Obama the Zionist

Once again he really hits the nail on the head. I know many refer to people like me as an Obamamaniac, but I just can't ignore the fact he not only shares my exact opinions on issues but seems to have a grasp on how to go about dealing with them. Whatever claims there are about his inexperience I can't help but get the feeling he's the kind of guy who gets it right the first time.

I took some time to watch his town hall at B’nai Torah Congregation in Boca Raton yesterday, and again today as he spoke at the extremely conservative Cuban American National Foundation in Miami (kudos to CNN for providing live streams).

It is striking how he is able to articulate intelligent, common sense goals which reflect real depth of thought and an apparently instinctual understanding of how to move seemingly intractable issues forward.

Are his advisers and speech writers just that good, or does Obama represent a true break with the conventional wisdom of the past? I'm betting on the latter, since you can only fake it for so long before being tripped up in your own lack of knowledge and empathy - especially among audiences as tough as those two.

So if Obama is this big staunch defender of Israel then what is he going to negotiate?

When you go to the table with predisposed ideals then how is it your going to persuade the Iranians for example that they should give up their wmds for peace assurances when everything and I mean everything in the middle east is linked to Israel.

This always has been the problem Obama strikes a chord with progressives who so much want peace in this region and yet if he is indeed this ardent supporter of Israel then he has already failed in his negotiations because he is approaching the table with the same dishonesty that every other politicians that has tried before him with the exception of Jimmy Carter. Yet now decades later when you see what Jimmy Carter is doing and saying it is very clear that he is not the biggest of Israel supporters and perhaps that is how he managed to get Egpyt to the table.

This is classic Obama. In fact I pointed out repeatedly that Barak Obama was quoted as saying that "we want our enemies to know that we are moderate. That if Iran........." In essence calling Iran the enemy when they are not. Really. After about 3 weeks of this I have noticed that this quote has been removed from his website.

But this speaks volumes to Barak Obama and his inability to see clearly the problems in the middle east and how they go beyond reasonable talk to solutions that are dirty and hard and beyond the progessive base to deal with comfortably.

Just like Obama's speech on race articulatied our difficulties with race issues, Obma's Atlantic interview articulated the problems Isarael faces, and by extension. the problems the US faces as Isrel's staunch ally.

Being able to state clearly where we are at the moment is crucial as a refernce point from which we have to find a path forward. To the critics piling on, I would just say that no speech defining the siruation as it is can solve, or can even try to solve, the problem. That can only be tackled by what follows, by the choices we make from here on out.

The most poignant part of the interview, for me, was his reference to how the Jewish community and the Afro-American community have split apart to an alarming degree. They have very different histories, of couse, but hey share so much in the experience of :injustice, it is tragic when more is made of the differences than of what they have in common..

So if Obama is this big staunch defender of Israel then what is he going to negotiate?

Maybe he can broker a deal on verification and containment or disarmament of Israel's nuclear arsenal. Maybe he can broker a deal on the West Bank settlements. Maybe he can broker a deal on the Golan Heights.

This isn't rocket science.

"So if Obama is this big staunch defender of Israel then what is he going to negotiate?"

Is your position that the US government must be either pro-Israel or pro-Hamas? I don't see a conflict in believing that Israel has every right to exist in peace, that rocket attacks on Israel are acts of war, and that public statements saying that Israel is a "scourge" must stop, while still believing that Israel needs to refrain from building new settlements, should engage with moderates in the region, and must improve its image among the common people in other Middle Eastern countries. There is a HUGE role for this US to play in that process, and playing that role doesn't diminish America's support for Israel.

Now I understand Neocon. He's been reading Krauthammer.
From Neocon:

So if Obama is this big staunch defender of Israel then what is he going to negotiate? When you go to the table with predisposed ideals then how is it your going to persuade the Iranians for example that they should give up their wmds for peace assurances when everything and I mean everything in the middle east is linked to Israel.

From Krauthammer:

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

Calm down Neocon. There is absolutely no reason to believe Obama will or can give away Israel. In fact, there is no reason to think that would actually be something Iran would want. Iran probably wants the United States to stop being so belligerent toward them.

"So if Obama is this big staunch defender of Israel then what is he going to negotiate?"

The underlying assumption is what is he going to use successfully in negotiations... well, I think if we knew what would be successful then the Israel situation might well be on the road to being resolved.

At any rate it's clear that Obama has clear thoughts on the issue and is not trying to distort facts to use for his own political gain. That is the absolutely best place to start. It's no guarantee of success but I couldn't ask for a better foundation upon which to begin the process.

ChrisWWW, on Neocon/Charles- that's a keen observation, thanks! I agree that Obama won't give away Israel. I also agree that Iran does want the US to stop being so belligerent towards them, but I also think that Iran believes that Israel is a mortal enemy. Though given the right carrots and sticks (and assurances) Iran can probably be persuaded to change its views on this. But the first step towards that is to stop shouting from the mountaintop that the US is going to bomb Iran.

You have no idea who I am Chris. Perhaps Krauthammer has been reading me.

Lets try to set aside for a minute the emotion of the debate and try to look at this objectively.

If you are a friend of Israel, by that very definition it sets you as an opponent of the Palestinians. As such then how is saying you are this staunch defender of Israel going to get you a leg up at the negotiating table without

Without giving concessions in order to get an agreement?

In the middle east negotiation is a sign of weakness. It always has been. The people to which we would have to negotiate have no compunction in negotiations and are unwilling to give anything at all.

But lets even set all the the preceeding history of the region aside for this moment and simply answer me once again.

What is Obama going to negotiate if he is this ardent supporter that he claims to be? What will he give up in order to negotiate? If he is this powerful ally of Israel and despite that he is willing to talk then I have to keep asking what will he give up, concede, bring to the table that has been any different then what has been offered by England, France, Russia, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Italy and the various other forays that have been attempted by other nations who do NOT have the best interests at heart when it comes to Israel.

The underlying assumption is what is he going to use successfully in negotiations...

This is a keen observation as well Stockboy.

That of course is what drives my intellectual stab at Barak Obama. He is in my opinion being extremly dishonest in his campaign because he on the one hand has his base convinced he can negotiate anything because he is simply a nice guy.

Yet on the other hand he claims this fervent support for Israel of which even the Israeli newspapers have him pegged as being the least likely to support them. So for the sake of THIS discussion lets peg Obama as being this fervent supporter of Israel and in that context lets remember that he promises the most intense diplomatic effort in this region in some time then the logical question becomes........

WHAT is his secret? What can he bring to the table that everyone else has not brought to the table. Therein lies the context of this discussion. The op pegs Obama as Obama the Zionist.

If that is so then for the purpose of this discussion how is Obama the Zionist going to have anymore luck with anyone in this region when it is precisely Zionism which is the freakin problem in this region.

If you are a friend of Israel, by that very definition it sets you as an opponent of the Palestinians.

That's where you're gravely mistaken. Thanks for saying so though. It shines a big light on the errors in your thought process.

If you are a friend of Israel, by that very definition it sets you as an opponent of the Palestinians.

Sorry I actually thought you could follow my logic here. I see that I was in error.

So let me try it in simpler form so that its a bit easier to grasp.

1.) In this region. In the Middle East. If you are a friend of Israel then you are suspect by the nations that inhabit this region.
2.) If you claim that you are a staunch Zionist which is the root of all problems in the middle east then you are even more suspect in this region.
3.) If you come to the negotiating table as a staunch defender of Israel and an Avowed Zionist then your chances of negotiating anything are dim at best.
4.) Now as Barak Obama claims "He will launch the most aggressive foreign policy initiative in this region in quite some time" and "will negotiate with anyone, anywhere, anytime"
5.)But whats the point if he is such an avowed Zionist unless he is not so avowed at all, but rather is the typical politician who tells the people what they want to hear, not what is really in his heart.

Or his plans.

As Israel newspapers themselves claim......Barak Obama is the candidate least likely to be friendly to Israel and is and has been such a concern for Barak Obamas campaign that they recognize such on their website, have set up a blog in Israel and now the Atlantic Article in which he claims to be this all great Zionist.

Great. But Zionist are hardly in the good graces with those who seek the destruction of Israel

Maybe he can broker a deal on verification and containment or disarmament of Israel's nuclear arsenal. Maybe he can broker a deal on the West Bank settlements. Maybe he can broker a deal on the Golan Heights.

I really didnt want to respond to this but of course this shows that Chris as a supporter of Barak Obama wants Obama to

1)Contain and disarm Israel.
2.)Force Israel to flee the west bank
3)Israel to stop building settlements.
4.)Give up the golan heights.

In other words.....notice a pattern here. Israel must concede and give up everything including disarming.

There is no moral claim to possession of nuclear weapons or the Golan Heights. That goes double for dividing and conquering the West Bank. (Unless you have some idiotic dreams of Greater Israel that even the Likud leaders have had to abandon.)

If Israel and the United States can trade those things for security and peace, wouldn't it be cheaper than continued war and death?

If you were an Arab nation in the Middle East, would you sit idly by while your adversaries built nuclear arsenals?

If you were a Palestinian, would you sit idly by while you were pushed off your land?

Try to look at things from both sides Neocon. We've tried it your way for eight long years, and it hasn't made anyone safer or brought us closer to peace.

Neocon has just ranted up the neocon world view, the kind of thinking that leads to self defeating disasters.
It's but an another example of the 'vote for Republicans, or you are a terrorist'' campaigning.tactic.
Never mind that this kind of posturing is exactly what drives away support for Israel.
Never mind that his kind of approach is, in the long term, the greatest danger to Israel's survival.
It's the drwoning man screaning 'I am right' as his head disappears below the water.

Aside from mischaracterizing, repeatedly and continuously, the nature of negotiations and diplomacy, this also mischracterizes ME mentality.

Negoitations, btw, are at the very core of Arab culture, beginning with bartering at the market place and all the way up to tribes negotiating with each other for a common cause, and they are adept at identifying common causes. .

What this scenario lacks, and what disqualifies it from a fully reasoned argument, Is an appreciation of the role of pride and humiliation. It is these elements that drive perceptions and consequent actions in Western civilization as well (nationalism), but they are most likely to turn violent among the humiliated whose pride has been wounded. Viiolence becomes particularly appealing when it is perceived to be the one and only way to bandage wounded pride and avenge humiliation. The ME is not really all that different in the basics of human nature; it is different only in the specifics of historical experience.

Neocon, thanks.

This statement, "If that is so then for the purpose of this discussion how is Obama the Zionist going to have anymore luck with anyone in this region when it is precisely Zionism which is the freakin problem in this region."

Before tackling a problem I think it's very important that the person who wants to manage the process actually understand the reality as it is. Otherwise we end-up forcing our views and solutions on a situation that will only add fuel to the fire rather than actually solve any problems. Such as our approach to Iraq which only created more problems than solved.

Obama may not have a complete roadmap on this, but I think that just shows he is honest about the process. He knows that he needs the support of many different and competing groups of people to solve this problem. If he were to make promises right now, it's just like Bush claiming that the Iraq war would be over within weeks and wouldn't cost the US very much. And let's not forget that the line was that the US would be welcomed as victors.

Obama's strength is that he does understand the situation without trying to bend it to fit his own notions.

Is Obama perfect? No. Can Obama succeed? I don't know. But he does have a good start.

"You have no idea who I am Chris. Perhaps Krauthammer has been reading me."

Funny that you should mention that. After I put up my first reply I was thinking just that, wondering who's the cart and who's the horse. And it's true we don't know who you are and perhaps Krauthammer did get his ideas from you. Thanks for pointing out that we shouldn't always make assumptions.

Israel is caught in the same kind of dilemma that NATO forces face in Afghanistan.
Ordinary people don't think in terms of global policies. They react to their families being killed and who kills them. They react to who makes their lives hard, not the grand philosophy behind the measures making their lives hard.
Every time a NATO bomb kills civilians, especially, children, the goals of NATO are endangered. It's not a question of right or wrong or good or bad,. That's just one of the consequences that has to be factored in. It's this kind of effect, btw, which empowered Hezbollah in Lebanon.

With the best of intentions, force can not be avoided and should not be avoided when it's the only tool available. But going into battle without calculating in the negative consequences is just plain foolhardy (the kindest word I can find for this kind of zealotry).

The dilemma for Israel is that every time it builds a new settlement for the sake of its futrue, it simultaneusly feeds the forces wanting to wreak vengenace on Israel.
The only way this cycle could be utterly broken, in terms of tNeocon's scenario, is for Israel to decisively destroy the Arab world. Looking at the map, that doesn't seem likely to happen. In the meantime, as long as there is Arab memory, the sense of humiliation will be alive, festering and waitng to erupt in more violence to avenge wounded pride.

In this kind of stale-mate, a mechanism for defusing the self-perpetuating nature of the conflict presents the only rational, logical choice. That means contact and communication.
Thrust and parry, negotiating and the potential of force, calculating the consequences and backlashes - all of that is part of defusing the self-perperuating element.
Most importantly, it requires understanding the enemy and what motivates him. Terrorism is a sympton; it does not expalin the disease or prescribe a cure.

No, there is no guarrantee of success, no more than a military victory is a guarrantee of ultimate success. (Iraq, anyone?)
If we are thinking about the long term future , we need to be sophisticated, and smart , using every tool availabel to best advantage to further the ultimate goal of peace and security and avert a disaster in Isrel's and our own future.

Getting back to the post.....

The importance of what Obama said in the interview does not lie in specific proposed actions. The importance lies in clearly identifying the goal (Israel's right to a secure homeland) and a recongnition of the complexities involved in achieving that goal.

We can argue until kingdom come about imagined future develpments, but we have to start with a clear, realistic vision.
Our issues with race are complicated.
The path to Israel's future is complicated.

That's an excellent place to startt.
It's much better than the 'they'll greet us with flowers' pretense about Iraq.

I keep wondering about how much more united the country might be today regarding Israel, Iraq and the entire ME if we weren't forcefed these cartoon scenarios in black and white.

Neocon has just ranted up the neocon world view, the kind of thinking that leads to self defeating disasters.

Well no the old bait and switch tactic which worked so well on the conservatives for the last 5 years does not work on me Runny. What I offered was a postulate and asked for clarification. I did not offer mine nor did I offer the Neocon, Paleocon or the Liberal or the progressive version of how the middle east or the world for that matter should be run.

The ops contention is Obama is a Zionist.

Obama is either a Zionist and is firmly in the Israelis camp or he is not and therefore he is willing to negotiate up a mean streak perhaps at the expense of Israel.

Zionism is about Israels right to feel secure.

How can a Zionist bring peace to the middle east? That is a simple question. It really is. Why can't anyone answer it?

The dilemma for Israel is that every time it builds a new settlement for the sake of its futrue, it simultaneusly feeds the forces wanting to wreak vengenace on Israel.
The only way this cycle could be utterly broken, in terms of tNeocon's scenario, is for Israel to decisively destroy the Arab world. Looking at the map, that doesn't seem likely to happen. In the meantime, as long as there is Arab memory, the sense of humiliation will be alive, festering and waitng to erupt in more violence to avenge wounded pride.

Thank you for your version of why Israel should be punished Runaism. Its pretty similar in appearance to Chriswww's and shows the thinking of the progressive left who support Barak Obama.

They do not believe he is a zionist. They believe he will ultimately make Israel pay for their transgressions.

But thanks Runaism. You and Chris have done a fine job outlining why the progressive left endorses Barak Obama and why this article in the Atlantic is suspect at best.

"The ops contention is Obama is a Zionist. Obama is either a Zionist and is firmly in the Israelis camp or he is not and therefore he is willing to negotiate up a mean streak perhaps at the expense of Israel. Zionism is about Israels right to feel secure. How can a Zionist bring peace to the middle east? That is a simple question. It really is. Why can't anyone answer it?"

Neocon, I can't answer it but I think it's clear that for Israelis to feel secure (and to be realistic about the whole situation) that both the Arabs and Israelis (and whoever else has an interest...) will need to negotiate. No one will get everything they want, but I think if the Israelis have a safe homeland then there are certain things, perhaps even territory, that they will need to give up. As distasteful as that may be to many Israelis, that trade off may be worth peace. Otherwise if no side wants to give up anything then we'll have a forever war in the Middle East.

I would like to say I find the whole situation very complex and I don't pretend to understand it or to even have the answers, or even one answer to one little piece. I do know that if there is to be peace then everyone will have to give up something.

StockBoySF

Neocon, I can't answer it but I think it's clear that for Israelis to feel secure (and to be realistic about the whole situation) that both the Arabs and Israelis (and whoever else has an interest...) will need to negotiate.

Actually the idea of giving up lands does not concern me. I am the first one who will say that if the people of Israel are willing to give up this or that for their security then I say good.

There is a movement within Israel that is not unlike the progressive left here in the United States. Peace at any and all costs. They focus on failures. They decry those who reject peace at any price as obstructionists who want real estate.

They use this quote quite often. David Ben-Gurion told us that if he were only able to meet with Arab leaders, he would have brought us peace in his time. Sounds pretty familiar to the Americans who thought if he could just talk to Hitler all would be set straight.

So while I do not find Israel faultless or lay all the fault at the Palestinians feet my question about Barak Obama is even more valid in this context.

If in fact he is the Zionist he is portraying himself then he brings to the table nothing that is new or unique or different. He brings to the table a predisposed need to protect Israel when perhaps she needs a bit of prodding and she needs to make a concession or two in order to move the peace process along.

If indeed she does need poking and prodding then the USA needs to keep the hell out of the process and let Israel and her adversaries deal with peace in their own way and then we do not have an American President conceding to the Muslims or the Arabs or the Palestinians that which is not his in the first place.

Neocon, thanks for the thoughtful comments.

On this, "He brings to the table a predisposed need to protect Israel when perhaps she needs a bit of prodding and she needs to make a concession or two in order to move the peace process along." I don't think the one (need to protect Israel) is diametrically opposed to the other (Israel needs to make concessions to move the peace process along).

I'm certainly of the mind that the second- concessions on the part of Israel are necessary- to achieve peace.

The role of Obama- or any American president- involved in the peace process is to be a mediator at the very least. Perhaps there are things the US can give (not "give up") to further the process, such as commit troops (short term) for security guarantees. Though I'm not sure how welcome the US would be in this particular aspect (providing troops).

And lastly this, "...American President conceding to the Muslims or the Arabs or the Palestinians that which is not his in the first place."

that totally makes sense on an intellectual level and I agree. But without a concrete example I can't really address this... I think the assumption behind this is that Obama (or other president with the same proclivity) will give something that he thinks we are able to give whereas other people may feel that the US doesn't have that right to give it. So if the president actually gets to that point, wanting to give something that isn't ours (in the view of some people) then we can have that discussion. But that discussion will be whether "that thing" is really the US's to give.

So Neocon, I think our biggest (and most substantial) disagreement is the extent of US involvement in the peace process- if I understand your comments you believe in a "hands-off" approach while I believe the US involvement should be more robust. I can certainly respect that view of yours- I'm not claiming my way is the right way and that yours is wrong. Until there is actually a sustained peace we won't know what has actually worked.

But I'll tell you that if the next president takes an approach more like mine and little headway is made in the process, then I'm all for trying your approach.

Thanks again.

I cannot disagree with your assertions Stockboy. Most people do not understand my intense questioning of all things. I ask hard, hard questions and call to task someone who is a politician. I am not afraid to do that with the people that support that politician as well.

The rallying cry for the far left is that "If only we'd asked more questions."


The rallying cry for the far left is that "If only we'd asked more questions."


The rallying cry for the far left is that "If only we'd asked more questions." I cant stress this enough.

Then we might not be in Iraq. Well the next president is on the horizon and I want to ask those hard questions however just like the Bush supporters of 00 and 04 hard questions are met with name calling and repeated use of talking points to hide the fact that "they hadnt thought that far ahead yet."

while I believe the US involvement should be more robust.

You are correct in my position that I believe that one of the main obstacles to peace in this region has been the United States and its insistence upon Linkage. Somehow we have convinced ourselves that as a super power we are responsible for all the worlds conflicts and that somehow only "WE" can fix things.

This is wrong. We have been meddling in the Middle East since 1950. Mostly out of a need as the USSR brought to their side nearly every country in this region out of the absolute hate for all things Israel/Western/USA. The USSR is gone now and Israel is a big girl now.

I believe that the real failure of our policy with regards to Israel and the Palestinians has been our need to be smack dab in the middle of it. Once again we have a president who wants to dive into it.

His base is the progressive left who really want to punish Israel and believe that Israel is totally at fault.

So I think the two things together do not bode well for my hands of approach nor for Israel no matter how many weak cases that are made for Barak the Zionist.

I think we need a new term to describe the sort of pseudo argementation that Neocon has just exhibited. It certainly goes way beyond the ordinary straw man logical fallacies.
We have here a total fabrication, not just a twisted interpretation, of what I, and others, have said or argued.
'
PEACE AT ANY PRICE , for example, has no more legimacy than saying the more hawkish positions represent WAR WITH ANY EXCUSE.

A serious, case for the more hawkish political position can and has been made, by others, without resorting to rhetorical gimmickry or emotional melodrama. . I could even run through the legitimate arguments oppposing my own postion myself, most of which I respect, btw, even when my conclusion comes out on the opposing side
However, when Hitler is brought in to falsify someone else's postion, I know the discussion is out of ratinal bounds, and it would be a waste of time to do so.

On the sujbect of friends and allies, the US has just learned the hard way how easy it is to lose friends and allies and the support they can offer. To repair the damage, diplomacy can be helpful. There are times when HOW something is said can be more imporant thatn WHAT is said. It can mean the difference between gaining support and creating resistance. and animosity.

So, when a 'hands off' policy is suggested, I would caution that getting what you wish for may not be what you intended. Just how distant, in all ways, would yoou want those hands to be?

It's because I see signs of support waning that I feel so strongly that Israel needs to pay attention to winning friends and influencing people. instead of assuming that support will always be there for the taking and on demand..

Lashing out at every one who has a different opinon on how best to support Israel is not a good way to strengthen support.

Neocon,
Your last comment came up while I was typing mine.

In response, I tell you, that I spend a lot of time and energy - A LOT - debating and trying to educate those who go too far in blaming Israel for everything,
That;s why it really gets me where it hurts when you claim I'm one of them.

I would also caution against assuming that they are necessarlly all a defined part of the Left in overall politics. I've encounteresd isolationists of different party affiliations, some libertarians, and also some religious people of undetermined political affiliation.. Some are just anti-semitic., and those are definitely not either party loyalists. I don't see much point in lumping them all together with one political tag.
-----------------------------
Part of the trouble with asking your type of hard questions is that, dealing with the future as they do, they can not have equally hard answers.
Could GWB tell you a year before 9/11 exactly what he would do as a consequence?

All one can do is get a general gauge of his philosophical approach and his grasp of world and domestic conditions. The time to ask specific questions is when speciic proposals are offered or actions taken.

Two comments to this post:
a. Jimmy Carter didn't bring Egypt to the table. He may have helped close the deal, but the negotiations between Egypt and Israel started by direct talks between the two parties with the meetings between Moshe Dayan and President Saadat's advisor.
b. Iran is not US's enemy? I am afraid you are either naive or haven't read newspapers or watched TV for the past 20 years. For your education, we are the 'Great Satan', while Israel is "just" the "Little Satan'.

Neocon, thanks. I enjoy others' viewpoints on TMV. I don't really try to "convert" someone to my viewpoint, but it's always nice if they at least see the point, even if they don't agree with it. So while you and I disagree on this I really do appreciate your time in presenting your thoughts. Thank you for your time and patience in presenting your view, and also thank you for your time to respond to my views. You've definitely offered some food for thought.

Could GWB tell you a year before 9/11 exactly what he would do as a consequence?

No. But the position of the left who has attacked him unmercifully is that YES he should have.


The following is why I have hope that if the US keeps its damn nose out of the process that there is actually hope to get things done in this region.

In a statement published in Egyptians newspapers on Monday, Zaki affirmed that Egypt has been exerting efforts to achieve calm between the Palestinians and Israel in an attempt to avail fit climate to launch negotiations on the track of the peace process between the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) and Israel.
He added that Egypt rejects any military operations that give a pretext for Israel to escape the deserves of the peace process, adding that simultaneously rejects any endeavors by some Palestinians to rise tension on the Egyptian- Palestinian borders.

Ya see? Left to their own devices these people just might find a way to achieve peace without the help of the United States. And as RS50 there points out, Israel and Egpyt did indeed begin the process and required only some minor help in getting the thing done.

People want a different approach to the middle east. Mine is different. Keep the HELL out of the way. I suspect these people can actually find a way to make peace work on their own. They are after all. Adults.

Just as we do not help Germany negotiate treaties with Cambodia I feel that we have as a nation failed to cope with the empty nest syndrome. Israel is a grown up nation that should be able to deal with her friends and enemies without the US holding her hand.

I just feel that it is time for Israel to stand up and be counted and when this happens. When they really have to be accountable for their deeds and actions that they just might come to terms with the true need for peace in their time.