The views expressed represent his views.

He is NOT anti-Israel and he is not anti-Palestinian.

Even on the issue of "undivided Jerusalem", people have to remember that there are multiple meanings to that term being floated.

One is the expansionist view to regard all of Jerusalem's suburbs as "undivided Jersusalem". Another is to regard the areas of Jewish majority as "undivided Jerusalem".

And, there are proposals to retain Jerusalem undivided under joint jurisdiction.

All are contreversial, and he probably should have remained vague on the subject, rather than be forced to step into a mutually exclusive position, that yeilds doubt anyway.

Its not up to us anyway.

I'm agnostic on the subject. But let's reason by analogy. What if a (say) Korean-American blogger wrote that ten influential, wealthy Korean-Americans (including a couple of Anglo-American "friends of Korea") were in the catbird seat of Obama's campaign? We'd all be saying, "WTF are those Koreans up to? Is this Tongsun Park and Koreagate all over again, on a larger scale?" And it wouldn't be anti-Korean to ask — it would be a reasonable question under the circumstances.

How could such an evidently articulate and well-informed person as Rabbi Stone be so incredibly insular in his thinking? Maybe he should get out a little more often from his hermetic tribal enclave in Floriduhhhh.

Speaking of minyans, a visiting Canadian singer-songwriter (Fred Eaglesmith) was taunting us the other night for Americans' anachronistic attachment to the English system of measure. "If Jesus had wanted us to adopt the metric system, he would have had TEN apostles, eh?"

But I agree with everything else Sword has to say there– liberal journos like Phil and Richard Silverstein and liberal Israelis like Seth What's-his-name that writes for the Guardian make the mistake of assuming that Israel is utterly secure, with its 150 or however many Nukes. In reality, though, within the economy that we are entering now, having enormous petroleum-based military power counts for very little if you are having trouble fueling it. 150 nukes might allow you to destroy the world's remaining oil reserves, but whatever humans are left afterwards are not going to take kindly to such an action.

The fact is that the energy situation is going to be perilous for Israel– when Mofaz yesterday threatened Iran, the price of oil shot up 11 dollars.

What you saw with that price hike was not simply Wall Street voting no about such a strike, but rather the weakening of Wall Street. Prinarily, it was the rest of the world's investors giving Mofaz's plan a big veto. Simultaneously you got a 3 or 4 pt drop in the dollar. Again, international investors attempting to moderate US and Israeli extremism.

If oil goes up to $200 a barrel for one year, Saudi Arabia will easily be able to buy the BAnk of America, or if the US refused to allow them to do so, they could start their own bank, which would be even worse for the US financial industry in the long run.

Now lets imagine that Israel did attack Iran– oil would shoot up to 200$ a barrel or perhaps even 300$ a barrel in the space of a week while hostilities persisted. Who would get the blame for that?

In the years to come, all of us Americans are going to be living much more difficult existences– life is going to get tough like it has been for most of human existence, but one positive is that Israel will be forced to make deep, deep concessions to its enemies if it hopes to preserve anything remotely like what it has today.

One thing that has occurred to me is that Israel might be an unwitting pawn in a Western strategy to preserve access to middle east oil: We will give you back Palestine, relocate its interlopers to Brooklyn, and in return, you will give us first dibs on oil contracts so that we can continue to power our huge fleet of automobiles.

What is not up to "us" (Americans, I guess).

The "One Jerusalem" issue?

Has he moved closer to the network Jim Jobe monitors carefully?

http://www.onejerusalem.org/blog/index.asp

What do you think about the statement below?

http://southjerusalem.com/2008/06/05/obama-at-aipac-in-the-capital-of-nixonland/

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

… As a voter I support Obama. As a journalist, I’m obligated to point out how foolish those words were. They harm his ability to conduct negotiations as president. To achieve an agreement, he will have to introduce proposals he now says he opposes – thereby feeding the cynicism about politics he hopes to overcome.

There are no doubt must be strong ideological forces out there to lead a clever man like Obama to reductio ad absurdum. And please don't tell me he is not aware of it, in a secret corner of his mind.

Maybe we should all give up hope and wait for the little nukes falling on Esfahan.

I'd rather pay a fortune for oil, and solve our treason problem at home, than import the rest of the horde to our shores. Whatever claim we still have to being a nation with a common heritage would surely be lost after such a stupid move.

Also, if oil is a dwindling resource that becomes more costly as it is used up, does it make sense antagonize the suppliers, and fight wars with military machines that use massive amounts of the resource?

It is possible that Obama is more pampered than clever.