Nice catch.  We've fixed the link, I think.

It may be satisfying to make such broad statements, but it is hardly well thought out. AIPAC is not some monolithic, all-powerful group. If it was then the first President Bush would not have cut aid to Israel to punish it for not abiding by his wishes. And President Obama would not dare cross them if they were so powerful. Moreover, it is in AIPAC's self interest to make sure the USA stays strong as it is quite clear that the rest of the world would sell Israel out if it meant appeasing the Arab world. The moralistic Europeans dare not even vote against a single spurious UN resolution attacking Israel for fear of threatening their oil supply. One wonders why we never hear talk of the "ARAB LOBBY" from Missrs Walt and company. Seems as if they pour far more funds into the US, European and other political systems. Why does that not raise the ire of the intellectual classes? Where is the questioning of the evil intentions of the Petroleum Institute or the Carlysle Group? I guess that all-powerful Israel/.Jewish lobby is not so effective after all!

"If it was then the first President Bush would not have cut aid to Israel to punish it for not abiding by his wishes."

First things first: the principle means by which George H Bush pressured Israel was to withhold US loan guarantees, and that is a different matter than the symbolic - and temporary - holdup of military aid.

Secondly, of course, your statement is meaningless if it does not analyse the political blowback that Bush suffered from taking that action, which was both considerable and very well orchestrated by..... gosh!.... guess who....

"And President Obama would not dare cross them if they were so powerful."

Define "them". If you mean "AIPAC" then I'd be very interested to see when and where he has ever taken them on in a political fight, because all I have ever seen is obsequessness.

"Moreover, it is in AIPAC's self interest to make sure the USA stays strong as it is quite clear that the rest of the world would sell Israel out if it meant appeasing the Arab world."

The alternative view is, of course, that the rest of the world is able to take a dispassionate attitude, and this allows then to Call It As It Is.

"The moralistic Europeans dare not even vote against a single spurious UN resolution attacking Israel for fear of threatening their oil supply."

This rather presupposes that the UN Resolutions are spurious, which is a tough sell when you consider that most of those resolutions criticise Israel's position as The Worlds Longest Running Occupier and The Only Country On Earth Who Thinks It Can Annex Territory By War.

"One wonders why we never hear talk of the "ARAB LOBBY" from Missrs Walt and company."

Maybe because there isn't one worth mentioning.

"Seems as if they pour far more funds into the US, European and other political systems."

It sure does seem that way, doesn't it?
Mind you, it seems as though the Earth is flat when, in fact, it is a globe...

"Why does that not raise the ire of the intellectual classes?"

Possibly because they are more intelligent than their detractors.

"Where is the questioning of the evil intentions of the Petroleum Institute or the Carlysle Group?"

Remind me again who they are occupying

"I guess that all-powerful Israel/.Jewish lobby is not so effective after all!"

Well, if you are the best they can come up with then I'd have to say their standards are definitely slipping....

...you sound like one. For it is you who make paper-thin arguments devoid of facts and still promote the nonsense that the "Israel Lobby" controls the levers of power.

"Define "them". If you mean "AIPAC" then I'd be very interested to see when and where he has ever taken them on in a political fight, because all I have ever seen is obsequessness."

By the very fact he is making the settlements an issue and pushing hard for Israelis to stop construction even in Jerusalem, he is going up against the desires of AIPAC, not to mention the majority of clear-thinking Israelis and Americans who know settlemetns are a red herring. In fact, his policy change from that of the previous administration goes against verbal understandings made between Pres Bush and PM Sharon to facilitate Israel's evacuation from Gaza. Clearly, President Obama does not seem to fear this all-powerful lobby.

"The alternative view is, of course, that the rest of the world is able to take a dispassionate attitude, and this allows then to Call It As It Is."

Not really. I would hardly call the increasing anti-Semitic discourse present in European policy circles, as well as the general public, as "dispassionate." Perhaps you should read the "Anti-Semitic Discourse in Britain in 2009” prepared by the Community Security Trust, which documents widespread anti-Semitism in Brith media and government. Do you forget the comments made by French Ambassador to the Court of St. James Mons. Charpentier when he referred to Israel as "that shitty little country?" The story is the same throughout Europe. Moreover, they are practitioners of realpolitick, and would gladly sell out an ally to preserve the oil supply from Arab dictatorships. Europe's WWII betrayal of Czechoslovakia still rings true.

"This rather presupposes that the UN Resolutions are spurious, which is a tough sell when you consider that most of those resolutions criticise Israel's position as The Worlds Longest Running Occupier and The Only Country On Earth Who Thinks It Can Annex Territory By War."

Really? The only country? Tell that to China, which has conquered and annexed Tibet. How about the Spanish Sahara, which has been occupied and annexed by Morocco. I gues those poor Berbers have no rights, right? Or, how about Spain occupying Moroccan territory? Or, the UK occupying Gibraltar, which Spain still demands back? And Israel's historic, religious, and political claims on Judea and Samaria, what you call the West Bank, are far, far stronger than the claims of the UK on Gibraltar. BTW, the Brits have been occupying Gibraltar far longer than the Israelis have held Judea and Samaria since taking that territory back. Looks like you need a history lesson on who is the :Longest Running Occupier." The only reason Israel receives international opprobrium is because it is a small, weak nation. Ask yourslef why there is no international outcry over these other "occupations." Gues that Jewish Lobby is not so effective after all!

"Maybe because there isn't one worth mentioning."

Really? Billions of petro dollars pouring into every Western nation not worth mentioning? The oil money far exceeds any financial clout of those rich Jews. Sovereign wealth funds and the creation of think tanks towing the Arab line are prevalent and exert a HUGE influence on Western government and academia, and therefore public opinion.

"Remind me again who they are occupying."

See above my friend.

"Well, if you are the best they can come up with then I'd have to say their standards are definitely slipping...."

And here we come right down to it again. You accuse me of being a "paid stooge" of this "Jewish Lobby." Rather tahn mount an effective argument you, like all your racist friends, prefer to embrace conspiracy theories. Here you go resembling the hate-mongers of the Far Left and the Arab World that refuse to see the humanity of the Israeli people. Instead, you use comfortable stereotypes that allow you to paint your opponent as a tool, a corrupt oppressor. You just made my point that teh majority of the criticism of Israel is merely a new manifestation of anti-Semitism. Thanks for that.

"By the very fact he is making the settlements an issue and pushing hard for Israelis to stop construction even in Jerusalem, he is going up against the desires of AIPAC,"

And that is, of course, a battle between the USA Administration and the Government of Israel, not between the Administration and AIPAC i.e. in such a policy battle it is AIPAC who jumps in to take on the President, not vice versa.

"In fact, his policy change from that of the previous administration goes against verbal understandings made between Pres Bush and PM Sharon to facilitate Israel's evacuation from Gaza."

Remind me again: whose administration wrote the Road Map? Which Prime Minister of Israel signed it?

A signed agreement does rather trump a "verbal understanding", and there is no doubt that the previous administration wrote an agreement that committed Israel to freeze ALL construction.

You therefore can not claim that the push to freeze all construction is a new Obama initiative and a policy turnabout from the previous Administration, precisely because the Road Map shows that the Bush Administration understood perfectly well that settlement construction had to freeze if a peace agreement was to suceed.

"Not really. I would hardly call the increasing anti-Semitic discourse present in European policy circles,"

... followed by a paragraph of emotive nonsense about how Europe is a cesspit of anti-semitic appeasers.....

"Tell that to China, which has conquered and annexed Tibet."

Factually incorrect. Tibet has been the sovereign territory of China for at least the last 1,000 years. What happened in the 1950s is that the communist government reestablished central authority over a rebel province. Strong arm tactics: yes. Unsubtle: Yes. Annexation: no.

"How about the Spanish Sahara, which has been occupied and annexed by Morocco."

You can not "occupy" and "annex" at the same time, sunshine. It has to be one or the other.

It is, in fact, an occupation because Morocco has never formally annexed that territory.

And as for the rest of your examples: the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by war is a 20th century conflict, so it is pointless dragging out any examples from the Age of Empire or the Age of Colonial Expansionism.

"The only reason Israel receives international opprobrium is because it is a small, weak nation."

No, it is because Israel *ALONE* insists on pretending that colonial expansionism is *STILL* legal, even though it ceased being legal in the 20th century.

This is actually very simple: what was legal then was legal THEN, but you can not use that argument to reproduce the same result NOW.

Only Israel doesn't "get it".

"Ask yourslef why there is no international outcry over these other 'occupations.' "

Most. Of. Them. Aren't. Occupations.

"Billions of petro dollars pouring into every Western nation not worth mentioning?"

Billions and billions of petro dollars, actually. It's called "investments", and any smart businessman knows that you don't leave money in the bank: you invest it.

Now, how many of those billions aren't INVESTED in American enterprises but are, instead, spent creating an Arab Lobby?

My friend does not answer, because he knows what that answer would be....

"You accuse me of being a "paid stooge" of this "Jewish Lobby." Rather tahn mount an effective argument you, like all your racist friends, prefer to embrace conspiracy theories."

Israel has made no secret that it employs shills to spruik its wares on the Internet. Indeed, it boasts about it.

Q: how does one spot the shill amongst all the wellmeaning (if deluded) Israeli-firsters?
A: It is the barely concealed arrogance, allied with a self-righteous condescention, that marks the paid-up shill.

You fit the bill quite nicely, shill.

There are too many factual errors to waste time educating you on them all. But I will correct one as an example. Tibet was annexed by China and China did not rule Tibet from the 13th century onward as the Chinese (and apparently you) claim. Although Tibet did submit to the Mongol and Manchu Empires, neither attached Tibet to China. The same documentary record that shows Tibetan subjugation to the Mongols and Manchus also shows that China’s intervening Ming Dynasty (which ruled from 1368 to 1644) had no control over Tibet. So, China’s insistence that Chinese sovereignty was exercised in an unbroken line from the 13th century onward is false. The idea that Tibet became part of China in the 13th century is a very recent construction. In the early part of the 20th century, Chinese writers generally dated the annexation of Tibet to the 18th century. They described Tibet’s status under the Qing with a term that designates a “feudal dependency,” not an integral part of a country. Meaning, they paid tribute to the Chinese but remained quite independent. From 1912 until the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, no Chinese government exercised control over what is today China’s Tibet Autonomous Region. The Dalai Lama’s government alone ruled the land until 1951. Marxist China adopted the linguistic sleight of hand that asserts it has always been a unitary multinational country, not the hub of empires. There is now firm insistence that “Han,” actually one of several ethnonyms for “Chinese,” refers to only one of the Chinese nationalities. This was a conscious decision of those who constructed 20th-century Chinese identity. (It stands in contrast to the Russian decision to use a political term, “Soviet,” for the peoples of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.) So, again, China illegally invaded and annexed Tibet. Where is the international outrage? Where is yours? Don't answer...I know...those Chinese stooges paid by the Chinese government to troll the internet spreading Zionist...I mean Chinese Communist...lies must be very effective. They have fooled the world...BWAAA BWAAAA. Get a clue. Look inside yourself and ask why it is you focus exclusively on Israel. Where are the UN resolutions against China, Morocco, UK, Spain? There never will be because these are powerful nations with powerful allies, able to veto a resolution or gain a sonsortium of allies to prevent one from even being proposed. That is realpolitik, that is how the world works. I am done explaining this to you now. Feel free to write more falsehoods on this subject. Claim again that Morocco is not a modern occupier (not from the Colonial Period). I won't waste more time on you. I have to go report back to my Zionist masters now. That is sarcasm in case your delusional mind finds it difficult to tell the difference.

Tibet refused to recognize the central rule of Peking in the 19th and early 20th century because they were encouraged to do so by the British, who wanted Tibet to act as a buffer zone for India. It was, indeed, a central part of The Great Game between Britain and Russia during the beginning of the 20th century.

But the British were very, very, very clear on this point: Tibet was never to declare independence i.e. they were not to declare themselves to be the sovereign, but to insist they were involved in a suzerainty with China.

Your argument therefore falls down on that point: Britain, Russia and THE TIBETANS THEMSELVES all recognized that the suzerain was China i.e. Tibet was a part of China, but the Tibetans insisted that they had regional autonomy that existed apart from the central government in Peking.

The Chinese disagreed, and the moment they had the opportunity to do so they matched their rhetoric with action. They were perfectly entitled to do so, because their action in the 1950s amounted to a military action to sweep away that (supposed) regional AUTONOMY, not to sweep away a Tibetan SOVEREIGNTY.

That is not "annexation", because that requires that you seize "sovereignty" for yourself.

And that the Chinese did not do, precisely because sovereignty was already theirs.

"By the very fact he is making the settlements an issue and pushing hard for Israelis to stop construction even in Jerusalem, he is going up against the desires of AIPAC"

WAS gong up against the desires of AIPAC. Obama has backed down and allowed himself to be humiliated by Netenyahu, which is a clear example of AIPAC's clout.

Of course, Obama has some very big sticks and carrots to wield. He could:

a) terminate aid to Israel
b) terminate all loan guarantees to Israel
c) push for bindign UNSC resolutions against Israel
d) cote in favor of, or abstain from voting to recognize Palestines declararation of idependence

He will do none of the above

The Jewish Telegraph Agency's Ron Kampeas -- himself a reflexive American defender of most things Israel -- was astonished, and wrote:

"I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president. Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another -- building in Jerusalem, or somesuch -- lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations. But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary."

Even the Israeli firsters are beginning to think this is a ridiculous situation.

"All of this is in clear contravention of previously signed agreements. "

That statement is the very definition of chutzpah, considering that the last such signed agreement was the 2003 Performance Based Road Map To Peace.

And in that 2003 document we find these two lines:
Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report.
Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).

The claim that settlement construction beyond the Green Line was never an issue until bama brought it up is therefore nothing but a steaming pile of manure i.e. Obama brought it up as an issue because BOTH SIDE HAD ALREADY AGREED THAT THIS ISSUE WA TO BE RESOLVED BY FREEZING ALL CONSTRUCTION UNTIL THE FINAL DEAL IS SIGNED.

What you are complaining about is that Obama - how foolish of him! - expects that when a party puts their signature on a piece of paper then that signifies a COMMITTMENT. Doesn't he know that Israelis always keep their finger crossed behind their backs when they sign anything????

"Anticlaus, you are seriously weird."

No, he has been handed a case to argue on behalf of his client, and that's what he is doing.

It is an impossible brief, and that's why he is comes out sounding like a doofus.

Was that an argument? Very compelling facts...not. Next time, try to persuade with evidence rather than ad hominem attack. Pathetic.

“ The Palestinians continue to spread anti-Semitic hatred via their mosques, schools and PA-controlled media.”

And visa versa. Israel has banned schools in Israel from covering the Nakba in history classes and only this week, Israel threatened to to raid West Bank secondary school unless they end commemoration of Yasser Arafat.

And lets not forget the delightful rabbis who advocate wholesale gencide against us goys, and referrign to them as sub human.

“All of this is in clear contravention of previously signed agreements.”

Whether it is on not is irrelevant, seeing as the US had no legal authority to sign any agreement with Israel without having it been granted permission to do so by the UNSC.
“More importantly, it makes it impossible to make peace if the population is so radicalized that they deshumanize their interlocutors.”

I coudln’t agree more. The deshumanizing of Palestinians by the Zionists has been taking place since the turn of the 19th century.

“ Why make peace with "sons of pigs and apes," to use the Arabic pejorative?”

And why make peace with “beats” and “cockroaches” and “human feaces”?

As for tolerant Indonesia, while it has made strides toward greater inclusiveness, this is still a nation where Christian chruches are burned and Christians are attacked after blood libels falsely accusing that community of crimes against Islam.

“ Just ask the Timorese how "tolerant" Indonesia's form of Islam is.”

Maybe you should be asking hard core Zionists like Henry Kissinger and co, who were only too happy to send and seel arms to Indonesia, so that they could better demonstrate that form of tolerance.

Then again, Israel could always give them tips on the best way to drop white phosphorus an cluster bombs on civilian populations.

The concept has no place in zionism.

Nobody beats radical Islamist groups for their hatred of "the other." Hizbollah and Hamas have constructed core ideologies based upon this Islamic theology of Jew hatred, which one can glean readily from their foundational documents, and subsequent pronouncements, made ad nauseum. Hamas further demonstrates openly its adherence to a central motif of Jew—hatred in Muslim eschatology—Article 7 of the Hamas Charter concludes with a verbatim reiteration of the apocalyptic hadith alluded to earlier:

'The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: `Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him'; but the tree Gharkad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.' (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985).

Both jihadist terror organizations believe they can succeed in their goal to destroy Israel—motivated by a primordial hatred of Jews, sanctioned in Muslim theology and eschatology. Yep, those settlements sure are the main impediment to peace--HAH!! Walt is a wanker.

"Nobody beats radical Islamist groups for their hatred of 'the other.' "

You would do well to look in a mirror.

Not that you'd recognize what's looking you right in the face but, to be honest, that's your problem and not mine....

“Nobody beats radical Islamist groups for their hatred of "the other."”

Then by all means, do produce a speech that competes with this sterling effort from Menachem Begin:

"Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." (Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a speech to the Knesset [Israeli Parlament], quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982)"

“Hizbollah and Hamas have constructed core ideologies based upon this Islamic theology of Jew hatred”

False. Hezbollah and Hamas’s core ideology is based on resistance to occupation.

Ironically, Israel created Hamas to act as a cat’s paw against the PLO. Hezbollah would not exist were it not for Israel’s addiction to military occupation.

“Hamas further demonstrates openly its adherence to a central motif of Jew—hatred in Muslim eschatology”

The only difference between the Hamas cCharetr and the Likud/Kadmia charters is the absence of the call for Palestine’s destruction because it would be redundant.

“Both jihadist terror organizations believe they can succeed in their goal to destroy Israel”

False again. Hezbollah’s role, as Lebanese nationalistic movement, is to resist Israel occupation and aggression and on that score, they have succeeded twice.

Zionists are incensed by the fac tthat they've been humiliated twice by Hezbollah.

I'd be truly impressed if Indonesians were humanists first, Muslims second. The day they take to the streets to protest bombings of Shia mosques in Pakistan, the murder of thousands of Afghans by Taliban fascists, the laucnhing of terror attacks by Hizb Allah and HAMAS against innocent Israeli civilians eating their dinners, the persecution of Christians in Indonesia by Islamists, or any one of the thousands of heinous incidents of radical Islamist violence visited upon Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus and others each year. I not that Abdurrahman Wahid has inscribed upon his tombstone "Humanist," although he was a traditional Muslim leading the largest Islamic organization in Indonesia prior to his death. Too bad more Indonesians do not embrace his view that we are all children of God. Too bad Israel has become such a boogeyman in the minds of so many millions of Muslims. You are victims of a propaganda campaign that seeks to divert attention away from your rulers' own failings, from your own troubles. Israel is the Jew among nations, a convenient scapegoat. The conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors cannot be allowed to be solved because it would then allow all those who were deceived to begin to take a closer look at their own leaders. Those leaders must keep this conflict an open, festering wound. One day you will awake to this reality. Then, peace might stand a chance.

The fact that Israel has laid waste to at least ten times as many Palestinian civilians doesn’t rate a mention. The racism and racial supremacy is palable.

Too bad he ignores his own advice and does not embrace the view that we are all children of God.

Too bad Israel has become such a boogeyman in the minds of so many millions of Muslims. You are victims of a propaganda campaign that seeks to divert attention away from your rulers' own failings, from your own troubles.

"Israel is the Jew among nations, a convenient scapegoat.”

Apartheid South Africa used to make the same complaint, which is moist fitting since

Israel was Apartheid South Africa’s closest ally.

Clearly they shared many values.

“Those leaders must keep this conflict an open, festering wound. One day you will awake to this reality. Then, peace might stand a chance”

Yes, that would explain why 22 Arab states have signed a peace offer to not only recognize Israel, but normalize relations with Israel. Clearly it is a document mean to
“keep this conflict an open”.

That would explain why Israel is the party that has rejected the offer.

Clearly you're not planning on sticking abroudn this blog for very long, prefering to dump as much bile as you can before you are banned.

Pitty, but thanks for the comic relief THEANTICLAUS.

In case you haven't noticed, Kennedy was the most Anti-Israel president America has ever had.

Israel's prime minister is a right wing extremist who supports the illegal settlement construction, and refused to compromise.

Israel never made unilateral concessions, it continued building 600 apartments in East Jerusalem and FYI, stealing land and building settlements on Palestinian land is not done in the name of security.

There are no more demands to be made of the Palestinians. They have nothing left to offer, because Israel is 100% in control.

Indonesia has never been part of Israel, hence there is no possible way to violate Israel's sovereignty from Indonesia. And FYI, Jews and Israelis are free to enter Indonesia. I would know, since I have travelled there many times with Jewish friends.

Susan Rice has NEVER voted against Israel.

“Meanwhile, according to Gallup, the American people rightly support the brave and proud Israelis as opposed to the murderous Palestinians and their corrupt, terrorist leaders by a three-to-one margin.”

Actually, the Gallup poll show that most Americans don’t care about the apartheid state of Israel one way or the other. More importantly, the polls show support it declining.

As for corruption, Israel was recently ranked among the most corrupt in the Western world.

Israel may be a proud state, but they are anything but brave. After all, Nentenyahu wanted Americans to remain in Iraq for Israel’s security and last week, he was in the US asking the US to fight a war on it’s behalf.

Congratulations. You managed to be 100% wrong.

You rely upon dubious scholarship to suppot your innate anti-Semitism. That's right, anti-Semitism....no need to refer to anti-Zionism. You are clearly the former. Now, you pals Walt/Mearsheimer are alot like you. They have very fixed anti-Jewish ideas that they defend through twisted logic and false history. They hide behind a rather flimsy cloak of scholarship that is merely propaganda in disguise. If I was grading their paper (The Israel Lobby) , I would give them an F. I certainly wouldn't ahve granted them a Masters if this was their dissertation.

For an example of their tendentious claims and falsification of evidence:

Walt and Mearsheimer also dredge up other supposed quotes (page 89) to argue that Israeli leaders are racists. Thus they charge that former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin called the Palestinians “beasts walking on two legs” and former IDF Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan termed them “drugged roaches in a bottle.”

Did Begin say that Palestinians are beasts? The answer is absolutely not. In a June 8, 1982 statement to the Israeli parliament, Begin did use the term “two-footed animals,” but he was referring not to Palestinians but to terrorists who would murder Israeli schoolchildren. Begin’s statement is available online; here is the relevant passage:

The children of Israel will happily go to school and joyfully return home, just like the children in Washington, in Moscow, and in Peking, in Paris and in Rome, in Oslo, in Stockholm and in Copenhagen. The fate of... Jewish children has been different from all the children of the world throughout the generations. No more. We will defend our children. If the hand of any two-footed animal is raised against them, that hand will be cut off, and our children will grow up in joy in the homes of their parents.

Obviously there is nothing racist in the least in Begin’s statement, and once again the genuine quote actually undermines the point Walt and Mearsheimer were deceptively trying to make. And what about the Eitan quote? Did he really refer to the Palestinians as roaches? Once again, not quite. For this claim Walt and Mearsheimer cite a New York Times article from 1983, but the relevant passage says something very different:

[Eitan reportedly told] Parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that for every incident of stone-throwing by Arab youths, 10 settlements should be built. "When we have settled the land," he was quoted as saying, "all the Arabs will be able to do about it is scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle." (New York Times, April 14, 1983, p A3)

Now Eitan was never known for his diplomacy, but the expression he used clearly meant that the Palestinians would have no effective response to the policy he proposed. That is no more calling the Palestinians roaches than, for example, it would be calling Walt and Mearsheimer fish to say that deconstructing the claims of Walt and Mearsheimer is like “shooting fish in a barrel.”

It's obvious to anyone paying attention that the 2 state solution is dead.

Of course, no political leader is allowed to make such a statement.

It's no mystery why so many who are defending the illegal settlements are also maintaining that they support a 2 state solution. The 2 state solution is dead and will never see the light of day, but insisting that it's still on the table buys time for Israel to continue to change the facts on the ground. The 2 non existent 2 state solution also gives political cover to those who actually oppose it, becasue they can safely claim to support it safe in the knowledge it will never happen.

For example, Jonah Goldberg claims he opposes the settlements, yet could not contain his glee when the so called moratorium ended.