There is no doubt that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a great campaign speech yesterday, and I'm sure he was very convincing to those who don't follow events in the Middle East and the nuclear talks closely. But put aside his soaring rhetoric and perfect delivery and ask yourself one question: Is his approach a realistic way to deal with Iran's nuclear program, or is he just shooting at the best chance for a peaceful resolution with a Bibi gun?
Write something critical about Israel and you are almost guaranteed that an Israeli apologist will say, "Why are you attacking Israel when all the Arab/Muslim countries surrounding it are so much worse?" They are likely to follow up that since you are focusing your criticism on Israel--the only Jewish nation in the world instead of focusing on countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran or terrorist groups like Hamas or ISIS, you must be an anti-Semite. This attack is used so often because it is one of the most effective tools a hasbarist has to discredit Israel's critics.
Michael Oren was born in New York, raised in New Jersey and gave up his citizenship in 2009 to become Israel's ambassador to the United States. Today he inadvertently let one of the most poorly hidden cats out of the bag--though AIPAC portrays itself as an American organization, it is AT BEST an organization with dual loyalty. Indeed, its primary loyalty MAY rest with Israel and not the United States. If U.S. and Israel's interests ever clash, AIPAC's loyalty is suspect.
Israel's hasbarists LOVE quoting Abba Eban who said the Palestinians "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". They jump on this quote and cling to it like a life raft from the Titanic to PROVE that no matter how miserable the Palestinians are, it's all THEIR fault. The implication is that Israel has done EVERYTHING it can to deal fairly with the Palestinians and that they have searched every reasonable option to live in peace with them.
Calling the comments sections of stories involving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lively is an understatement. Most participants are far more interested in scoring comments feels more like watching a blood sport than engaging in a debate. Though there is nastiness coming from both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli participants, it seems the level of vituperativeness is greater from the pro-Israeli side. That's just my impression. I could be wrong. What I am certain of though, is that the number of people posting for Israel and against the Palestinians is far greater than the number posting from the Palestinian point of view.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's office just posted a video on Youtube blaming Palestinians for violence on the Temple Mount, despite Israeli pledges to maintain the status quo. Please watch this video before reading further.
Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson were two of the biggest stars of the show at the Israeli-American Council's first conference yesterday. Adelson, as you may recall, once advocated that the U.S. should start nuclear negotiations with Iran by dropping a nuke on an Iranian desert and threatening to nuke Tehran if Iran didn't roll over and give the U.S. and Israel everything they wanted.
I am greatly concerned by the Temple Institute's use of Indiegogo to raise $100,000 to draw up architectural plans for the construction of the Third Temple on the Temple Mount. As you probably know, it will be located on what Muslims call the Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary). This is the third holiest site for Muslims around the world, and any attempt to build the Temple there will explode in violence.
Dear Secretary Kerry:
Israel has just announced that it is grabbing 988 acres of land from five Palestinian villages in the West Bank to build a new settlement named Gvaot. They claim that this is in response to kidnapping and murder of three teenagers earlier this summer. The U.S. government has responded by saying that this is counterproductive to negotiating a two-state solution and meekly urging Israel to reverse its decision.