House of Representatives: Move US embassy to Jerusalem

[oberliner]

The House of Representatives on Tuesday unanimously passed a resolution calling on President George W. Bush to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, this on the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War.

The senate is expected to approve a similar motion later in the day.

In the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 Congress determined that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel and that the U.S. Embassy should be established there no later than May 31, 1999.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3409228,00.html

[Hardrada]

1. Boy, a big red flag on this play!!

[breakaleg]

2. This is a complete disaster. What are they thinking?

[11cents]

4. Oh please. See above. They do this periodically.

It's practically an annual tradition.

[Jim Sagle]

3. The House RRRRAWWWWWWXXXXXXX!!!!!!!!!!

[oberliner]

5. The bill's sponsor and co-sponsors were almost all Democrats

The bill's sponsor was Tom Lantos and eight of the ten co-sponsors were Democrats.

Sponsor: Tom Lantos (D)

Co-Sponsors:

Gary Ackerman (D)
Howard Berman (D)
Dan Burton (R)
Joseph Crowley (D)
Eliot Engel (D)
Eni Faleomavaega (D)
Ron Klein (D)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R)
Brad Sherman (D)
Robert Wexler (D)

Here are the six operative clauses:

(1) congratulates the citizens of Israel on the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War in which Israel defeated enemies aiming to destroy the Jewish State;

(2) congratulates the residents of Jerusalem and the people of Israel on the 40th anniversary of the reunification of that historic city;

(3) commends those former combatant states of the Six Day War, Egypt and Jordan, who in subsequent years had the wisdom and courage to embrace a vision of peace and coexistence with Israel;

(4) commends Israel for its administration of the undivided city of Jerusalem for the past 40 years, during which Israel has respected the rights of all religious groups;

(5) reiterates its commitment to the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and calls upon the President and all United States officials to abide by its provisions; and

(6) urges the Palestinians and Arab countries to join with Israel in peace negotiations to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, including realization of the vision of two democratic states, Israeli and Palestinian, living side-by-side in peace and security.

[Jim Sagle]

6. Pssssttt.....REAL Dems SUPPORT Israel.

But hey, we knew that. :toast:

[Hardrada]

7. What do you mean "we?"

White man?

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. A majority of rank-and-file Democrats support neutrality - not alignment: 54% to 39%

L.A. Times Poll:

"Overall, 50% of the survey's respondents said the United States should continue to align with Israel, compared with 44% who backed a more neutral posture. But the partisan gap was clear: Democrats supported neutrality over alignment, 54% to 39%, while Republicans supported alignment with Israel 64% to 29%."

link:

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/40171

(bottom of page)

.

[richards1052]

9. Yes, & read my Zogby poll post here

Fully 41% of Amer. Jews favor a "middle course" regarding U.S. Mideast policy. 44% favor a tilt toward Israel. Considering the propaganda flowing out of AIPAC offices, it's amazing that such a sizable number of American Jews see common sense.

This stupid resolution is put forward every yr. by AIPAC & its Congressional shills. It means nothing. It's designed for AIPAC to show its rank & file membership that it continues to flex its muscles for an intransigent, ridiculously unrealistic approach to the I-P conflict. If you want to really support Israel stop with the grandstanding & get both sides down to a negotiating table to make the compromises both sides will have to make to achieve peace.

[Shaktimaan]

10. Um... what do you call Camp David 2000? n/p

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. Camp David 2000 was a hoax

Even the Former Israeli Foreign Minister who was lead negotiator said that if he had been a Palestinian he would have rejected it..

SHLOMO BEN-AMI: "Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well." link: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations By Seth Ackerman
-- link: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

"The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel"

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."
____________

It does appear however that progress was made a Taba, Egypt in January 2001. However, Israel unilateral broke off the talks on the Eve of their upcoming election.

link to the European Union notes which have been confirmed by the Israeli and Palestinian delegation and being an accurate record of what happened at Taba in January 2001:

"This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."


http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

"(Yossi)Beilin stressed that the Taba talks were not halted because they hit a crisis, but rather because of the Israeli election"

However, Mr. Sharon made it absolutely clear that he would not honor any such treaty:

Sharon calls peace talks a campaign ploy by Barak
Likud leader says he won't comply with latest agreements
January 28, 2001
Web posted at: 1:42 p.m. EST (1842 GMT) link:

"Sharon leads Barak by 16 to 20 percentage points in opinion polls that have changed little in recent weeks." link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/28/mideast.01/index.html

"Ehud Barak is endangering the state of Israel to obtain a piece of paper to help him in the election," Sharon said at a campaign stop Saturday. "Once the people of Israel find out what is in the paper and what Barak has conceded, he won't get any more votes." link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

.

[oberliner]

13. Manipulation of meaning with out of context quotes is not helpful

You completely and dramatically misrepresent Ben-Ami's position on Camp David by shamelessly manipulating a quote from his exchange with Norman Finkelstein.

Your quote:

"Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well."

The full quote:

"Okay, the last third part of the book, as Dr. Finkelstein says, there is the diplomat, and this same diplomat still behaves in a way as a historian when he says in this book that Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem."

He later says:

"So he lost the opportunity of having a deal that is imperfect, inevitably imperfect, will always be imperfect, because this is the way peace processes are done all over, and he sent his nation into the wilderness of war and back in the time machine to the core of the conflict. This is what we face today."

Ben-Ami certainly does not categorize Camp David as a "hoax". There are many places where you can read his thoughts and perceptions on Camp David in great detail so that you do not have to rely on selective quotes.

Here is an excerpt from an interview he gave with Ha'aretz in 2001:

"But when all is said and done, Camp David failed because Arafat refused to put forward proposals of his own and didn't succeed in conveying to us the feeling that at some point his demands would have an end. One of the important things we did at Camp David was to define our vital interests in the most concise way. We didn't expect to meet the Palestinians halfway, and not even two-thirds of the way. But we did expect to meet them at some point. The whole time we waited to see them make some sort of movement in the face of our far-reaching movement. But they didn't. The feeling was that they were constantly trying to drag us into some sort of black hole of more and more concessions without it being at all clear where all the concessions were leading, what the finish line was."

You can read the entire interview here:
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/home/comartin/israel/ben-ami.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. camp David was still a hoax

and there is plenty of other information to support that. No knowledgeable person in the world believes for one second that any Palestinian leader could have possibly accepted it. Just as Mr. Ben-Ami stated that he could not have accepted it if he had been in their position.

One simply needs to look at what was really offered at Camp David and decide for themselves. And I did include the information about Taba and made it clear that there appeared to be real progress there. That was very clear. One only needs to compare what was offered at the so-called "generous offer" of Camp David and compare it with the more plausible discussions at Taba to see just how disingenuous the Camp David offer really was.

And it is most disingenuous to claim one supports the two-state solution or any political solution while supporting actions on Jerusalem that might can only thwart and complicate a settlement.

And I did NOT say Mr. Ben-Ami called Camp David a hoax. Mr. Ben-Ami acknowledged EXACTLY as I state above that if he had been a Palestinian he would have rejected Camp David too.

Party loyalty has its place. But, please show some intellectually honesty.

[oberliner]

17. With all due respect

The subject line of your post read "Camp David was a hoax" and to support that assessment you used a quote from Ben-Ami. I do not think it is intellectually honest to cherry-pick one remark by Ben-Ami to create a false impression about his opinion of Camp David.

Reading the quote in its context and reading Ben Ami's other writings should make it clear that the expectation was not that the proposal at Camp David should have been accepted by the Palestinians, but that it should have served as a basis for negotiations. According to Ben-Ami Israel offered many concessions while Arafat offered none. This was the frustration that he points to in his detailed analysis of the process. As I indicated above, he did not expect the Palestinians to meet him half way or even a third of the way, but expected some kind of proposal from the Palestinian side and received none.

Camp David was a real effort on the part of President Clinton to try to come up with some kind of agreement that could potentially lead to a Palestinian state living side by side at peace with Israel.

You can be as critical of the proposal made by Israel at Camp David as you want to be, but the fact remains that Arafat not only rejected it but also made no counter proposal.

[Douglas Carpenter]

20. Mr. Ben-Ami makes it clear in his debate that his only quarrel with Arafat

did not relate to Camp David and he has no fundamental disagreement with Mr. Arafat until after the release of the Clinton Parameters on December 23, 2000 and at Taba. http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

Before any of this Barak is already publicly denouncing Arafat.

If the standard is everything Israel wants whether Israel is entitled to it or not, Israel made a number of concessions. If the standard is what Israel is entitled to under international law and what the Palestinians are entitled to under international law; Only the Palestinians made concessions and Israel made exactly ZERO concessions.

And in spite of what has been said, the only reliable record of discussions at Taba are the European Union notes known as the "Moratinos Document". Both sides agree that this is an accurate picture of what happened. No one disputes this. And as Akiva Eldar of Haaretz points out in the very first release of the E.U. notes on 14 February 2002, "It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out." link to Moratnos documents: http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html
______-

The whole impression that somehow Arafat and the Palestinian delegation are to blame simply does not hold up to the record. Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate and nonpartisan. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University of Connecticut:

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/pressman.pdf

For a somewhat less dispassionate but highly erudite and fastidiously documented record of what happened here is Norman Finkelstein's critique of the Dennis Ross account: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=989

"It is not immediately obvious why a standard of rights reached by broad international consensus and codified in international law is more "subjective" than a standard of needs on which there is neither consensus nor codification. On the issues at hand at Camp David, the standard of rights was notably uncontroversial in international law. Although Ross asserts as a flaw of the rights standard that the respective parties typically disagree on it, this was not the problem during these negotiations. Clinton did not want to hear about UN resolutions and international law, but not because they lacked clarity. Israeli and U.S. negotiators fumed at any mention of rights because they knew exactly where such talk would lead.

What is most peculiar about Ross's argument is his apparent belief that his personal adjudication is less arbitrary than reference to a consensual body of laws. Leaving aside the strange premise that the transitory opinion of one should count for more than the received opinion of many, it is unclear what qualifies Ross for the role of philosopher-king.<19> On a professional level, his insights on the art of diplomacy will probably not make their way into a textbook,<20> while his lengthy affiliation with a think-tank created by the Israel lobby would seem to cast doubt on his claim to objectivity.

It is his wholesale dismissal of Palestinian needs that ultimately enables Ross to prove Palestinian culpability for Camp David's failure. Regarding the Palestinian state's eastern border, Ross delineated on day one of the Camp David summit that Palestinians had only "symbolic needs" whereas Israel had "very real and legitimate . . . concerns about security" (p. 655).<21> Regarding Jerusalem, Ross reasoned on day six of Camp David that, basically, Palestinians needed a token to recoup their losses, such as having an American embassy in a village abutting the city, so that they could pretend Jerusalem was their capital: "That would be a big symbol for Arafat. I said in addition the President could lead an international delegation that Arafat could host and take to the Haram, again symbolizing for the world, especially the Arab world, Palestinian control" (pp. 681–82). Regarding land, Palestinians did not need full compensation for the territory Israel coveted. Inasmuch as Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on earth, and inasmuch as one aspect of the solution to the refugee problem was that Palestinians would return to the Palestinian state (but not Israel), one might have supposed that Palestinians might need, at a bare minimum, full territorial compensation. But Ross decided otherwise when formulating the Clinton Parameters: "I felt strongly about 6 to 7 percent annexation and I was not prepared to lower the ceiling. Nor was I prepared to introduce the idea of an equivalent swap" (p. 726).<22> When even Israeli negotiators proposed a smaller percentage of Israeli annexation, Ross reports being "furious"—which gives some sense of his nonpartisan tallying of Palestinian needs (pp. 748–9).<23> On the specific matter of land swaps, Ross had proposed on the eve of the Camp David summit that Israel "symbolically" exchange territory "as a way to provide the Palestinians with an explanation for the modification of borders" (p. 639). Regarding the refugees, too, Ross consistently maintained that Palestinians had only "symbolic needs" as against "Israel's practical needs" (pp. 655, 726).<24>

Judging from Ross's account, Camp David failed because Palestinians stubbornly clung to the illusion that they had real needs. Had they understood that all they really needed was symbols, Palestinians would have leapt at the generous Israeli offer.<25> The root of the problem, again, appears to be that Palestinian "sense of entitlement": Camp David might have succeeded if only Palestinians grasped that they aren't real, actual human beings. "

link to full article:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=989

.

[oberliner]

21. Camp David failed because Arafat refused to put forward proposals of his own

That is what Ben-Ami said his interview with Ha'aretz that I cited for you above.

There are sources beyond the exchange with Norman Finkelstein that I would urge you to read.

He makes it clear in numerous interviews that he had many quarrels with Arafat that were related to Camp David.

I would encourage you to check out his most recent book, Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy, if you'd like to get a fuller understanding of his perception of Arafat, Camp David, and the peace process in general (as well as his take on the history of the conflict)

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. I have the book. in fact it is setting next to me right now...

what Mr. Ben-Ami has said is that he would have rejected the Camp David offer as well. He made that absolutely clear in his debate with Dr. Finkelstein. He has indicated in his debate that he did not feel that the Palestinians had a workable offer until after the release of the Clinton Parameters on December 23, 2000.

Whether or not Mr. Arafat had a good negotiating style is not the issue. The issue is that the offers being presented were not even close to acceptability until after the release of the Clinton parameters and the Taba talks.

Just glancing quickly at the book since its been several months since I read it, I find that Mr Ben-Ami puts relatively little emphasis on Camp David and again acknowledges that he Palestinians only had a plausible discussion of an offer after at the end of December 2000 and at Taba just weeks before the election. The European Union notes are confirmed by all sides as an accurate picture of the Taba talks. link: http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

And again by this time the election was only a few weeks away and polls showing Mr. Sharon leading by 16% to 20%. And Mr. Sharon was making it cathegorically clear that he would not accept any treaty from the outgoing government:

link: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/28/mideast.01/index.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

[oberliner]

24. Ben-Ami "Camp David was a reasonable deal."

From a PBS interview in 2000:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec00/land.html

He clearly has issues with Arafat beyond his "negotiating style".

He says earlier in this interview that Arafat is "trading with the blood of his people in order to reach his political objective"

[Douglas Carpenter]

26. well he still said -- and -- anyone is welcome to listen to his voice online right now

on Windows Media/mp3

that if he had been a Palestinian he would not have accepted the Camp David 2000 offer.

left click to listen online or right click and press "save target as" to download:

http://www.archive.org/download/dn-finkelstein-benami/dn-finkelstein-benami_64kb.mp3

Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami debates Norman Finkelstein-

-listen/watch/or read transcript:

http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

Also on page 270 of Scars of War Wounds of Peace, "Admittedly, however, Camp David might not have been the deal the Palestinians could have accepted"

He puts the entire emphasis on what happened at Taba.

The European Union notes are confirmed by all sides as an accurate picture of the Taba talks. link: http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

And again by this time the election was only a few weeks away and polls showing Mr. Sharon leading by 16% to 20%. And Mr. Sharon was making it cathegorically clear that he would not under any circumstances accept any treaty from the outgoing government:

link:

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/28/mideast.01/index.html

.

[breakaleg]

27. This was very well said.

"If the standard is everything Israel wants whether Israel is entitled to it or not, Israel made a number of concessions. If the standard is what Israel is entitled to under international law and what the Palestinians are entitled to under international law; Only the Palestinians made concessions and Israel made exactly ZERO concessions."

It all depends on your perspective.

[richards1052]

30. Camp David is past history

Is yr pt. that because this particular peace attempt (Camp David) failed that all will fail onnward into the future? If so, that's an interesting but untested hypothesis that I would reject out of hand.

[Douglas Carpenter]

12. very interesting poll

"58% of Jews and 59% of Arabs said they would be more likely to support a Presidential candidate who supported peace negotiations between Israel and Syria.

81% of Jews and 84% of Arabs support Israeli-Syrian negotiations.

89% of Jews and 92% of Arabs believe it is important for both communities to work together for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

65% of Jews and 89% of Arabs believe it is imperative to end the Israeli Occupation.

63% of Jews and 77% of Arabs believe in a settlement freeze.

70% of Jews and 82% of Arabs support the Arab League initiative."

link: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/category/mideast-peace/

.

[Tom Joad]

16. Same Dems supporting privatization of Iraqi Oil. Same Dems who

gave Bush his funding for the war. same Dems who voted for the Iraq War Resolution.
But we already knew that Dems in Congress can make major mistakes, didn't we.

[number6]

29. REAL Dems SUPPORT Israel

like Joe Lieberman

[Tom Joad]

15. On this issue, they rock to the music of aipac, and not common sense

www.StopAIPAC.org

[oberliner]

18. Interesting to be on the side of Bush and not the Democrats

Memorandum for the Secretary of State
Presidential Determination
No. 2007-21

SUBJECT: Suspension of Limitations Under the Jerusalem Embassy Act

Pursuant to the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 7(a) of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (Public Law 104 45) (the "Act"), I hereby determine that it is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States to suspend for a period of 6 months the limitations set forth in sections 3(b) and 7(b) of the Act. My Administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our Embassy to Jerusalem.

You are hereby authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress, accompanied by a report in accordance with section 7(a) of the Act, and to publish the determination in the Federal Register.

This suspension shall take effect after transmission of this determination and report to the Congress.

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070601-25.html

Rocking to the music of Saudi Arabia perhaps?

[Tom Joad]

19. Clinton did not move the embassy either. This is just a game congress plays

with aipac.
they probably know a President is not going to risk international fallout by moving the embassy, but Congress does this resolution thing about Jerusalem time and time again.

By the way, this is a big issue for the organized Christian Right/Fascist groups. Hagee, Pat Robertson, and the dead Falwell all championed this issue, along with aipac. So this is part of the consideration of congress also... it's always nice not to antagonize any group... even one that does not support you... if you can help it.

[oberliner]

23. The Israeli occupation is a big issue for white supremacist groups

Which is just as relevant as mentioning that the location of the embassy is a big issue for the Christian Right.

Lots of strange alliances in this conflict.

There are some really nasty people promoting either side of various I/P issues for less-than-admirable reasons.

[Tom Joad]

28. This is sadly true. But what White Supremicists say is very much

unlike most groups working to end the occupation are saying. You won't see David Duke/Pat Buchannan on the platform this week in Washington DC. http://endtheoccupation.org/ Because that coalition rejects their politics of hate and exclusion. That is not to say that there won't be lone nuts walking among the crowd this Sunday, but the coalition as a whole, and its supporters oppose such views.

It goes with just about any issue. Some of the most thoughtful people in America may support space exploration and NASA, but also among supporters of space exploration in America you might have people who think Martians invaded Roswell, NM or others who are still convinced that War of the Worlds was an actual newscast.

aipac, tragically, has embraced Hagee, to the consternation of many, including those who otherwise would support much of aipac's views. Hagee was not just a lone-nut walking among the crowd of aipac supporters with his extremist views, he was on the platform with the approval of the aipac and adl leadership.

[oberliner]

31. The politics of hate and exclusion

One of the people scheduled to speak at the rally is Ronnie Kasrils. He recently gave a speech to the South African parliament on the 40th anniversary of the 1967 war.

Some highlights:

"Fortress Israel, a militarist aggressive state, defends a stolen land that belonged to another people."

"Therein lies the fundamental cause of the conflict -- lest anyone remains unclear. It stems from the Zionist world view -- its belief in a perpetual anti-Semitism that requires that Jewish people around the world -- a faith group -- should have a national home of their own."

Much of the rest of the speech involves cherry-picking out of context quotations to support his assertion that Israel was the aggressor in the 1967 war and was not acting in self-defense. (And some other selective quotes regarding Zionism generally)

I don't know that I share your confidence that there will be no hate or exclusion coming from any of the speakers at that rally.

I guess it depends on what your definitions of hate and exclusion are.

[bemildred]

25. Tsk, I thought the Congress wasn't supposed to meddle in foreign affairs. nt