Hillary is bound to be seriously criticized no matter what she says. If she does not stand tough to the Israel Lobby, she will rightfully be attacked for not taking advantage of this moment to hold Israel to task and demand concessions in order to achieve a lasting peace. If she stands tough, much of the news cycle will be dominated by the Palins, Liebermans, and Neocons who are more hawkish on Israel than most Israeli hawks.

Instead, Hillary should limit her remarks to two sentences: "Thank you for having me. Speaking on my behalf is General David Petraeus."

As a recent Foreign Policy article made clear, the Israel Lobby is a strong one, but there is no lobby stronger than the United States Military. Having Petraeus - the most well-known and respected figure to come out of the Iraq War - say that our failure to hold Israel to task is "costing American lives" could seriously change the domestic debate. Folks like McCain would be hard-pressed to go and attack the most famous military figure still serving in America and Petraeus could make real head way in helping Obama shift courses.

I would love to see the neocons go around calling Dave Petraeus weak on terror.

What Hillary will say: ‘Israel and the United States have a long standing and unique partnership as free and democratic states to try to reinforce Israel’s security and to increase the peace an stability of the region through cooperation and negotiation . . . blah, blah, blah’ – essentially meaningless pandering.

What Hillary should say: ‘The United States takes seriously the very legitimate security interests of Israel and will continue to be as strong a partner for peace as we have been in the past. However, the United States cannot as an honest broker between contentious parties condone unilateral acts and polices which increase tension and distrust. We believe that it is in the interests of Israel to not only be strong but to be wise. Where we find common ground we shall be encouraging and supportive, where our interests diverge we will try to close the gap. But in no instance will we ignore and fail to respond to policies which increase risks to our armed forces and jeopardize our larger strategic interests of peace and stability.’
se.’

I think Madame Secretary should remind AIPAC of the unique relationship our two countries have, so much so in fact, that we grant Israel’s foreign aid lump sum each year, which allows them the benefit of receiving interest on those funds until spent.

I would further remind everyone that one should never overstate the importance of America's role in Israel's existence and the fact that of all countries we support and champion, Israel has always been exempt from any project ties or performance standards we requires of others.

Finally, upon schmoozing the audience for awhile, I would drop this bomb shell: President Obama will no longer allow Israel to bid as a supplier for U.S. weapons firms as it does now throughout the world - and see how they like those apples?

Oh well, I lost out on a autographed book again! : )

Seriously, as SecState, I would speak to the fact that as a champion of Israel, we also have a role to play as the "honest broker" for the Palestinians, and to be seen as such in the eyes of the region as a whole, and that the Jewish state's cooperation is required to advance that perception.

"Should" is a question for policy wonks and Operations officers. "Will" is a question for bookies and intelligence officers. "Should" questions can be debated endlessly in counter factual hypotheticals, while "will" questions are mercilessly objective. In the interest of fairness , I'll make a "will" prediction...

Hillary will give a some of the boldest criticisms offered to date of Israel' s expansion of settlements. As chief diplomat, she can do nothing less. When the White House Chief of Staff is voicing displeasure in a disciplined, early term presidency, you know the President is not pleased. She will convey this displeasure, diplomatically, of course. It will begin with a preface that JPWREL described, for domestic consumption, but this will be a speech aimed at Israel and it will say things they will not like.

So, that is my prediction on what she will say. Objective, empirical, and with a reasonably discrete outcome set. But then again, I've been wrong before...

Depends on whether she has faith in the peace process. If so, she oughta try to butter them up without giving up any ground. She should mimick what Biden was trying to do before the tiff ensued. They should be attempting to rejigger the Israeli governing coalition by forcing Bibi to marginalize Shas, Yisrael Beiteinu, et al. They need to stop exaggerating the significance of this specific incident. It appears somewhat contrived considering that Obama lost this fight to Netanyahu last summer and the administration accepted it publicly. To the dismay of the Palestinians, it was clear that Obama did not have the will to fight this fight. If they continue the rhetorical heat they will really stoke the violence on the ground. Their response so far has been measured, but it's time to tone it down and wait for Israel to respond. If Obama's going to pressure Israel then he should pressure them. He shouldn't bash them for shabby treatment of Palestinians if he's just going to cave in the end--that justifiably evokes cynicism and hatred. If Hillary admits that their policies are abominable in her speech, she can't proceed to claim that our security policies are completely overlapped. Granted, the announcement a few days ago was an egregious insult. But if this is about strategy rather than maintaining protocol, Israeli opinion is the key variable. Obama can influence them by creating trust or by threatening them. He can't just create the perception that he's against them and then allow their far right government to set the agenda in the Middle East. Hence the necessity of maintaining the Israeli perception that this is all about Netanyahu's incompetence rather than an American overreach or a major shift towards neutrality. If Obama decides to escalate with threats against loan guarantees (doubtful), it could amplify the perception of Netanyahu's incompetence. It gives his opponents something concrete that he's lost because of intransigence. However, Obama's domestic agenda will almost certainly take precedence over this more assertive course. Hillary would do well to dust off Bill's sycophantic rhetoric if she wants to make progress without any real sticks.

"The United States and Israel have built a deep and meaningful alliance since 1948 based on shared values and more importantly on shared goals. The United States has long supported Israeli efforts at self-defense and democracy in the Middle East. We will continue to do so.

What Israel must realize is that while our values may still be shared (read: democracy) our goals are diverging. During the Cold War, Israel was our strongest ally in the region and a bastion against Soviet advances. Today, the immediate threat to our country comes from terrorism and the immediate threat to our soldiers comes from ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The appearance of favoritism is not threatening our deployed servicemembers, but I do believe that it is the United States' immediate interests to be perceived as an honest broker by Arab and Muslim populations.

Our relationship today is not advancing America's immediate interests. In fact your immediate interest (building settlements) is directly contrary to ours (winning over hostile populations). I come before you today not to make threats, but to ask for your help. I believe that it is your interest, just as it is in ours, to meaningfully, openly and immediately work towards a two-state solutions. This will be require significantly harder choices from Israel than it does from the United States. But I promise you that when Israel is ready to reach out to the PA, we will be there to support and coax both sides towards an enduring peace agreement."

What she should say, depending on who you ask, is the subject of volumes of divergent readings of history and association of guilt, usually heavily weighing down on one side.

What she will say will likely be themed on clearing up any misperceptions, as well as putting out the flames of the recent spat over settlements.

My guess is something akin to "While we may have had minor, petty, miniscule, insignificant, (shall I bend over now?) differences, the World ought to know that the aims and objectives of the United States and its pimp... sorry... "closest ally," are one.

And that is, first and foremost, the safety and security of the Israeli people (with scant regard for how many Americans have to die). As well as the preservation of Israel's strategic parameters (as they are seen in the eyes of the same cats that have spent over $70 million dollars in National Elections in the last two decades).

(hold for applause)

I'd say "JJH722" is the leader in the clubhouse right now.

What Sec. Clinton will say at AIPAC will depend on the Obama administration's objectives. If the administration is concerned enough about Israel's supporters in the Democratic Party, she will be conciliatory while trying not to contradict anything she, Vice President Biden, or President Obama are reported to have said within the last week. If Obama and his team are determined to assert the primacy of American interests over those of Israel, Clinton will offer some words of reassurance followed by very tough talk about how certain factions within the Israeli government are moving Israel away from the United States. If the Obama administration remains focused on finding some way to restart the peace process, Sec. Clinton will try to find something in the middle with respect to both tone and content.

Now, personally I favor the second course. The first makes the administration look weak; Israel's most zealous supporters in the United States, as well as the settlement lobby in Israel, will look on President Obama as both hostile and ineffectual. Arabs will see him as merely ineffectual. The third course might be worth trying at another time, but not now -- the present Israeli government is not serious about a peace deal, and the Palestinians don't have a government capable of negotiating one.

The downside of the second course is that it invites a protracted quarrel with Israel and its zealous Americans supporters. On the other hand, such a quarrel would not be without advantage to the United States, in Muslim countries anyway. What Sec. Clinton would have to make clear, if she decides to go this way, is that the rift between Israel and America is a product of Israeli settlement policies that advance no American interest. It isn't because America is for justice and right, or because we care more about peace in the region than the people who live there. It certainly isn't because we have any interest in relitigating whether Israel should exist as a Jewish state or not. What it boils down to is that the Obama administration will not have American policy toward the Middle East determined in Tel Aviv.

Most Americans will agree with this position. Israel's most zealous supporters will not, obviously; they were happy with a Bush administration that deferred with enthusiasm to Israel on settlements (and most other issues) and would resent any President who pursued a different course. An American President genuinely unfriendly to Israel would run up against the large reservoir of sympathy and goodwill among Americans toward the Jewish state, but Obama is not that President. What Clinton ought to do is make clear that America expects friendship with Israel to be a two-way street; that right now, by Israel's choice, it isn't; and that this has to change.

What should she say?

1. She should tell them that AIPAC "support for Israel" cannot be equated to support for Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu

To illustrate, she should quote Ehud Olmert.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=136785

2. She should remind them of Sharon's words that times have changed, that things are different, as he spoke them to convince people of the strategic move to get out of Gaza.

To illustrate this, she should show how people are increasingly unwilling to give Israel the benefit of the doubt in the way they once were and how that compounds Israels' insecurity, so that it didn't officially participate in something like the Goldstone report. She should cite '42 years of construction' as an example of a statement that no longer persuades.

3. She should raise the concept of 'making a choice for peace every day, in spite of hostility'

It is not enough to 'make a choice peace at summits' and then go away and pursue 'security' or to make largely unilateral choices, some good, some bad. No longer can people get away with saying that final status issues are 'too sensitive' to talk about. They have to be dealt with.

She should attack the neocon attitude at the one that brings violence and vacates the space for constructive voices to be heard.

4. She should emphasize the legal framework of the IAEA for dealing with Iran and protocols for peaceful nuclear power.

The goal is to isolate states that do not follow protocols. She should find a ways of intimating, without saying it, that a preventive war to stop nuclear proliferation may not be required for Iran, because deterrence may be good enough and a situation in which Iran has tested a nuclear device, but not been attacked, is nearly untenable for them, politically, in the long run (she has used the word "futile" in the past).

5. She should wrap up by blaming everything on Hamas, who really have almost nothing to offer, except making men grow their beards and stay out of women's hair salons.

Anyone else here sense the ground shifting ever-so-slowly towards an Israel Lobby more inclined towards the Republicans than the Democrats?

This may be another fear reigning in this administration going forward.

Mr. Ricks, Although I think you are a fine writer, I hope Mrs. Clinton will not say what you said in 2006 about Israel. In 2006, you said that Israelis were willing to suffer the casualties of some women and children because it gave Israel a public relations boost. That type of demonization will not help the cause of peace. Seeing one side of a conflict as being the epitome of immorality and heartlessness,, as your statement did, is the road to perdition, not peace. Mrs. Clinton should say that the US does not equate Israel with Hamas and does not expect Israel to allow a Hamas state on its eastern border. Mrs. Clinton should condemn Syria and Iran for turning Southern Lebanon into a Muslim fundamentalist enclave with one goal: To prevent a peaceful MiddleEast. If Mrs. Clinton wishes to condemn the announcement of new housing in East Jerusalem, she should also say that it was a mistake for Mr. Crowley at State to be forced to grovel before Qadafi.

AIPAC has spanked the US goverment for its harsh language towards israel. Hillary will return to groveling. Nothing will change. AIPAC rules baby!

Best left to be shunned for a while. Its fantasies have made its heart hardened.

Hillary should resign her membership in AIPAC and condemn Israel as an apartheid state and those who support AIPAC as traitors to the United States because they support the interests of another nation over those of the United States.

When you surrender your liberty for security.....
The founding fathers of the United States were absolutely amazing. They foretold the disasters that plauge the United States today over two hundred years ago. They gave us warnings:

"When you surrender your liberty for security, you deserve NEITHER" - Ben Franklin

Recently the Patriot Act was extended, proving that there is no difference between the Republican or Democratic parties; they have bother betrayed the American people they were sworn to protect and difiled the constitution they were sworn to uphold.

It is clear to everyone that because the Patriot act was extended, Americans deserve neither Freedom nor Security.

"Beware of Foreign Entanglements" - Thomas Jefferson

US foreign Policy is no longer decided in Washington DC. US foriegn Policy is now drafted in Tel Aviv. I exagerate you say? Ask Jimmy Carter. Mr. Carter, the former president of the United States has about as much respect as Michael Jackson or Mel Gibson did after the zionist controlled media was through with him. American foriegn policy needs to be based upon American interests, not the interests of what amounts to less than 1/5th of one percent of the US population. Jews Comprise less than 2% of the US population. Israel firsters, aka traitors to America like johnathan pollard, Sarah Palin and Dick Chenney are part of that less than 1/5th of one percent that have hurt the US economy and the people of American by choosing to serve the interests of another country ahead of the interests of the United States.

I could go on... and on... but essentially, the Constitution warned us that when government became overly intrusive in the lives of the citizenry, when it became barbaric, cruel and proceeded to deny its own citizens of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that it was time to take down the govt... this was not a suggestion, no, this was actually what patriots are required to do when facing down the evil that is govt. out of control.

Now, I said that the founding fathers were awesome. They foresaw all of this and that is why they had the seperation of powers. They have the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches... and that is why they inculded this wonderful thing that much of the rest of the world does not understand, the right to bear arms.

There is a reason the right to bear arms is right is the second amendment. It is the second amendment, right behind the first amendment because if you want to have the right to freedom of Speech, religion and the right to the pursuit of happiness, you better be prepared to defend that right, and you better be able to maintain militia's in order to guarantee that right. The second amendment is not about being allowed to have a hunting rifle. It is not even about having the right to defend your family from an intruder. The second amendment is about having the right, no, THE RESPONSIBILITY to keep a well armed militia in the event that government gets out of control. The supreme court is weighing in on this issue. If the Supreme court does the right thing and in fact limits the rights of municipalities, like Boston and NYC to limit the right of Americans to have weapons, well then the American constitution may yet be saved.

I still have faith. I have no faith in Congress, they are a bunch of criminals, who for the most part are prostitutes who sell their vote to the highest bidder and unlike the politicians of old who served one term and went back to prouctive lives as farmers and teachers; the politicians of today are interested in only one thing, getting re elected.

I have very little faith in the executive branch. The executive branch, when used by evil doers is far too powerful, introducing blatently unconstitutional items like the line item veto and the military, "police action" - ie Iraq. When used by good men like Carter who allow the Sentate too much power, they have a tendancy of getting walked all over.

The Judicial branch is my hero. Although I do not agree with many of their decisions, like the recent soft money fiasco, I have to hope that they will do the right thing on the second amendment. They have to see that the 1st Amendment is dying a slow painful death and that the only way to cure America is to strengthen our second Amendment.

I usually disagree with almost everythign Zogby says. In fact, I view Zogby as something of a sell out, but he is dead on about Palin and he is dead on about the direction America is headed.

Support of Aparthied Israel has caused the US no end of distress. It has been the single largest blunder ever committed by US foreign policy makers. Continued Support of a country that Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu both agree is an apartheid nation. Continued support of Apartheid Israel is against US National Security Interests.

... as I am in what she should ask: What do we get out of this alliance?

That's not a snarky question. After the Cold War, there was much discussion about what purpose the NATO alliance served, and that's our most important alliance. Why shouldn't we do the same with Israel?

Look, Israel is going to do what it thinks is best for its national security. There's nothing wrong with that. But that doesn't mean we have to support it or pay for it - particularly when it conflicts with our national interests.

So now it's time for Israel to stop making a moral argument, a historical argument or (in the case of evangelical Christians) a spiritual argument about why they deserve the substantial amount of treasure we've given them. Now it's time for them to convince us that the resources we're spending there are benefiting those of us back here.

But she will, and she will disappoint anyone who wants continued toughness. Hillary will revert to Hillary when it comes to Israel, little will change, settlements will go forward, etc. And who can blame her? There is no political upside to public criticism of Israel or public demonstration of intent to change Israel policy or practice. Real change will only happen if (and it's a big if) we have a president and cabinet-level lieutenants sufficiently dedicated to the belief that current policy is disastrous for U.S. interests that they're willing to pay whatever political price is necessary, including conceding future elections and being falsely labeled anti-Semites, to make it right. And even then, with Congress there to ensure the money keeps flowing, it might all still be moot.

That last part is key. Israel policy comes directly from the American public to a much greater extent than most other areas, in my view. Sure, "The Lobby's" influence with Members may spill over to some extent to the public at large, but that's not a sufficient explanation for public support for Israel. The Pew Center poll and other metrics suggest that plenty of people untouched directly by "The Lobby" love Israel. We need to at least be open to the possibility that the public drives Congress's views and behavior rather than vice versa; there certainly doesn't seem to be downside for Members for supporting Israel, right?

So why does the balance of the public feel so strongly? In my opinion, because they believe Israel's where Jesus was from, and where Jews must reign to facilitate his return. That's a conviction so deep that no amount of rational argument about tangible U.S. interests can persuade enough people out of to change the overall situation. Thus, and to the great discomfort of those of us who obsess over rationality in foreign policy strenuously and sincerely deny it, we may indeed be engaged in the religious war we're accused of. How's that for cheery?!!

If anybody knows about work that explores the basis of public affection for Israel in detail I'd much appreciate some direction to it.

Should say: Did you really tap my husband's phones (and insert reference to WJ Clinton's primary scandal here)?

Will say: My daughter's marrying a Jew!

Hope that didn't come off as anti-Semitic - it was supposed to be funny.

Mazel Tov and L'Chaim y'all (and not the Black Eyed Peas version).

Should -

Something about how the Israeli government, in there neverending push to stranglehold Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are going to eventually push the Palestinians and/or Arabs into doing something because they see the US impotence in the Middle East area and figure that if Israel can get away with it, why can't they. Or rather, they know they won't be able to, but by then, non-Israelis in the area will be too fed up to care what happens as long as they can take out some of their hoplessness on the Israelis. Then, boom goes the powderkeg. Obviously, this would be better couched in diplomatese that I can do.

Will -

Something about nothing in particular and several meaningless comments that do nothing to arouse anger but won't send any warm, fuzzies either. Middle of the road.

Israel has always had the sympathy card, correctly, I believe, but they are using it up fast recently. At what point will people realize that the Israeli government may be a little out of touch with reality and get some moderate voices in there to slow down the crazy forging ahead and damn the consequences trip they are on right now? Hopefully, not too late.

IT IS TIME FOR A RESET OF RELATIONS with Israel
.
The United States' relationship and bond with Israel has been close and firm since the inception of the Israeli state and we, the U.S. government, hold this relationship to be very important to our most cherished values and raison d'etre: our love and support for life, human liberty, human and individual rights, justice for all and democracy. Over these years we have stood together through thick and thin. But it is time, don't you think, for a re-evaluation of who we both are and what we stand for today? It is time to assess whether we are going in that right direction.

Do we stand for the aforementioned, eternal values or is it something as shallow and feckless as might makes right? Our long-standing commitment to the state and security of Israel will continue but it cannot continue to be as strong as it has been if Israel does not stand for these eternal, human values. So, the real question is not about the US and our support for Israel; rather it is about who Israel really is and what does it stand for?

The US government has taken on wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, two Muslim countries. We profess to be a democracy and so we must walk the talk. Because of our support of Israel the US and its soldiers have suffered greatly in the Muslim world. This can no longer be avoided or denied. It is not only time for all of the US citizens to recognize this but, also, for Israel and AIPAC to do likewise. The status quo cannot go on.

Therefore, on the basis of simple human values and ethics we must take a stand to stop building illegal settlements and show the responsible behavior of going to the peace table. It is time for moral leadership and courage. Let us stand for something greater than selfish, craven interests. Let us stand for what is right. That is the Israel whom we hold dear.

I'm Jewish. I'm American. I've lived in Israel. Minds have been made up on both sides about the fate of Palestine and Israel: 100 years more or less for the Palestinians and 3,000 years for the Israelis/Zionists. Without getting into the mangled history, let it be said that neither Palestinians nor Israelis will give-in to any concessions they feel-always automatically and viscerally-accommodate one at the expense of the other. Both see themselves as victims. What Israel has going for its putative historical-nationalist claim is military strength as punsihment. Palestine has little to compensate for this leverage except, perhaps, petulant Hamas. So, Palestine has little bargaining power which Israel exploits and erodes whenever it wants. All the roadmaps are pipe dreams. Anyone on the ground-regardless of persuasion-will tell you the situation is hopeless. Israel prefers it that way. Marginalizing the Palestinians is part of their game. Israel builds the wall, enacts an embargo, bombs, withdraws and renews threats whenever Palestine or, should I say, Hamas shakes its fist. Israel, sees Palestine as its manifest destiny. Palestine has no where to go. Israel will not rest until they have it all. Israel will achieve this goal. Just as the US decided it had the right to expand from coast-to-coast, likewise Israel is so determined. Madame Secretary should fess up, throw her arms in the air and admit not diplomatic despair but pragmatic defeat. That would be realpolitik.

I'm Jewish. I'm American. I've lived in Israel. Minds have been made up on both sides about the fate of Palestine and Israel: 100 years more or less for the Palestinians and 3,000 years for the Israelis/Zionists. Without getting into the mangled history, let it be said that neither Palestinians nor Israelis will give-in to any concessions they feel-always automatically and viscerally-accommodate one at the expense of the other. Both see themselves as victims. What Israel has going for its putative historical-nationalist claim is military strength as punishment. Palestine has little to compensate for this leverage except, perhaps, petulant Hamas. So, Palestine has little bargaining power which Israel exploits and erodes whenever it wants. All the roadmaps are pipe dreams. Anyone on the ground-regardless of persuasion-will tell you the situation is hopeless. Israel prefers it that way. Marginalizing the Palestinians is part of their game. Israel builds the wall, enacts an embargo, bombs, withdraws and renews threats whenever Palestine or, should I say, Hamas shakes its fist. Israel, sees Palestine as its manifest destiny. Palestine has no where to go. Israel will not rest until they have it all. Israel will achieve this goal. Just as the US decided it had the right to expand from coast-to-coast, likewise Israel is so determined. Madame Secretary should fess up, throw her arms in the air and admit not diplomatic despair but pragmatic defeat. That would be realpolitik.

Whereas:
1. The USA was the first country to recognize the state of Israel, when it controlled considerably less territory.
2. The USA was indispensable in obtaining UN recognition and membership for Israel.
3. The USA chartered and hosts the UN, and that charter prohibits national acquisition of territory thru conquest, which is one of the cornerstones of international law today.
We find:
4. The West Bank, Gaza, and E. Jerusalem territories of Palestine, taken in conquest in 1967 are not recognized as part of Israel under international law, nor by any international body, nor by the USA, nor by the UN.
5. Negotiations for withdrawal of Israel from the territories seized in 1967, consistent with protection of the legal residents and Israel's security, is required at the earliest possible date.
6. Continued construction of occupation settlements is not acceptable, is not legal, and demonstrates bad faith intention to expel Palestinian people and keep territory on the part of the government of Israel.
7. The USA is willing to guarantee, thru military force if necessary, the security of Israel from attacks, including state sponsored terrorism, by neighboring states. Terms of this proposed guarantee are contingent on the return by Israel to its recognized pre-'67 borders.
8. The USA is not willing to continue funding the continued occupation and settlement of Palestine by Israel thru US foreign aid and military assistance.
9. The health of the state of Israel, the future peace of the region and the interests of the USA require Israel to recognize its own borders, and conduct negotiations for return to those boundaries, consistent with its UN membership.
10. Should the government of Israel fail to recognize the state's boundaries, and fail to negotiate in good faith for withdrawal from conquered territories, the USA will be forced to explore sanctions to force Israeli withdrawal to within its national borders.

Or words to that effect.

quote:

The New York Sun, a newspaper published by Ronald Weintraub and edited by Seth Lipsky, and known for its pro-Israel bias, carried an article recently on the obeisance made by Hillary Clinton to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in New York, which might almost be called a pledge of allegiance to Israel. Quoth the Sun's staff reporter, Jill Gardiner:

"A Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton's re-election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the AIPAC dinner always draws a parade of politicians.

'New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community,' he said. 'If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them.'

Mrs. Clinton, who has opted out of the public campaign financing system, has tapped into the circuit of influential Jewish donors for years and has strong support in the community. A spokesman for AIPAC, Joshua Block, said yesterday that the senator and former first lady has 'an extremely consistent and strong record of support on issues that are important to the pro-Israel community.'"

Hillary apparently sang the song that everyone at AIPAC loves to hear, for later in the Sun's article, we read, "While Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have different positions on how to deal with the Iraq war, each has used harsh language on Iran."

Israel is the most violently racist apartheid ethnocracy in the world, supported often unknowingly or unwillingly by US taxpayers, in spite of the latter struggling financially.

This weird situation is only explicable by studying 'liberal' Jewish involvement in the universities, in mainstream media control in the US and sponsorship of US politicians. A similar situation prevails in the UK and probably elsewhere. It all comes down to duel loyalties, the poisoning of politics by alien-interest money, and unscrupulous and not-quite-covert ethnocentrism.

We must remember the exchange on CBS in 1996 between Bill Clinton’s Zionist 'Secretary of State' Madeleine Albright, who was then the US ambassador to the United Nations, and Lesley Stahl of CBS. Albright was maintaining that sanctions had yielded important concessions from Saddam Hussein.

Stahl: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price.. ­ we think the price is worth it."

They read that exchange in the Middle East. It was infamous all over the Arab world. Imagine if 500,000 Jewish children had died, instead of Arab children!

'We will do whatever you want as long as you don't sell anymore of your world-leading drone technology to the Russians.

Thank you, and good night.'

Hillary should, but won't, turn over responsibility for this issue to the Germans. Instead of building the 1000th Holocaust memorial, which is built in Germany by Germans and for the benefit of Germans, it's about time they translate those crocodile tears into some actions.

Ahmedinajad is a nut, but I don't understand why his point that Europe and not the Palestinians should pay for WW2, going as far as giving up territory in Germany, is beyond the pale. Cut a big ole slice out of Bavaria or Austria (they are just as responsible as the Germans) and relocate them all to East Germany. Are we going to be bound by stories involving promises made by a storm deity to a semi-nomad who may or may not have lived 3000 years ago and who obviously had a conflict of interest in relating the exact nature of the transaction to his descendants. Sure Abe, we'll take your word for it. We aren't bound by any of Thor or Indra's promises, I don't know why Yahweh gets special treatment. We might peeve off all the Dispensationalist cultists in the US, but they are getting too arrogant as it is. If Hillary suggested any of the above it would be the greatest thing ever particularly if they could get a close-up shot of Netanyahu's face.

But Israel is a de-facto situation, and as such it's not going away and does have a right to exist as a nation. And we are bound by mythical promises as long as the likes of Sam Brownback hold public office.

This exercise in should, would, want to is futile. No button is going to be reset (buttons never get reset unless $ is involved and everyone involved can save face; why is the world run by greedy 5 year olds?) and all this righteous anger is just a show. In fact this little kabuki drama is kind of tiresome, albeit very, very amusing. The Israeli yearly dole will be disbursed, the Palestinians will continue to be a demographic ticking time bomb, Arabs will use it as an excuse and cover which fuels conflict which equals profit for Northrup et al, and Israel will continue scrounging around the globe for anybody with so much as a single Jewish great-great-grandmother to offset the inevitable.

Hillary comes in as the former Senator to NY. During her time in office, she declared herself a strong supporter of Israel, even overcoming her embrace of Suha Arafat after the latter's blood libel (spoken in Arabic) while she was First Lady.

Now, she comes to stand before a Jewish community that at first overcame their concerns about President Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright and Palestinian polemics, only to see all of their concerns come to the fore during his first year in office.

Indeed, we now see what Obama's idea of "creating space" between the US and Israel is really all about. It means kow-towing to a group of ethnic racists and dictators who, even after 60 years, cannot stomach the idea of an independent Jewish state.

The Obama administration's credibility has been turned into Swiss cheese with the US Jewish community and Israelis.

So what does Hillary say? "I really meant it when I hugged and kissed Suha after she lied that Jews were poisoning Palestinian babies" or "All those years as NY's Senator I lied that Jerusalem was the eternal and united capital of Israel". Or "Israel needs to take serious steps for peace, but don't worry that your 'peace partners' are naming squares for terrorists who deliberately killed children and are now rioting on the Temple Mount that they consider so sacred that they're willing to throw rocks on the heads of other worshippers."

"Trust Us".

I think Hilary Clinton shall address the AIPAC the followings:

(1) The US is committed to the security of Israel.
(2) There is a strong need to re-establish strong trust between these two countries accompanied by effective actions by Israel.
(3) The current situation and stalemate in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is untenable and AIPAC shall immensely contribute to the Israeli thinking on this important matter.
(4) AIPAC shall support an objective solution and internationally recognized “consensus” on establishing a viable Palestinian state rather than support whatever court of action taken by Israel with harmful consequences for the US in the region and the world. The US’s strong commitment to the security of Israel does not necessarily mean that US will blindly support the Israeli settlements and occupation as it endangers the essential interests of the US and Israel in the region;
(5) Israel’s current settlement and occupation policy makes a viable Palestinian State impossible and Israel must change the course of its policy immediately;
(6) The US and Israeli interests don’t coincide on some important issues and Israel shall fully understand that US is in no position to jeopardize its interests in the region for the sake of advancing the objectives of some political and religious groups’ in Israeli politics (such as, radical religious parties in Israel);
(7) Unlike the previous times, there is a strategic change in the Middle East due to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the strengthening of Iran and its incumbent nuclear program which makes the alliances with other countries across the region very important and urgent. The current course of policy of Israel towards the Palestinian question makes such strategic alliances nearly impossible and shaky whereby endangering the ability of US and Israel to advance and protect their variety of urgent interest and needs unachievable; The US, given its strategic interests in the Middle East, is not obliged to and can no longer antagonize the Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East and the world by supporting unproductive policies of Israel;
(8) Israel shall make a real choice between real security and peace as its current policy seeks none of them as absence of both of them will jeopardize the future of Israel as a Jewish State opening up the possibility of transforming it into a multiethnic state which the current Israel will not be able to absorb, so the decision shall be made right now;
(9) Israeli’s security concerns don’t get enhanced by strategic ambiguity and the continuous state of war with Syria and Lebanon and there is no reason why such peace cannot be achieved with them like the Israeli-Egypt peace agreement, therefore both the US and Israel are better of if there is a real peace between Israel and its neighbors alongside an independent Palestinian State.
(10) There are limits as to when US can support Israeli in international institutions, like the Security Council, when there facts on the grounds that there were committed international crimes by Israel in Gaza. US bound by its human right values and the norms of international law can not support such actions and Israel or any of the ally of US shall refrain from committing such acts.