at all, couldn’t organize themselves out of a paper bag.

In light of the political realities, Walt would be far more productive if instead of ridiculing Obama for doing what he isn’t able to do, he made practical and realistic recommendations for how progress could actually be made in the real world; not the fantasy world that pundits and Harvard professors typically inhabit.

Actually since one can remember; and that is since many moons ago, the US had always rolled over and played dead when it comes to Israel. There was a breif period during Bush Snr's administration when Washington made a stand against Israel, but that administration lasted for one term anyway.

very few people in the Arab world as well as in Israel, expected President Obama to succeed in his efforts in pressurising Israel in favour of the Palestinians, though the overwhelming majority of Arabs wished that he succeeds, and I imagine the majority of Israelis did not.

khairi janbek.paris/france

Interesting article today from Israel National News:

White House Officials: Clinton Embarassing Us

White House officials told the New Republic magazine this week that the Obama administration has been embarrassed at least twice by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for revealing in public information and policies that the State Department was supposed to keep private between Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the U.S. According to the sources, Clinton was not supposed to reveal publicly the U.S. demand that Israel institute a total building freeze in Judea and Samaria, fearing that it would lead to a confrontation with Israel – which it did, after U.S. President Barack Obama publicly backed Clinton. The second instance was the famous statement by Clinton in a joint press conference with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on October 31, when Clinton said that Netanyahu had undertaken "unprecedented concessions," a comment that angered the PA leadership. According to the sources, Clinton has been getting bad advice from her advisers.

It's not clear how you can try to blame this on neocons, as they are not even close to being in power at this current time. The left is in full control of the President and Congress, and so this is the fault of those whom you have boosted, not the bogeymen you've been trying to whip up against for the past decade.

One would hope that after being sucker-punched twice and taking a blow to his reputation that cannot be repaired, Ambassador Mitchell would resign in protest.

I did note that shortly after seeing the dispatch that Mitchell had been ordered back by the President to the area, presumably to specifically address the planned Gilo extension, Mrs. Clinton immediately humiliated him.

It is a shame that the President cannot fire Mrs. Clinton but when your government is actually directory of Democrat Senators with big egos and conflicting agendas, such is life.

I know I am repeating myself, but right from the start, President Obama told the Arabs what they wanted to hear, so that they can feel reassured enough, to push Mr. Abbas to the table of negotiations; becoming thus a "bete noire" for the Israelis, while Sec. Clinton told the Israelis what they wanted to hear in turn, so that Bibi can feel reassured enough to return to the table of negotiations; becoming thus a "bete noire" for the Arabs. In a sense [good cop-bad cop scenario].

The only one whom felt totally cheated and without assurances is Mr. Abbas, so he refused to play ball. Mind you, he might surprise everyone yet, and return to the negotiations.

khairi janbek.paris/france

It is easy for me to sit here, type on this blog and say that this exchange was a pathetic excuse for a State Department press conference. But that is exactly what it was. Not one mention of HOW the Israelis are finding room to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (destroying Palestinian homes). Not one mention of how angry the U.S. Government is over Israeli defiance and their predisposition for intolerant behavior. Not one mention of Palestinian grievances...and, of course, not one mention of what is actually going on between the Israelis and Palestinians. It is hard for me to say- and it will be harder for Obama lovers to accept this fact- but Mr. Kelly deliberately lied to the Press Corps throughout that entire news conference.

"We've gotten both sides to commit to this goal." I beg to differ. Can you honestly say that the Israeli Government is serious about a "comprehensive peace?" This is a laughable statement, and some reporters in the press corps actually did laugh. The Israelis have been extraordinarily difficult to deal with, and there is no evidence that they are willing to change their behavior for the good of a comprehensive peace plan. The Palestinians have shown the Israelis good faith consistently over the past two years, namely by significantly cracking-down on militant activity within the West Bank. The Israelis have not returned the favor in any substantial way. Settlement construction continues, and hundreds upon hundreds of roadblocks are still prevalent throughout the Palestinian Territories; a perfect microcosm of the humiliation surrounding the occupation.

Plus, it seems that Mr. Kelly has failed to recognize the motives behind the newly-approved settlement plan. It should be rather obvious that this action is direct retaliation for the Palestinian attempt of unilateral statehood. Mr. Netanyahu said so much himself, saying that the Israeli Government would respond with equal force in the event of a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state. Or perhaps this is Israel's way of preventing the Palestinians from appealing to the U.N. Security Council in the first place. Either way, the United States has not publicly understood the full extent of the Israeli decision.

http://depetris.wordpress.com

Hats off to the press questioners in that Kelly interview - they really held his balls to the fire. This type of thing just makes the Obama Administration look like feckless cowards, promising big things but being too cowardly to actually act on them.

In light of the political realities, Walt would be far more productive if instead of ridiculing Obama for doing what he isn’t able to do, he made practical and realistic recommendations for how progress could actually be made in the real world;

Walt actually has made recommendations. If I remember right, he actually supports the Palestinian attempt at unilateral state declaration in the UN (which pisses off the Israelis, because then they can't use the possibility of negotiations as a means to buy time to conduct more land invasions in the West Bank).

Congress is overwhelmingly supportive of Israel as the recent House vote on the Goldstone Report shows.

We'll see. The vote on Goldstone was a non-binding resolution. But suppose Obama were to threaten to block any aid without requirements that it not be used for settlement construction, and until the Israelis halt settlement construction period? Congress could try to pass it over his head, but it would be an ugly fight, and it would be easy for people to attack Congress openly for supporting Israeli land invasions.

Whether you denigrate them as being a member of some nefarious “lobby” as Walt does or whether you think that they are operating in the finest traditions of American Democracy doesn’t matter.

Personally, I think people who lobby for another state's interest in the United States should be looked down upon more, and that's not just with regards to Israel. But that's just me - I despise having the US drawn into a bunch of long-standing ethnic bullshit because some group has their panties in a knot over something happening on the other side of world.

but Mr. Kelly deliberately lied to the Press Corps throughout that entire news conference.

I'm sympathetic to Kelly (although not his positions), since he's stuck arguing whatever his boss propounds, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it sounds. Personally, I'd much prefer that Obama had been forced to answer those questions.

This, by the way, is why the US really needs a Question Time equivalent like what the Brits have.

Again you are trying to make this an issue of Netanyahu and the current government.

This a 9 year old plan that was put forward by the Jerusalem Municipality. Even if Netanyahu was so inclined, and he surely isn't, he has limited abilities in this situation.

Prime Ministers don't ordinarily get involved with municipal planning anymore than a US President is involved in construction in Baltimore....

What I would like to hear from Mr. Walt and other critics is why Jewish landowners whose titles date back hundreds of years can't build?

The Jerusalem municipality also approved over the last week some 500 housing units in Arab neighborhoods this week, some only dating back to the 1950s. A disproportionate amount considering the Arab population is much smaller than Jewish. And for those not aware it has been like that for hundreds of years. If there is to be a moratorium on building then should it not be applied equally? If not why not?

You are correct. In the press interview Mr. Kelly came across as a powerless, pathetic figure. He could put his feet only between to narrow lines. He had no freedom to walk. In response to the statement from the White House: "We are dismayed that Israelis are expanding the settlements", I wrote this on my website: http://asanevoiceforpeaceinthemiddleeast.blogspot.com

Obama's third mantra:

Those who habitually read newspapers or listen to broadcast news know that President Obama had until now two mantras in his mind. His first mantra: “Our support of Israel to live in security is unshakable”, has been heard around the world, loudly and clearly, dozens of times.

His second mantra: “The bond between Israel and USA is unbreakable”, also has been heard around the world on many occasions. He chanted it even at the Cairo University in Egypt. “America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable.” These two mantras and some minor variants of the mantras have been chanted just like mantras, repeatedly, by Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton, and Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell every time they found an opportunity to chant them.

To those who are dismayed and bored with President Obama’s two mantras, I have some good news. Rejoice! President Obama has found a new mantra, his third, and has added it to his list. The new mantra is: “We are dismayed that Israelis are expanding the settlements”.

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said that the Palestinian Authority “strongly condemns” the decision to build 900 housing units in Gilo, in East Jerusalem. In contrast, the Obama administration issued a statement that the administration was “dismayed” and asked both parties to avoid unilateral actions that could “pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations.” I think his administration is sleeping; doesn’t it know that the peace process is dead and gone?

I am dismayed that The New York Times wrote that: “The news that the building plans had moved closer to approval drew a sharp response from the White House, which has declared reviving the talks to be a major policy goal.” And what was White House’s sharp response? The statement – Obama’s third mantra – that “We are dismayed that Israelis are expanding the settlements”. Here is a country that defies international laws, a country that it supports unconditionally with financial and military aid, and a country that it protects from international condemnations at the UN Security Council, and all that the Obama administration can do is express its “dismay” at Israel’s disregard for international laws?

These settlements are not only illegal per international laws, and against UN resolutions, they are opposed by almost the entire world except the USA. Yes, Obama’s administration has in the past stated that “We do not recognize the legitimacy of Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories”; but these are hollow words, not backed up with actions, actions such as ending economic and military aid to an aggressor and oppressor, and an international bully. President Obama has continued to send blank checks to Israel, and on time. It’s high time that the Nobel Peace committee stopped deluding itself that President Obama is a man of peace. I am aware that it can not withdraw the Nobel Peace Prize already given; but it is never too late to issue a statement expressing its regrets.

Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ

Israel is a small country in the Middle East, established over sixty years ago as a Zionist homeland. It was, in those far-off days, a symbol of hope, sanctuary and a source of pride to virtually every Jewish person in the Diaspora.

Tragically, over those decades, it has transmogrified into a corrupt and brutal occupier, that also supplies regimes around the world with Uzi machine guns, cluster bombs and cut diamonds. Outside of the United States, that funds and arms it, the Israeli state is disliked to such an extent that there is now every possibility of a European-wide campaign against individuals and organisations supporting what is now seen as a pariah, political entity.

In the cafes on Dizengoff, Tel Aviv, (as in the former cafes of Berlin in the dying days of the Weimar Republic), there are hundreds of patrons drinking coffee, laughing and smoking – apparently unaware of the looming danger that the arrogance of their state has wrought. It is now too late, both for those in the cafes and, I'm afraid, for us. Like short-sighted ex-premier, Ariel Sharon, European Jewry is comatose and, again, in danger. For quiescent anti-Semitism, never far from the surface, has been awakened and prodded by the corruption of power-hungry, greedy men, blind to the threat that they bring upon themselves, their families and their faith.

# The Fayyad plan contains elements regarding Jerusalem, borders, and economic aspects that are part and parcel of the established final-status negotiation process and, if dealt with unilaterally, would undermine the process and violate the solemn commitments entered into by the Palestinians.

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=3185&TTL=A_Paradox_of_Peacemaking:_How_Fayyad%E2%80%99s_Unilateral_Statehood_Plan_Undermines_the_Legal_Foundati

May I suggest to the author and commentators the reading of this interesting OpEd published two months ago in the IHT and the NYT...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/opinion/16iht-edrazoux.html?_r=4&ref=global&p...

"Yesterday Israel approved the construction of 900 new housing units in East Jerusalem."

Professor Walt, Gilo is a SOUTH WEST Jerusalem suburb not East Jerusalem. Why don't you start a blog on Quantum Mechanics. You would probably know as much about that as you do about the Middle East.

I could not have said it any better than this poster on Andrew Sullivan's blog:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/dissents-of-the-day.html#more

You've shown a stunning lack of understanding of fundamental middle east basics in your most recent post. which is ironic, because theres nothing more Palin-esque than shooting your mouth off about an area in which you know very little.

No one is being evicted from their homes to build apartments in Gilo. Land isnt being "seized" to make it harder to create a Palestinian state. in fact, Gilo is not in Eastern Jerusalem at all, but rather sits on the ring of Jerusalem suburbs to the West of the city. What you perceive as rebellion towards Obama (as if Netanyahu somehow works for him, and is not a sovereign elected leader of another country...) is actually a sort-of accommodation: this is "settlement expansion" that is NOT a provocation to anyone seriously looking at the conflict and trying to figure out solutions. It does NOT infringe on Palestinian ability to govern or create a contiguous state, and it doesn't even force the government to pave roads that restrict Palestinian freedom of movement. It is not a ridiculous town on a hill somewhere meant to make it harder for Palestinians to farm. Bitch about the Israeli government's inability/unwillingness to really tackle those crazies, and I am right behind you. But Gilo actually sits across the way from the road to Bethlehem and for years was the target of non-stop Palestinian gunfire, into civilian homes. (The current expansion is in the general direction AWAY from Bethlehem as a result). I don't support the need to constantly be expanding these areas- why not get a peace agreement moving forward to save the hassle of dealing with the fallout from this crap- but the idea that expanding Gilo is in ANY way going to ruin the life of a single Palestinian is utter bullshit.

Thats why the French foreign minister was unperturbed by this non-news. It doesnt change anything on the ground, and allows Netanyahu to appeal to his right-wing coalition members. I think this was exactly Jeffrey Goldberg's point, which you railroaded right past so you could rant about your two favorite problems in the world- Palin and Israel- without the inconvenient facts getting in the way.

Let's get back to the real world shall we? Israel supporters agree not to say there will be absolutely no negotiations until the Palestinians stop violating international law every day by inciting violence against Israeli civilians and Palestinian supporters agree not to say there will be absolutely no negotiations until Israel stops building in towns which, under in any possible peace deal, will be in Israel. Building inside Gilo has absolutely no effect whatsoever on any final status negotiations. It is a Jewish neighborhood contiguous to other Jewish neighborhoods on the south west side Jerusalem.

Obama making Gilo, a town whose status is a fait accompli, into a sticking point for negotiations is utterly and completely moronic. It shows both his and Walt's complete inability to think with any nuance. In fact, building in Gilo is actually the shrewdest of possible moves for all parties. It avoids building in areas that are actually hotly contested, as well as placating the Israeli right and allowing Netanyahu to make real concessions in the future.

When you say Gilo is in a Jewish neighborhoud, you fail to mention that the construction of the 900 apartments is on the border of Gilo, cutting off the Arab neighbourhoos, making life and expansion impossible for the Arab neighbourhood. As with every thing else Israel does, it chooses very carefully where it builds and what it builds. After all, the Israili Generals and political elite promised 'a greater Israel' and there are many ways this can be achieved besides war.

To me the more interesting and telling issue is this. In the short run Israel and its supporters in England and USA can lobby, bribe and stage manage events. But in the long term, people are not blind and no amount of stage manament, lobbying and bribing will hide the apartheid practices of Israel. We are seeing now, as it is, in Europe and across the world an outright hostility and rejection towards Israel. Why? One would normally expect Europe and the rest of the world to side with the under dog, Israel, which is surrounded by hostile Arabs. But no, thats not the case. Israel is being rejected as the bully, bull doser and the fanatic.

The USA is in a difficult and dangerous position. Its having to sacrifice national security and economic interests for the sake of Israel. Its politicians and statesmen, although the leaders of the world's most powerful country, take their orders and guidance from Israel and Israel supporters. It is my firm belief that the day will come when America will realise the great damage thats been done to her in the name of Zionism. BUt I am affraid it may be too late by then.

Finally, when you hear and Israeli right wing politician ala Netanyahu and Likud folks and a right wink Jewish AIPAC supportor, what impression do you get. Personally, I get the impression of the Israeli reprimanding and lecturing the American BOY who is not doing every thing its told to do.

Well, it is like any other settlement, which was built on siezed land after the 1967 war, and in violation of U.N Security Council Resolution 446, which refers to Israeli settlements as " having no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace". That was way back in 1979. Does it sound familiar?. In addition, the Resolution called on Israel, to comply with the 4th. Protocol of the Geneva Convention which states " any occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilan population into the territory it occupies". This is a fact.

Another fact which is likely to prove interesting, in September 2001; I suppose you kind people know all about it, and I am just repeating it, the order came from CNN headquarters to the outlets of the network, saying " We refer to Gilo as a Jewish neighbourhood on the outskirts of Jerusalem, built on land occupied by Israel in 1967. We don't refer to it as a settlement".

I remember CNN denying at the time, that it took this decision after heavy outside pressure, though, Mark Fisk wrote in the " London Independent" 3/9/2001, that he was told by insiders in the CNN, the policy switch occured after months of deliberations under pressures from pro-Israel pressure groups.

khairi janbek.paris/france

Dave123 stated:

"Even the far left settler hating parties like Meretz do not have any problem with building in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem that do not encroach in any way on Arab neighborhoods or hinder the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state in any way."

Interesting proposition: The Israelis and the Israelis alone get to determine what's "important" and can be talked about, and what's not.

Indeed very very interesting: I suspect that damn near everyone in Israel (except its arab citizens) is now against returning any of East Jerusalem. Ergo, it's "moronic" for anyone to even discuss the issue. Or the issue of any of the big settlements, or the issue of many if not most of the smaller settlements, or the issue of the so-called "Right of Return," or....

*Does* have the advantage of making this whole conflict a small affair: There's so few things that the Israelis consider worth talking about that hey, if only *they* needed to be resolved that would be it.

But of course that's not it.

Besides Dave, you simply can't know what's going to be important and what isn't: For instance, in many if not all the peace talks to date there's been discussions of Israel "trading" some of its pre-'67 land for some new land it has been occupying. So how can you say with such supreme confidence that Gilo could not have played a part in that discussion, and thereby helped the peace process along?

Moreover there's simply the matter of timing and context: Maybe you are right regarding the idea that ultimately expanding Gilo isn't a *substantively* important issue. But that doesn't mean it hasn't now been made into a *procedurally* important and negative thing. Just as Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was substantively "okay," it was clearly designed to throw a wrench into the peace process, and did by firing the Second Intifada.

Here, when expanding Gilo is even less "okay" substantively given Israel's constant claim that it wants an *agreement* to settle things, no, right in the middle of all this expansion talk and Obama's initiative and etc. here is Israel mushing this right in the world's face. Right now, as if it couldn't have been done before, or waited.

And, in this respect, that's why this Gilo business hasn't just been *made* important—by the Israelis mind you, with this timing—it could be an absolute synecdoche for Israel's real interest in peace, as in "yes, Israel is interested in negotiated peace, Gilo-style that is."

Or "no, Israel would never tell the United States to just keep sending the money and eat shit, it genuinely respects the U.S. and its requests, Gilo-style that is."

Sidney Levy; The JNF Clarifies...; Muzzlewatch; November 21, 2009

We reported on the controversy around the invitation of Effie Eitam to speak on campuses. It turns out that Mr. Eitam’s tour was sponsored, among others, by the Jewish National Fund.

Asked about Mr. Eitam’s racist remarks, a JNF leader did not even bat an eye. Mr. Eitam, so it turns, ’speaks the truth’:

Eitam, known for controversial political views, made headlines in 2006 when he called for the expulsion of Arabs from the West Bank and the Knesset. “We will have to expel most of the Judea and Samaria Arabs from here. We cannot live with all these Arabs. We will have… to remove the Israeli Arabs from the political system,” Eitam said during a memorial service for a soldier killed in fighting with Hizbullah in southern Lebanon.

Eric Lankin, chief of institutional advancement and education at JNF, said the organization was not concerned those statements would compromise his effectiveness as an advocate for Israel. “What really unites all of our speakers is that they speak the truth,” he said. “We had no specific concerns because we depend on the will of the Israel voters” who elected him to office.

I increasingly suspect that this is the secret agenda, on both the right and "left", which explains Israel's policies on the settlements. Say one thing (pretend to be interested in the two-state solution and the peace process), do another (continue to build Jewish settlements). A critical component in executing the policy: get "the West" bogged down in and distracted by a global holy war against Islam.

I wonder if David123 and courtneyme109 are paying attention:

Germany attacks Israel settlement plan before visit

Germany on Monday criticised Israeli plans to expand settlements in the occupied West Bank, in unusually explicit terms a week before the two countries' leaders meet in Berlin.

The comments, made by Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman, coincide with German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle's first trip to Israel and are in response to Israel's approval last week of plans to build 900 new homes near Jerusalem.

Germany has traditionally been softer than many other nations in its criticism of Israel due to the legacy of the Holocaust in which the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, but politicians have recently adopted a sharper tone.