Plato said that "“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” That is what will happen if Obama allows Netanyahu to set the agenda.

I hope he's NOT smiling when he takes that crowd out

The Chicago Way

He's going to have to abstain on the next UN Security Council resolution and he's going to have to cut military aid

"-- and believes he can wield Congressional power via his levers in the American Jewish community to create painful costs for the White House that ultimately constrain the President's latitude."

I thought the Walt/Mearshiemer theory that there is an influential Jewish lobby had been discredited.

The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget.

Steve is absolutely correct that Obama has to swat Bibi's direct challange away or he is finished in the Mideast. Knuckling under to Netanyahu will destroy any chance at an I/P peace agreement under his administration and forget trying to entice Iran to give up the nuclear program thru diplomacy. The Syrian and Lebanon fronts will be frozen for the duration of his presidency.

I believe Obama's next step is to get Britain or France to sponsor a UNSC resolution demanding Israel freeze settlements. I recommend Britain or France to deflect some of the criticism that will come from Congress with this move. If Bibi ignores the resolution the next step will be very mild sanctions which should be enough to blow up Bibi's coalition.

Am I missing something? Is Israel a rival superpower, or a small democratic ally in the Middle East?

Calling Netanyahu Obama's Kruschev, as you do, can only serve to reduce Obama by making it appear that he is in way over his head.

The Lobby, as you call it, has lost relevance since the ascension of another Jewish lobbying group: J-Street. They no longer have a monopoly on their claim of representing the views of American Jews.

If The Lobby, as you claim, has such a stranglehold on the American Jewish vote then why did close to 80% of American Jews vote for Obama when it was clear a majority of Israelis were pro-McCain.

Could it be that a good number of them place American interests before Israeli interests?

You wrote: "colonialism is dead in the 21st century. don't you get that? you've just made the case that Israel is stuck in 18th century thinking."

I've done nothing of the sort. One does not colonize ones own land. The Jews presence in the land of Israel goes back some 3500 years. There were Israelite kingdoms in Israel with Jerusalem as their capital. David successfully fought the Jebusites for control of Jerusalem. His son Solomon built the temple on Mt. Zion. Remnants of Herod's temple mount still stand to this day. Jerusalem is mentioned in the Bible some 800 times. It is not mentioned once in the Qur'an. Muslims in Israel pray towards Mecca with their derrieres towards the Temple mount.

Bar Kafka, you wrote: "The settlements under discussion are not on Israeli land, since no Israeli government has ever moved to annex those territories (such moves on areas in Jerusalem are more arguable, but not here, not now and not by me)."

You make an important point. Many agree with you, as do I. Israel should have annexed all of the territories captured following the wars of Arab aggression, not just the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem. I believe the rationale for not annexing the territories was the notion that the Arab residents would have to be enfranchised. But I return to the American experience since the US is in the forefront of this endeavor to establish a Muslim-terror state in the 'West Bank', Gaza and east Jerusalem. The US did not formally give American Indians citizenship until 1924, the reason being Americans believed the Indians had to be 'civilized' first. Many Americans believed Indians were savages and this was a large part of the justification for expropriating their lands. There is a lesson to be learned from this is clear. You do not grant a people citizenship who are enemies dedicated to your annihilation, as the Muslim-Arabs living in Israel clearly are. While I agree with you, the land should have been annexed, these peoples should not be enfranchised unless and until it is clear they are no longer an existential threat to the Jewish people.

Bar Kafka wrote: "(T)he national rights of Jews and Arabs are not mutually exclusive in the former British Palestine Mandate, while the ultimate goal of Zionism remains the integration of the Jewish people in its native region with all the national dignity it deserves."

I must respectfully disagree. They are indeed mutually exclusive. The legitimately elected government of the 'Palestinian' people is Hamas. The Hamas charter makes it clear that national rights of the Jews and the Arabs are mutually exclusive.

"Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.....The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Muslim generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Muslim generations till Judgement Day?"

This is the position of the Palestinian people and their legitimately elected leaders. All of Palestine, including Haifa, Tel Aviv, Netanya, etc., are a sacred Islamic endowment which cannot be reliquished to the infidel.

Bar Kafka: "Israeli settlement policies have not served the Zionist movement well in achieving that ultimate goal."

This ultimate goal enunciated by former President Bush and now President Obama, to me, is a pipe dream. It is a delusion.

Steve

jdledell, I am not passing judgment on the American experiment though it can be argued there were some excesses. I only refer to it because America is in the forefront, dictating to Israel what is a proper and just solution to the conflict. There are many things, one can argue, about US history including our treatment (I am an American citizen) of American Indians and Blacks that were unjust.

Historians (some) argue that had white Europeans not expelled the so-called five civilized tribes (Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Seminole Indians) west of the Mississippi river (see 1830 Indian Removal act), they would have been exterminated by white settlers and squatters. Let's be honest, Americans are generally proud of our history. I don't see any effort on the part of American human rights groups to return lands to American Indians or to Mexico, though there are efforts on the part of some tribes to re-gain territory lost; the Lakota Sioux for instance. It seems to me, since the American government is seeking redress on the part of the Arabs, America's treatment of indigenous peoples should be scrutinized. There is nothing in the Bible that gave this continent to white European interlopers; quite unlike the case with Israel wherein that land was specifically given to the Jewish people, according to the world's best-selling book.

Clemons is just being a provocateur. It's the politically correct left-wing TPM position to villify Israel, and hence Clemons' post. Netanyahu is trying to embarrass Obama? Building a 20-unit apartment building in East Jerusalem goes past "red lines" set by previous U.S. and Israeli administrations? Puh-leeze! What nonsense. Israel's relationship with the U.S. is its most important strategic asset. If Netanyahu were to truly alienate Obama, he'd be history, as he well knows from his own past. He pushes back against Obama's newly aggressive anti-settlement policy because free Jewish settlement in areas that will likely remain in Israel if there is a two-state solution is a core political belief of his government. Internal political considerations do matter in democracies, as we all well know. Being pro-Israel is not the same thing as being right wing, but for all you can tell on TPM, it might as well be.

Has the CUFI convention let out already?