Great choice!

"Basically, we're not that into you..."

"Yes, the Palestinians are crazy and inept but their insanity and incompetence don't reflect on any of their friends. It's not fair, but there it is."

You made the right choice Tom.

Kudos to the author for their candor, which is better than you can expect from most of us [myself included].

I like it! Good choice.

If the Secretary of State is ever called upon to stand in for Jay Leno and do his monologue, this might capture the historical moment.

If the Sec. Clinton says, or the Israelis hear, anything that sounds like a threat to cut American aid to Israel, I'll be surprised.

Especially the part about the $3 billion. I mean, you gotta go Dutch some of the time!

Complete.

don't think twice, it's alright...

Right, that will last about as long as the next Israeli trade delegation to China or Russia.

Of course, given that there seems to be much stronger support for Israel among US citizens than in the White House, watch how such a stand plays out in the elections.

David Patraus may believe that its the future housing plans that make life so rough for US troops in the field, seems to forget that its the fact THAT THE US TROOPS ARE IN THE FIELDS, namely the fields of Arab and Muslim states, that place them at risk in the first place.

But after 60 years, we're not just going steady. We're contemplating saving family relations, relations always troubled by the stunted twin, by conceiving another war child?! What's the odds that a joint war to stop another regional power from going nuclear, at a first-ever cost of radiological collatoral, will make us all happy at family holiday get-togethers?

AIPAC wants to send money for Israeli jets and weapons. Doing that thru the IRS, while recycling our aid into election lobbying here is not acceptable. "They're all crazy over there" handwave favors status quo in occupation policy, and the US aid policy that supports it.

Some of the comments are a little goofy.

What if they go all fatal attraction on us and release the suitcases and suitcases of material that Pollard gave to them (few people realize the true scale of that security breach)?

Worse, what if they go all fatal attraction and ... well, you saw what happened in Dubai.

We always hear about America's "other interests" in the Middle East, and how our "Arab allies" have a hard time supporting us given our despicable devotion to Israel.

Can someone please elaborate what, precisely, Arab nations are doing for us that gives them so much leverage? Are we supposed to grovel before Saudi Arabia's feet because they "let" us station troops in their country and supported our invasion of Iraq – a major strategic and economic rival? Are we afraid that our support for Israel doesn't measure up to the glorious moral standards of these states, each and every one of whom suppress their own people?

And lastly, what does everyone think these "friends" will do if we politely listen but do not act on their demands for "justice" in Palestine (justice they don't seem to worry about when it comes to dealing with Palestinians in their own borders)? Are they going to refuse to let us shield them from Iran and refuse to accept our weapons?

Let's be honest. The only leverage Arab nations have is not strategic and certainly isn't moral. It's oil. They have it, we need it. How is that better than Israel's evil lobbyists, who at least have the courtesy to work through our democratic system rather than resorting to naked extortion?

The winning entry was well done. But at the risk of appearing like sour grapes, I first saw the winning entry in the form of letter from the American voter to the Republicans, sent around during the last year of W's tenure.
As a political joke-making-the-rounds, it had no claim on originality and may well have had other precursors.
And politicians do recycle jokes, so of course Hillary and her speechwriters hypothetically could have pulled this old chestnut out and given it a new gloss, even if there's a bit of Milli Vanilli to that..
Well executed, yes. Original: no.

Great book - fantastic offering for a prize. "The Gamble" is not too shabby either.

Hope all is well Mr. Ricks.

looking at her comments, it looks like hilldog took a much more conciliatory approach

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/292643-1

or if you want to read it:

http://www.aipac.org/PC2010/webPlayer/mon_clinton10.asp

Yesterday during the "Challenging Times Round Table" Dan Senor had this exchange with Robert Kagan:

Dan Senor: Bob Kagan, what — what can the U.S. really do here to — to combat this campaign of deligitimization of Israel that we are seeing in so many corners of the world, both in Geneva as we saw with the — with the human rights, commission of the Goldstone Report, but also elsewhere around the world?

Dr. Robert Kagan: Well, it can start by not creating a bilateral crisis over a faux, you know, settlement dispute. (Applause.) Nothing — I mean, nothing does more to encourage the — that kind of view, especially in Europe where — where I — where I had the good fortune to live for six years and — and heard a lot about it. I think the United States — you know, you're not going to change public opinion substantially in — in Europe and — and even less in — in other parts of the world. The structure of their societies, the structure of their politics, is one that makes anti-Israel sentiment just a throw away. It's the easiest political card to play in many, many countries around the world and I — the senator looks like he's dying to jump in here.

This morning, Sec. Clinton came back and inverted the argument, putting the onus of Israel:

New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need. It exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region could hope to exploit. And it undermines America's unique ability to play a role — an essential role, I might add — in the peace process. Our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don't agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally.