AIPAC to the rescue

Obama started his Middle East campaign on the wrong foot - where his demands for a complete settlement freeze as a pre-condition to resuming peace talks proved to be a naive and even stupid demand. Since, he and his administration have had to back-track more than once to "clarify" the positioning that settlement construction needs to be halted. He has maintained a hard line stance but lowered some of the rhetoric.

Obama is focusing too much on the settlements issue. Israel has proved in the past that it is capable of dismantling and even evacuating settlements. It has to be negotiated. Construction in the east side of Jerusalem, for anybody that thinks it is illegal, is 100% legal. Israel will continue to build in Jerusalem just like it would build in Tel-Aviv.

As Bibi was quoted, "Jerusalem is not a settlement - it is Israel's capital."

The US is trying new things that the Bush admin didn't try, which is the attempt to show more balance between Palestinians and Israel. The problem is the points that are selected as focal points in enabling peace talks to resume. How can you demand Israel to accept a Palestinan state without demanding the same in return? (i.e. Israel as a Jewish state)

At AIPAC this week, Clinton spoke and reiterated the US committment to Israel.

However, the more reason based speech was courtesy of Alan Dershowitz - who always knows to combine facts with law and stats.

Here are links to his speech:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3