Eric Cantor calls U.S. reaction to Israeli announcement "irresponsible."

[scandal 951]

Consider the reaction of AIPAC vs. J Street to this mess, as reported in this article.

More and more, AIPAC is going to find fewer and fewer American Jews supporting it, and wondering why.

I never voted Likud in Israel, why on Earth would I consider supporting its mouthpiece in the US?

It's so refreshing to have J Street on the scene to give some balance to Israeli public opinion.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156583.html

'U.S. administration is ignoring a host of Palestinian provocations'

By Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz Correspondent

Eric Cantor, a leading Republican official in the U.S. House of Representatives, on Monday lashed out at the Obama administration's recent criticism of Israel over its announcement that it would construct 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem.

Israel drew angry reactions from the U.S. and the Palestinians by announcing new construction in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden last week.

Israeli envoy to the U.S. Michael Oren, meanwhile, told the country's diplomats there that U.S.-Israeli relations face their worst crisis in 35 years.

Republican Whip Cantor (R-VA) called the U.S. reaction to the Israeli announcement "irresponsible."

"In an effort to ingratiate our country with the Arab world, this administration has shown a troubling eagerness to undercut our allies and friends," Cantor said. "Israel has always been committed to the peace process, including advocating for direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians, in effort to bring this conflict to an end. Unfortunately, the Palestinian government continues to insist on indirect talks and slowing down the process."

Cantor continued by accusing the U.S. administration of ignoring "a host of Palestinian provocations that undermine prospects for peace in the region."

He said, "Where is the outrage when top Fatah officials call for riots on the Temple Mount? Why does the Palestinian Authority get a pass when it holds a ceremony glorifying the woman responsible for one of the deadliest terror attack in Israel's history? Surely, the administration's double standard has set back the peace process."

Cantor also said that Israel continues to be a world leader in the fight against terrorism and against the prospects of a nuclear Iran.

"For this administration to treat our special relationship with Israel, one of our closest and most strategic democratic allies, in this fashion is beyond irresponsible and jeopardizes America's national security," said Cantor.

The Republican Jewish Coalition said Monday that it was also deeply upset by the recent tone and actions of the Obama administration regarding Israel.

"The strident and unwarranted escalation of tension, which has turned a minor diplomatic embarrassment into a major international incident, has raised serious concerns about the administration's Israel policy from a variety of mainstream voices," RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said.

"We believe the administration's actions are disproportionate and one-sided," he added.

On Sunday, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee condemned the recent statements from the U.S. government regarding its ties with Israel, amid tensions over Israel's recent announcement of its construction plan.

"The Obama administration's recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern," said AIPAC in a statement.

AIPAC is considered the most influential pro-Israel pressure group in the United States.

"AIPAC calls on the administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State," the statement said.

The pro-Israel group urged the U.S. government to move past the recent diplomatic upheaval between Washington and Jerusalem.

"The Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom the United States shares basic, fundamental, and strategic interests," the AIPAC statement said.

The leftist pro-Israel group J Street, meanwhile, released a statement Monday supporting the Obama administration's recent actions.

"As Vice President Biden said, 'Sometimes only a friend can deliver the hardest truth.' That is what he, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod have done in recent days - and J Street, along with many friends of Israel, stands solidly behind them," said J Street executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami.

"Bold American leadership is needed now to turn this crisis into a real opportunity to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a fundamental American national security interest," he said.

Abraham Foxman, who heads the Anti-Defamation League, told Haaretz he believes U.S. President Barack Obama is a friend of Israel.

"But I think it's a mistaken and counterproductive strategy and flawed analysis of what is in the best interest of the U.S.," Foxman said. "Support of Israel has served the U.S. interests more than supporting anyone else in the world."

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

More and more, AIPAC is going to find fewer and fewer American Jews supporting it ...

Is there polling data on this?

Israeli envoy to the U.S. Michael Oren, meanwhile, told the country's diplomats there that U.S.-Israeli relations face their worst crisis in 35 years.

noob question - what happened 35 years ago?

"In an effort to ingratiate our country with the Arab world ,..

Mr. Cantor: Obama's a no good Ay-rab lover! Didn't we try ya tell y'all he's Muslim?

[scandal 951]

Is there polling data on this?

No. Just my wishful thinking

noob question - what happened 35 years ago?

Jimmy Carter was about to take office. We and Jimmy don't get along so well.

Actually - not really sure what the 35 year reference is supposed to mean. It was post '73 war, pre Lebanon war. Certainly the immediate aftermath of Sabra & Shatilla in 1982 was a much lower point in US/Israel relations than this flap right now.

Mr. Cantor: Obama's a no good Ay-rab lover! Didn't we try ya tell y'all he's Muslim?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

"This Time We Went Too Far"

Public outrage at the Gaza invasion did not come out of the blue but rather marked the nadir of a curve plotting a steady decline in support for Israel. As polling data of Americans and Europeans, both Gentiles and Jews, suggest, the public has become increasingly critical of Israeli policy over the past decade. The horrific images of death and destruction broadcast around the world during and after the invasion accelerated this development. “The increased and brutal frequency of war in this volatile region has shifted international opinion,” the British Financial Times editorialized one year later, “reminding Israel it is not above the law. Israel can no longer dictate the terms of debate.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein03032010.html

There seems to be a huge disconnect here.

[scandal 951]

There seems to be a huge disconnect here.

Give me a break Bill. Norman Finkelstein??????

Who do you want to quote next, Noam Chomsky?

Look, if I have no patience with the right edge of Shas and Likud and AIPAC, I have even less respect for Chomsky and Finkelstein and that crowd. I neither think that Israel is entitled to do anything whatsoever unrestrained, nor do I think Israel has to lie in self-abasement and take the full frontal attack that everything it does to protect its own citizens is a war crime. To hear Finkelstein tell it Israel is a criminal state on the scale of Pol Pot's Cambodia and, yes, Nazi Germany.

As to your chart, those sentiments may reflect American public opinion. They most certainly are not the results you will find in European countries, or throughout the rest of the world. The Finkelsteins of those countries have ensured that Israel is subjected to a constant barrage of one sided reporting and condemnation.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Give me a break Bill. Norman Finkelstein??????

Who do you want to quote next, Noam Chomsky?

Look, if I have no patience with the right edge of Shas and Likud and AIPAC, I have even less respect for Chomsky and Finkelstein and that crowd. I neither think that Israel is entitled to do anything whatsoever unrestrained, nor do I think Israel has to lie in self-abasement and take the full frontal attack that everything it does to protect its own citizens is a war crime. To hear Finkelstein tell it Israel is a criminal state on the scale of Pol Pot's Cambodia and, yes, Nazi Germany.

As to your chart, those sentiments may reflect American public opinion. They most certainly are not the results you will find in European countries, or throughout the rest of the world. The Finkelsteins of those countries have ensured that Israel is subjected to a constant barrage of one sided reporting and condemnation.

I was just trying to find your poll. I know little of the internal Israeli politics, but I was struck how someone could have possibly misread such a poll. When talking about Middle East politics, is seems all sides are born with sticks in their eyes.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:1-5

[scandal 951]

When talking about Middle East politics, is seems all sides are born with sticks in their eyes.

They should all just shut up and listen to me. I could solve the whole mess in about 15 minutes. I mean that, by the way.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

They should all just shut up and listen to me. I could solve the whole mess in about 15 minutes. I mean that, by the way.

Move the Palestinians to Galveston, TX, and build the Third Temple in Sherman Oaks, CA?

[scandal 951]

Move the Palestinians to Galveston, TX, and build the Third Temple in Sherman Oaks, CA?

I'm serious. The basic foundations of a reasonable solution have been well understood for decades. It will take courage, political capital, painful compromise on cherished sine qua non positions. But it is possible, and I believe the majorities on both sides are sufficiently tired of the conflict that they can still be persuaded to try it. The trouble has always been, and remains, the extremists. That's why I said they all need to shut up and listen --- particularly the extremists.

It's really not rocket science.

A two state solution, roughly conforming to the Green Line, but with borders deviated for the larger Israeli towns - Efrat, Maale Adumim. A comparable amount of land donated back from Israel to the West Bank in the "triangle" Um-el-Fahm area. Net result is geographically contiguous regions with mostly Jewish, and mostly Palestinian populations. Palestinians from the triangle who currently hold Israeli citizenship are entitled to retain it, as well as receive Palestinian citizenship.

Jerusalem: A binational capital. I don't think an international city is workable or necessary. Let East Jerusalem be the capital of Palestine. I have no problem with that, I can't understand why that seems to stick in the craw of so many Israelis. What difference does it make to Israel if the capital of Palestine is Ramallah or E. Jerusalem?

Right of Return: That's touchier. I think there should be a right of Return to Palestine - i.e. West Bank/Gaza. But return to pre-48 Israel is not feasible. That's one of the tough compromises Palestinians will have to make. What's better: a state of your own, progress to the future and forfeit that right? Or hang on to the right as a meaningless abstract concept, unachievable in any practical sense, and not be able to resolve the 60+ year dispute.

Defense/armaments. We've now had nearly 2 decades experience of Palestinian Authority. They have armed police, but no military. I think a Palestinian military should not be off the table. Israel will want to maintain overflight capability, and bases - especially in the Jordan valley. But I think it should be possible to give Palestine a standing army without jeopardizing Israel. The strategic threat to Israel remains Iran, Syria, Egypt. Not a smallish Palestinian army.

Golan. I think Israel should return the Golan to Syria as part of the price of overall peace. This is a very painful one for Israel. It's a biggie, inconceivable to many. But it's worth doing if the result is peace.

What else? sporadic Israeli settlements sprinkled throughout the West Bank? They need to come down. Bigger towns, or historic ones (Kiryat Arbah)? That's tougher. Maybe they stay as little islands of Israel within Palestine, again compensated by donated land. Or maybe they need to come down too.

See? It's really not that hard.

[The_Dude 1,142]

Defense/armaments. We've now had nearly 2 decades experience of Palestinian Authority. They have armed police, but no military. I think a Palestinian military should not be off the table. Israel will want to maintain overflight capability, and bases - especially in the Jordan valley. But I think it should be possible to give Palestine a standing army without jeopardizing Israel. The strategic threat to Israel remains Iran, Syria, Egypt. Not a smallish Palestinian army.

I think that really infringes on any idea of sovereignty. If they are not allowed to have any millitary, then that would make them a protectorate rather than an independant state.

Golan. I think Israel should return the Golan to Syria as part of the price of overall peace. This is a very painful one for Israel. It's a biggie, inconceivable to many. But it's worth doing if the result is peace.

That is a massive concession both figuratively and from a strategic military standpoint. I have heard this before from political commentators saying that if Israel led the peace process with this gesture that it would actually get things rolling. I think it's a huge leap of faith, one that not many would be willing to make

What else? sporadic Israeli settlements sprinkled throughout the West Bank? They need to come down. Bigger towns, or historic ones (Kiryat Arbah)? That's tougher. Maybe they stay as little islands of Israel within Palestine, again compensated by donated land. Or maybe they need to come down too.

I think on a macro level, giving them back is a good solution, one that both sides would feel good about. However, on a micro level, you're really going to antagonize a lot of families who uprooted their lives to live in those "outposts".

See? It's really not that hard.

I think when the peace process does finally get going that you will see a similar problem with Hamas that N.Ireland is still experiencing with the IRA. You are always going to have disidents, and how they react to the process is going to determine a lot. Can a peace between Israel and Palestine withstand disident splinter groups unahppy with any concessions, or will they implode?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Nothing has made my job of trying to find Arab and Palestinian partners for Israel more difficult than being greeted by a new settlement every time I arrive

James Baker III in 1991.

Wonder if Mr. Cantor has a rocket to fire in that direction, too. As long as Israel pursues aggressive settlement policies, there will be no peace for them. This issue has been frustrating the peace process for decades. You'd think that a Congressman that's going to lean out the window on this issue would at least take a look at the recent history. But then, why let facts get in the way of a juicy attack...