It's actually the ARAB initiative, endorsed by the entire Arab League. And it goes back to the Rabat Plan in 1981 — and was most recently repeated in 2002.

You won that.

Although I don't believe in ascribing morals and ethics to any particular religious or ethnic indentity as you have alluded to about Jewish tradition, I am awarding you personally 100% on your just plain universal humanity.

I think you dealt with this question far too trivially given the importance that the phrase has in works that you site as admiring (Walt/Mearsheimer).

It is an IMPORTANT question to clarify.

My sense of the reasoning that Walt/Mearsheimer inferred that supporting Israel in the manner that the US does, conflicts with the US interests for peace in the region as a means to secure the continued flow of oil.

The neo-cons adopted similar rationale, but with different proposed means.

My sense of "interest" for New England is VERY different than the sense of "interest" for Texas. For example, in my region it is more local to trade with Quebec than it is to trade with Texas. It is more MY COMMUNITY, even as New England and Texas are both in the United States.

In New England, we need fuel to heat (or better yet, insulation to not need fuel), while in Texas they need fuel to cool.

There was a book published in the late 70's "The Nine Nations of North America", whose title rings true to me.

I suggested that the questions each deserved much fuller discussion.

I'm surprised that you trivialized them by your pat summary.

Having seen many of your comments, I'd personally be interested to know whether you agree that it is in America's interests to oppose apartheid in Palestine. And if so, why do you think we haven't done it (by holding back aid, refusing to use our UN veto, etc.)?

I think you DON'T KNOW in fact, how or why the dollar votes that Jewish philanthropists (big and small) are expended, and it would take research to find out.

My mother for example donates significantly to Jewish service efforts, and barely to political. (Hadassah hospital, Hebrew University, scholarship programs.) I'm SURE her donations are typical.

If you are speaking of a few, or more accurately, the exception, then that would make an excellent point, in fact consistent with your thesis, but without the generalization.

The generalization is what offends. It offends me. It offends other Jews.

Even if it is true that there is indifference to Arab humanity among your parents generation why do you think that is?

My sense is that it takes intentional effort to break prejudices, actually rational fears in the circumstances. But, what breaks prejudices is NOT political browbeating.

Two things have done it for me. That is hearing candidly of a few individuals experiences in non-polemic terms, and study.

Even on race, many in my family expressed what I considered to be idiotic generalizations, but ALWAYS black individuals that they actually made some contact with were accepted, admired even, and not just Barak Obama.

Maybe its you and I that have not done our homework.

For example, when the discussion on the Columbia exhibit was in swing, it seemed obvious to me that the nakba was presented as a polemic, not as information.

And, the presenters (and you) FAILED to consider the work of educating as a sober responsibility to accomplish respectfully, instead blaming the ignorant for hearing what they wanted to hear (when we all do).

I think it is in the human interest to support peace, to enhance the lives of BOTH the Israeli community AND the Palestinian.

I think the current US administration was grossly remiss in accepting the settlement blocs as functionally annexed by Israel, and in not more assertively twisting Israel's arms to oppose Palestinian house and grove demolitions, and to oppose the authorizations to build further in East Jerusalem (even during the negotiation for peace).

I think Bush and Cheney comprise the most corrupt and negligent administration in my lifetime.

SOCIAL ISSUES: Poverty, education, health care, social safety net, environment.

When is AIPAC considered important? When Israel is perceived as under attack.

When is AIPAC very secondary? When Israel is perceived as at peace. (not now)

All of the question revolve around Phil's asserted concerns.

If he doesn't consider a more thorough inquiry as worth his time, then he deserves criticism.

The point is, were there OTHER critical reasons and pressures. If the Israel Lobby was one of many, why not analyze and describe the many, and in some sense of proportion.

If other concerns were the weight of argument, and Bush's weight of acceptance of the argument, then they should be articulated clearly and assertively.

If we're going to learn from this mistake, then lets actually learn, rather than repeat self-talk.

The "No More War for Israel" language exagerates the importance of the neo-conservative involvement to the level of persecution in word.

BOTH neo and old con's advocated for the invasion in Congress, and continue to.

McCain supported the war originally and continues to. Even Barr just started opposing the war.

At day one, I opposed the war vigorously. I opposed every reasoning that I encountered.

I think you should interrogate them Phil. I think you should interrogate them specifically, their specific arguments, and not carelessly refer to Jews in general.

So, you can actually oppose the arguments, rather than bury liberals for not doing YOUR adopted work sufficiently.

"Liberals are complicit". That is the tweedle-dee, tweedle-dum argument. Its a bullshit approach. EVERY committed political activist in EVERY field, gets frustrated to the bone as to why others aren't as motivated or as pure as they.

The effective ones find attitudes that enable them to know and pursue their goal, rather than their irritation.