Negotiating with a foe means sitting down and talking with him – not setting up preconditions before even approaching the table. Israel has, for decades, excused its inexcusable behavior with the fabrication that it’s willing to bargain, but can’t because of the intractable nature of its opponents. The Israeli government knows that its big, stumblebum geopolitical bodyguard will back up any play it makes; there’s no need to negotiate with anyone.

Far from being America’s proxy in the Middle East, Israel uses American money and military power as a surrogate truncheon in the Arab world. Our domestic Israeli lobby would never, ever let our brave little ally – and their own fetish – to be pushed around by the United States. Any American politician suggests doing so at the risk of his own career.

Of course, this fairy tale becomes a convenient fiction when Israel hurls an entire country against the wall, as it did with Lebanon in 2006, to salve its frustration at rare battlefield fiascos. Yeah… it’s America’s fault; that whopper plays exclusively in this country, suckers that we are. In truth, we serve, not reap; the United States benefits nothing from its joined-at-the-hip relationship with Israel.

"Average" Israelis want out of this useless impasse because they are the ones who must live, every day, its unnerving, corrosive reality.

The truth can hurt. I totally agree.

The article is by Ali Abunimah on Electronic Intifada from last year....http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

Abunimah, a well known Arab-American activist actually met and spoke with Obama at Arab-American sponsored events. I think he makes the points that I have been trying to make on Obama far more eloquently (and rationally) please read:

"Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict....

"...But Obama's gradual shift into the AIPAC camp had begun as early as 2002 as he planned his move from small time Illinois politics to the national scene. In 2003, Forward reported on how he had "been courting the pro-Israel constituency." He co-sponsored an amendment to the Illinois Pension Code allowing the state of Illinois to lend money to the Israeli government. Among his early backers was Penny Pritzker -- now his national campaign finance chair -- scion of the liberal but staunchly Zionist family that owns the Hyatt hotel chain. (The Hyatt Regency hotel on Mount Scopus was built on land forcibly expropriated from Palestinian owners after Israel occupied East Jerusalem in 1967). He has also appointed several prominent pro-Israel advisors.

"If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico....

"...Only if enough people know what Obama and his competitors stand for, and organize to compel them to pay attention to their concerns can there be any hope of altering the disastrous course of US policy in the Middle East."

He's saying 'they' want to negotiate. While you're saying they're not even human and should probably be pushed into the sea.

So we stick to Haaretz which is further to the left than Salon even, and, they quote a survey that's from TAU which is even further to the left than Haaretz itself. I guess Mark Twain is in order here, lies, damned lies and statistics, etc.

In either case, what would they talk about? Hamas has already said it will never stop firing rockets into Israel. Never. So.....?

I AM an Israeli, a left-wing one, albeit one currently living in the US.

It's nice to see someone pointing out the distinction between Israelis, the people who actually have to live in the region and live with the results of far off political decisions and people in the US who pronounce themselves "pro-Israel".

I would just like to point out that much of the "pro-Israel" lobby has been taken over by evangelical Christians. While I would like to thank them for their tourist dollars, I would prefer NOT having someone whose ultimate goal is Armageddon (and the destruction of my people) to have too much control over the politics in the region.

Hamas has said they will never talk to Israel. Kind of puts a wrinkle in your plans, don't it?

Mystical Jewish mind/banking/media control black magic?

It's the bunny suits. Really. Extremists in bunny suits means they are all terrorists. Or anarchists. Or socialists.

There's going to be a lot of reactionary crap being aired here today, but please, intelligent Greenwald readers, stick to the substantives, not the crap and drivvel.

said he'd rather die than negotiate with Israel.

He also prefers stealing to working or going to school.

Yes, that's right---he's a Black Hamas member.

Small world!

But you can stop it from spreading to others, and you can encourage people to abandon it.

A lot of the good points made in this article remind me of a recent speech by Noam Chomsky, featured last night on Democracy Now.

I watched that. Isn't it amazing how successfully he has been declared persona non grata in our establishment press? I don't agree with him on everything by any means, but there are few people anywhere more articulate, intelligent, and knowledgable than he is -- and particularly who possess the faculties of critical thought that he does. And, of course, he revolutionized linguistics and social science theory.

But he's a fringe, loser freak who can't be heard from. Our geniuses instead are Tim Russert, Charles Krauthammer and Brian Williams. What else does one need to know?

I've wondered for some time whether: (a) Chomsky cares about how marginalized he is in the establishment press and whether he thinks it would be better if his views were more widely voiced and (b) he could have -- or should have -- done more to prevent that marginalization? I don't know the answers to either, but am interested in what others think about that.