If people of another religion took over your house and homeland, put their religious symbol on the flag, and relegated you to either second class toleration or imprisonment in a deportee colony, you wouldn’t accept it.

Sure, some Palestinians have become radicalized after decades without legal recourse.

One secular state with equality for all — regardless of religion — is the choice of the younger generation. Those who don’t want to live in equality can leave.

The STATE of Israel is the problem, not the Israelis or Americans with divided loyalties. Freeman made a good point that unconditional support for the decisions of the ruling party of the Israeli STATE might just be undermining the long term interests of the people of Israel.

But somewhere behind my large single eyebrow, I have to admit that I have been uneasy about a lot of our foreign support over the last 40 years, to include what we hand Israel.

Here’s my suggestion to Obama. We know that you want to increase support for those who oppose Isreal. We know that you will use any advantage to your own benefit, including the threat of cutting funds to Isreal. Here’s my 3-step plan for you, that would conform to your goals, and yet possibly benefit the American public.

Open up another one of your “accountability” websites, and show us who all has gotten foreign money in the last 3 years, and break down as low as $100 increments, where ALL the money has been spent inside those countries (to include Isreal, of course).

Open up yet another website, and show ALL flow of capital/favors/perks/travel, and any meetings, between PACs and Federal-level politicians. Make life-imprisonment the penalty for failure to comply. Allow public whistle-blowing, for any connection found between laws supported, and “favors” done for politicians by folks benefitting from those laws. A successful whistle-blower should “win the lottery”.

Pass a law that there will henceforth be a 10-year limit on US taxpayer monetary support to ANY sovereign nation. That is, monetary assistance must demand an accompanying plan for 10-year-max withdrawal.

================================

Daily Kos folks win, Limbaugh folks win, and Obama administration wins. (The elites, from both sides, will be unhappy, no matter what.)

Of course that would mean opening themselves up to having to listen to the various UN criticisms levied over the years, which have been blocked by the US at the Security Council level.

Please Israel, go to the UN and ask for help resolving your conflict. Or go to any honest broker who will weigh your case looking for a just resolution.

And what has Israel to offer China that she isn’t already providing China, while the PRC avoids the taint of association with Israel?

More of the nonsense from the “Israel all the way” folks that cannot survive a moment’s analysis.

And as to your last question–the answer is clearly to kill over 400 children and more women and old people, clearly. As dozens more Americans have been killed by Mexicans in Mexico due to the drug wars than Israelis killed by Hamas, et al–perhaps you can formulate invasion plans to the South for us?

Then again, perhaps the answer was to actually live up to commitments made under the ceasefire during a period in which such attacks were drastically reduced as Israel’s own intelligence services conceded? Naah.

Regardless of how one feels about Israeli policy, the idea that cutting off funding will somehow punish Israel is unrealistic, all it would do is provide an opportunity for someone else to step in. Lord knows Russia has been waiting for such an opportunity…

Maybe instead of using such words as “semi-fascist” to describe Israel we can all come down to reality and provide an alternative. What is the proper response to being hit by rockets for over a year while not a slingle UN “emergency meeting” is called for???

And how can someone assert that Israel reflects core American values of liberty and equality for all, when it is running an apartheid society? How does Israel’s indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians reflect the basic American value of basic human rights?

How tiresome. This recalls going all the way back to Buckley’s empty-headed screed on antisemitism in 1991 where he accused Buchanan. If the fat is boiled out of that article, his argument against Buchanan, Sobran and others was premised entirely on his belief that Jews were entitled to special treatment and statements that were perfectly acceptable to other groups were forbidden when directed towards Jews. You could only agree with Buckley’s conclusions if you first agreed that somehow different rules applied to Jews–a dubious and, frankly, unjust assertion.

So now it is a redux of 1991, 2004, etc. I suppose, as the author notes, the one difference is this hysterical propaganda is now spouted in defense of a gov’t of extremists and crooks. Perhaps that will make a difference . . .