Yasher Koach, Bibi, it looks like the White House has finally given up. For close to two years now, they've been hectoring you about a Palestinian state. First, they tried sticks: They worked to undermine you politically by letting Israelis know you didn't have the president's trust. Then they tried carrots: offering to double Israel's stock of advanced jet fighters, veto any critical resolutions at the U.N. and give you carte blanche to build in the West Bank if only you'd freeze settlements for another three months and use that time to talk seriously about the borders of a Palestinian state. But you held your ground. You made it clear that you'd pocket the planes and conduct a three-month filibuster. No way were you going to be bullied into the kind of final-status negotiations undertaken by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert. And so the Americans caved. They've dropped their demands for a settlement freeze. They've stopped trying to orchestrate direct talks. They've gone into a fetal position. Am Yisrael Chai!...[Regarding P-state recognition and boycotts:]
I know, I know. You consider all this unfair, and in some ways it is. But when you've been occupying another people for 43 years, confiscating more and more of their land and denying them citizenship while providing it to your own settlers, it doesn't do much good to insist that things are worse in Burma. Your only effective argument against the Elvis Costellos and Hannah Kings was that you were trying to end the occupation. That's where Obama came in. As long as the U.S. president seemed to have a chance of brokering a deal, his efforts held the boycotters and protesters and Palestinian state-recognizers at bay. When Brazil and Argentina recognized Palestinian independence, the American Jewish Committee's David Harris declared it "fundamentally unhelpful to the Arab-Israeli peace process." But what if there is no peace process? What's your argument then?More.