Why are we letting Bush sell out on Israel?
Can someone please explain to me how in the world American Jewry is allowing this misguided loyalty to the drunken cowboy cloud their judgement? There is absolutely no reason why any self respecting Diaspora jew who supports Israel – no matter their political affiliation to not be able to reasonably expect that the Palestinian leader comply with the basic conditions which were promised to at the onset of his own process for peace. It is not unreasonable to expect that basic commitments be adhered to as a condition for accepting a massive donation of funds.
Yet for some reason, President Bush seems to have the support of American Jews for a free gift of our tax paying money to the tune of 350 million dollars to man who has a doctorate in holocaust denial. We cannot afford to make the same mistake again, the consequences will be worse than before. Dont blame it on Sharon, (that excuse didnt work when Clinton took orders from Rabin and Peres). Don’t tell me Kerry or Gore would do the same or worse. This isn’t about partisan politics – it is about basic logic. Ultra conservatives like Mort Klein of the ZOA are against aid without compliance. What happened to all those people who professed to be such conservative supporters of “Israel’s Best Friend” now that he is selling you out? Where are the letter writing campaigns to the congressmen? Where are the rallies? Why is the RJC wasting their time running an irrelevant smear campaign telling everyone how bad Howard Dean is and linking him to terrorists? Does this help the global Jewish agenda? I await any intelligent responses that can explain this phenomenon of blind superficial stupidity.
Shocking as it may seem, an American President has to operate in the interests of America. What are those interests in the Middle East? Condensing decades of foreign policy thought, those interests are both (a) protecting the small, reliable democratic state and (b) not making hundreds of millions of Arabs, some of whom are sitting on major oil reserves, any angrier with the US than necessary. How can these both be accomplished? (a) lots of aspirin and (b) by giving lots of lip service to the Arabs along with token gestures of support while supporting Israel when it counts. This has more or less been American policy going back at least to the 60’s (with the probable exception of the Carter Administration). I think, more or less, that the US gets it right with this policy.
So any move by Bush must be seen in this context, and in the context of the full range of Bush policy toward Israel. Although I don’t like the money transfer either, it seems pretty churlish to start implying that one move in favor of the Palestinians means Bush is not a strong supporter of Israel.
Drunken cowboy? If so, you lefties have been outsmarted and outdone by one. As Lincoln said when told disapprovingly of General Grant’s heavy drinking habits, “find out what Grant drinks — and order a case for all my other generals”.
No one used that logic as justification when the previous president made this mistake the first time.
I did not say the move in favor of the Palestinians means Bush does not support Israel – I said his UNCONDITIONAL move in their favor is. There should be give and take here – basic fulfillment of some basic unlept promises, before forking over the cash.
What? Bush should not make an unconditional gesture towards the Palestinians? Why not? Sharon sure did!
I wish Bush would apply his own doctrine to the Palestinians instead of propping up Abbas, who just today okayed “collaborator” executions. To use Sharansky’s logic, unless the Palestinians live in a free society and not a fear society, there will not be peace. We might have a cease fire here and there, even some temporary security, but there will not be peace.
Bottom line: The Palestinian Authority needs to go the way of the Baath party.
(I’m at Hebrew U for the year. Follow my travels at http://www.danielpaulrubenstein.com)
Sharon is not the president of the united states – he is a father with a gun to his head while his children are getting killed who will do anything to make it stop.
J,
Forget the blog, when you write that first book, let me know, ok?
We just can’t all be as smart as you i guess. I’m sorry. Please be patient with the feebleminded and the intellectually challenged. Anyone wanna play yahtzee?
i’m glad you think this is funny – i think it is tragically sad.
The Town Crier’s basic point is solid.
To make this simpler, the right wing in Israel is not holding back its criticism of Sharon for the recent steps he has taken (eg: prep to withdraw from Gaza, prisoner release, etc…). So why are American supporters of Bush and Israel silent? Do they actually trust Abbas, despite his previous rhetoric? Or are they giving their man (Bush) a pass? And if so, is it deserved, or are conservatives simply embarassed that they man they called Israel’s best friend has turned his back on Israel now that they election is over?
J – Israeli conservatives claim (churlishly, i suppose) that Sharon doesn’t care the settlers, despite decades burnishing his right-wing credentials. So, why arem’t American conservatives being similarly churlish? The restraint is, you must admit, a bit out of character…
Um– how’s this? The Israeli government has indicated that they sense a sea change in the PA. Somehow I don’t think the Sharon crew would be snapping up rose-colored glasses at the first chance, so I’ll say there’s some credibility there. This is not Yasser’s PA, and there is reason to believe that things are different now.
Next, Bush and his posse have generally collaborated with Israel very closely. So I’m guessing the $350 million pledge was made after consulting the Israelis– has anyone seen any Israeli gov’t statements condemning the $$? If so, let me know…
Last, much of the pledge is in the form of training and other sustained support– meaning, it’s not a lump sum. If the Palestinians mess it up, I’m sure Bushy will nullify the allowance.
Again, none of those excuses worked when Clinton was asked to host that handshake on the White House Lawn. This is indeed Arafat’s PA – have we all forgotten that this is not Abbas’s first term as PM? What about all the road map violations? Why is it ignored?
You right, its not Arafat’s, it is worse.
350 of Israel’s most wanted known terrorists have just been appointed by abbas to the PA security forces.
Oh and one other thing – you think Israel is going to express its opinon one way or the other about how they feel about the Palestinian aid? Yeah sure, that would look really good on their part to the enemy / peace partner.
Don’t forget, Bush promises money and after the publicity dies down, he never delivers.. remember his African AIDS initiative? His Mars mission?
I saw Dr. Rice lay a wreath at yad vashem and then a few hours later pose for a photo op with Dr. of Holocaust denial Abbas and a portrait of Arafat.
could be sharon senses he is in a strategic position to get palis of his plate for now to focus on iran. israel has nothing to lose vis-a-vis the palis by sharon’s current moves. it’s america’s $350 million, and the palis have shot their wad for the next 5-10 years before the next intifada. who gives a sh*t whether abbas denies the holocaust?
then again, i like playing yahtzee. i went bowling last night too. go figure.
I feel bad for any of you poor saps who think they can make a difference by giving a crap about world politics. Governments will be run by the people in power and nothing anyone does can influence the minds of the people in power, whoeverthey may be. Arguing about opinions and taking sides basically gets you nowhere. If Bush gives money to Holocaust deniers, he will and has reason for it. Nothing can change that.
Bottom Line: If the Israelis themselves don’t speak with one voice about the Palestinians, why should the Americans be “holier than the Pope” – to strain a cliche.
As others here have noted, Bush is President of the United States, and is looking out for the interests of the USA. And Israel was created – no, not so that the world will finally *like* Jews (sorry, lefties) – it was created so that the Jews could further their own self-interests, with guns and geopolitical statecraft and all the tools of sovereignty denied them for 2000 years.
It is a given in the geopolitical schoolyard that nobody is going to look out for your own interests more vigorously than you yourself. If the Israelis are still unable to project clear rejection of Oslovian fantasies (including the dubious, newly minted Palestinian national identity) – why should any other state stick out its neck more than the DIBs themselves? And what on earth are American Jews supposed to do in such a situation?
It’s very nice that Bush’s analysis and plans for this region jibe with Israeli interest – but the Americans are looking out for America. If Israelis give any indication that they can be squeezed – they will be. This isn’t a love-in or “sensitivity training” – it’s a geopolitical conflict. Remember?
It is NOT Arafat’s PA. Yes I remember Abu Mazen’s first term as PM. It was short lived, because he couldn’t convince Arafat to take any steps towards peace. He is now PRESIDENT, not PM– Abu Ala (Quoreia) is PM. Man, Bush made that same mistake recently… it was pathetic.
Your argument is useless, Crier. If you can’t get the facts straight, there is no point. The *rightwing* Israeli government is talking about a sea change– why do you think you know Abu Mazen better than they do? you think Sharon doesn’t know that Abu Mazen denied the Holocaust? he knows, and he STILL sees a sea change. Your arrogance here is quite unnerving– have some faith in Israel’s elected leaders and let them do their job.
My question wasnt about the Israeli government, and unlike many people who were so happy sharon was elected and now want to see him go away, I have faith in the israeli government – my question was and is regarding american jewish support for president bush’s proposal for an unconditional aid to the pa. President, Chairman, PM – whatever the hell. If it looks like a terrorist…
Sharon has no choice, Bush Does. My argument is not useless by an means – its a simple question of logic, what is wrong with giving them additional aid on condition that they uphold their word in their own agreements?
Town Crier says “No one used that logic as justification when the previous president made this mistake the first time.”
I don’t think that’s factually true. Most right-leaning anti-Oslo supporters of Israel (like myself), who despised Clinton (like myself, double) placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of Rabin and Peres and their supporters. Passing up a criticism of Clinton was no small thing. (I did blame Clinton for his role in the ‘peace process’ toward the end of his term, though.)
Incite says “To make this simpler, the right wing in Israel is not holding back its criticism of Sharon for the recent steps he has taken (eg: prep to withdraw from Gaza, prisoner release, etc…). So why are American supporters of Bush and Israel silent? Do they actually trust Abbas, despite his previous rhetoric? Or are they giving their man (Bush) a pass? And if so, is it deserved, or are conservatives simply embarassed that they man they called Israel’s best friend has turned his back on Israel now that they election is over? ”
It’s a question of magnitude. The Gaza pullout is a major development and will set the tone of Israeli policy for years to come. Aid money to Palestinians from the US is relatively minor. Taken in context with the entire spectrum of Bush policy toward Israel (and bearing in mind what I said in my earlier post), saying things like “turning his back” and “selling out” are overblown, inflammatory, and can only lead to the people who say such things being thought of as people who are impossible to please. So I’m asking all supporters of Israel – liberal, centrist, conservative, Israeli, American – don’t be those people. (By the way, although I’m against the Gaza pullout, I find much of the right-wing rhetoric against Sharon to be overdone and unfair.)
“The restraint is, you must admit, a bit out of character…”
Not anymore. I think the conservative movement has matured greatly over the last 25 years.
An anonymous cynic writes “I feel bad for any of you poor saps who think they can make a difference by giving a crap about world politics. Governments will be run by the people in power and nothing anyone does can influence the minds of the people in power, whoeverthey may be. Arguing about opinions and taking sides basically gets you nowhere. If Bush gives money to Holocaust deniers, he will and has reason for it. Nothing can change that.”
I guess if two heart-stoppingly close elections (at least electorally, in the case of the second) can’t convince you, nothing will.
I agree largely with Ben-David, except that he takes more of a realpolitic view of American foreign policy than I would. I think actual policy under Bush is a mixture of realpolitic AND a genuine concern for Israel. How these two strains combine makes the subject confusing and fascinating.
Thanks, Shtreimel.
I
The Town Crier,
Your point is about American Jews? If our past is any indication don’t hold your breath…
Let me answer both you and those who think America cares about Israel together.
Firstly, J and Ben-david are correct. America doesn’t care about Israel. America cares about America period. Its called national interest. America’s goal is that no country become too powerful. Yes currently they want Israel to be there to stop arab and muslim growth and power in the region. At the same time they don’t want Israel to become too powerful.
Take a look at how America operates. By the Iran Iraq war america gave aid and arms to Iraq in order to keep the war going and keep Iran down. They didn’t want any one of them to really win and to dominate. Now that Iraq was becoming more powerful and threatening they went into Iraq. America gave arms to afghanistan to fight the russians so that russia would not get too strong. America steped in with vietnam and korea…there are numerous other examples. England acts in the same way.
You really think America cares about jews? Let me give you a little history lesson-what my grandfather told me…..
He told me that his father would spit at a picture of Roosvelt the “darling” of American Jews.
During WWII in the late 40’s a contingent of Jews met with Roosvelt and begged him to bomb the tracks going to the death camps. America was in the region with bases only a few miles away tens of thousands of Jews would have been saved.
Roosvelt told the contingent: No and don’t publicize this and make a ruckus because if you do people will say that we are fighting this war for the Jews.
Can you imagine that!! He scared them with the fear of american anti-semitism! So the Jews went home and did not make a ruckus and the trains continued to roll…
We jews here were scared to take action because of possible anti-semitism while our brother where being slaughtered! Ponder that.
Do you know about the st Louis boat full of Jews that was right off the coust of Florida and was sent back by America to their slaughter in Europe?
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005267
Town Crier, Did Jews take to the streets then??!!
What about more recently when jews were stuck in Russia and forcibly ripped away from their tradition did American Jews cry out then?!
No in fact they villified those who did like….you got it, Meir Kahane and the Jewish Defense League in the 60’s and 70’s.
Why did they villify? because they were scared that Jews would get a bad name through noisy action. Again as in WWII they put their own comfort above their caring about Jews in other places…
Don’t hold your breath…
America only cares about its own interests – if supporting Israel or Jews happen to overlap with that we luck out- otherwise … we are just out of luck…
We have to learn from our bitter past NEVER to rely on America or anyone else.
And sadly, I almost cry as I say this, Jews are always worried about their own personal comfort and their not wanting to be seen as anti the policies of whatever country they are in. -It always takes precedence over their brothers plight in other places.
J –
I agree with you re the relative weight of the pullout vs the $350 million. and perhaps conservatives’ silence is a sign of maturity. but it begs the larger question: is bush a true friend of Jewish conservatives, many of whom don’t appreciate US engagement in Israel b/c it usually amounts to pressure on Israel, don’t trust Abbas or any other important Palestinian leader, don’t believe in Palestinian statehood, etc…?
the $350 million may not be worth picking a fight over, but is it just the tip of the iceburg, a shift toward a more “evenhanded” approach, to use Dean’s now notorious comment?
or, do you think the $350 million doesn’t really represent a new Bush admin. approach, given his open support for Palestinian statehood and periodic pressure on Israel (eg: the fence/wall). the only difference is that now arafat is gone, so he can move beyond rhetorical support to financial support for palestinian statehood?
Joe Schmo:
I noticed that your post came in right after mine, so you weren’t able to see that in fact I DO NOT think that America doesn’t care about Israel. In fact I think there a great many Americans who favor Israel, and I think Bush and many members of his administration do genuinely care. Of course, at the same time they are obliged to put America first and are charged – legally and morally – to look out for America’s interests. But instead of viewing America’s realpolitic actions as some departure from expected behavior, why not acknowledge that the vast majority of countries (and individuals) in the past and present operate(d) exclusively based on self-interest, while America, to its great credit, is different in that at least some of its efforts are based in morality?
“At the same time they don’t want Israel to become too powerful. ”
I seriously doubt that anyone thinks Israel could be a serious rival to American power. Look at population, land, GDP – it’s like a strawweight and a heavyweight. No matter how skilled the strawweight is as a fighter, he’s never getting in the ring with a heavyweight.
Your history lesson says a lot about America in the 1940’s. That was 60 years ago. And at that time, the idea that the people of one country should be very concerned with murders taking place in another was still in its early stages.
“And sadly, I almost cry as I say this, Jews are always worried about their own personal comfort and their not wanting to be seen as anti the policies of whatever country they are in. -It always takes precedence over their brothers plight in other places.”
I beg to differ. PEOPLE are always worried about their own personal comfort. Jews, however, although subject to the same desire for comfort as everyone else, sometimes (though not always) rise heroically to the occasion – think of centuries of Sephardic communities paying heavy ransom to pirates to free captured Ashkenazim; the assistance offered by various Jewish communities to Spanish expulsion refugees; the massive generosity of American Jews toward Israel; tiny, infant Israel taking in Sephardic refugees in its first three years in numbers equalling its original population (!); and many, many more examples.
You have to think of how awful people in general are before you can appreciate the greatness of Jews, the United States and Israel, among others.
Just agreeing with you, Town Crier. He’s our president, and one of his jobs is to be criticized when he doesn’t do the right thing — just like every president before him. He might mean well, but he’s not doing well.
Incite-
First, to clarify. I’m not necessarily against criticizing the money policy; I’m against expanding such criticism into a full-blown attack on Bush’s mid-east policy or Bush’s Presidency. It’s possible to vehemently oppose a specific policy while expressing gratitude respecting the overall approach. In this case, whether or not Israel advocacy groups should attack the money policy is a tactical question weighing the benefits of pressure against the money payment against the harm caused by alienating friends.
“is bush a true friend of Jewish conservatives, many of whom don’t appreciate US engagement in Israel b/c it usually amounts to pressure on Israel, don’t trust Abbas or any other important Palestinian leader, don’t believe in Palestinian statehood, etc…?”
I think Bush is a true friend in the sense that if he had things his way, he wouldn’t pressure Israel, etc. But as I explained above, no President ever gets to have it his own way. Politics is about cutting deals, making brutally hard choices, and trying to achieve objectives that often are at odds with each other.
“the $350 million may not be worth picking a fight over, but is it just the tip of the iceburg, a shift toward a more “evenhanded” approach, to use Dean’s now notorious comment?
or, do you think the $350 million doesn’t really represent a new Bush admin. approach, given his open support for Palestinian statehood and periodic pressure on Israel (eg: the fence/wall). the only difference is that now arafat is gone, so he can move beyond rhetorical support to financial support for palestinian statehood?”
I guess we’ll find out. My gut feeling, based on Bush’s previous actions, political orientation, past statements and the company he keeps is that the second term will be as pro-Israel as the first.
Remember Reagan’s AWACs sale to the Saudis? Yet now Reagan is recognized as one of Israel’s greatest supporters. I suggest that we look at these incidents as single games in the baseball season – in a given game your slugger may strike out three times and your ace may get shelled, but they can still make the All-Star team and help win the pennant.
J you are right. What I wrote has nothing to do with Bush specifically. It is the general concept that countries act on their self-interest. A country is not an individual. Individuals have friendships countries have self -interest. If israel is in Americas interest then Isreal is in luck- as soon as the situation changes we are out of luck. Its that simple.
You write that “And at that time, the idea that the people of one country should be very concerned with murders taking place in another was still in its early stages.”-what do yu mean?! The idea of saving peoples lives and caring is a new concept?!
People came and spoke face to face and pointed out simple ways of saving them. Not to turn away a boat full of people you know are going to their death is a new concept?
Roosvelt and America at that point simply didn’t care. That’s the bottom line.
Of course I don’t mean that Jews don’t think of their own comfort but other nations are selfless. Of course not! I know the Jews are much better in terms of selflessness than the average.
What you are saying about the Jews in the past and in Israel after the war is of course is true.
I really mean the average comfortable Jew nowadays. The ones who live in free countries that give them rights. Countries like the USA, England now and England in the early 1900’s. They who don’t want to rock the boat and take any chance with the freedom’s that they enjoy. Out of fear they have not in the past did all thy could to save Jews elsewhere. There is a well-known term “Anglophile” It was people living in England in the early 1900’s who always apologized for Engand even about their terrible policies vis a vis Jews. I’m sure you know about England’s turning Jewish refugee boats away during the holocaust when England controlled and colonized Israel before 48′.
I do understand our peoples greatness. Even now, though, we can’t be afraid of rocking the boat. We can’t be afraid of getting people upset at us for helping our brothers and sisters wherever they might be. We should remember our greatness and how we have stood up in the past. At the same time we have to recognize the recent past of the last 100 years and commit to ourselves that never again will we make that blunder of not doing all that we can even if we seem loud and un-american or un-any country that it might be.
“No in fact they villified those who did like….you got it, Meir Kahane and the Jewish Defense League in the 60’s and 70’s. ”
Kahane was the Jewish mirror image of a Muslim fundamentalist, Joe. He advocated that Israel become a theocracy governed by strict Jewish law and transfer out all Arabs. He also advocated terror to pursue these political goals. I don’t know how you can villify someone who is already that much of a villain.
Really Ben,
How much do you really know on the subject?
You mentioned three separate things that Rabbi Kahane advocated:
1. Transfer out all Arabs.
2. That Israel become a theocracy governed by strict Jewish law
3. Terror
1. Rabbi Kahane certainly advocated the transfer of arabs out of Israel for the very reasons and arguments I presented in these many posts. He was and is absolutely correct. There will be no peace in Israel so long as the arabs, who claim Israel to be their own, are removed. This is a fact based on history and logic.
2. A theocracy. Apparently Ben you are not religious Jew and you don’t fear G-d. I am and I do fear G-d. Rabbi Kahane was an Rabbi who learnt Torah maybe for you that’s a negative but for me its a positive.
If you consider G-d fearing Jews villians well that’s your problem- between you and the Almighty.
3. Terror? To what do you refer? is advocating the saving of my Jewish brothers and sisters from those who want to kill us terror?
hmmm I have an idea for you.
Why don’t you get accurate information. Instead of hearing things fourth hand I can give you books to read by Rabbi Kahane himself!
“They Must Go”, “Never Again”, “The story of the Jewish Defense League”, “Why be Jewish”…and more – all by Rabbi Meir Kahane.
If you are interested email me: [email protected]
Dear Joe Schmo,
You call yourself religious, yet you spit in the face of Jewish values like loving your neighbor as yourself, and not doing unto your fellow human that which you find undesireable.
You have skewed Jewish values to the max. Quit calling yourself religious– it embarasses me. Or better yet, start acting like a real religious Jew– one who values humanity and our sacred duty to perform tikkun olam.
Sincerely,
unless someone here actually took the time to read a book written by Kahane, I suggest you stop calling names. At least Kahane was proud to be a Jew, unlike Chomsky, etc.
Why does this have to be about Gaza pullout and villifying Sharon? i thouyght the topic here was about the support of american jews, who are proud to be single issue voters who can’t even get their issu straight. I agree with the notion that jews are looking for a way to justify their support for bush by putting a positive spin on his proposal, but it does make me wonder why he is not putting any pressure on the bad guys.
Ronen since there is no substance to what you say that is nothing for me to respond to. I do love my neighbors as myself and I would never do unto others what I think undesireable. I haven’t the foggiest idea what you are talking about.
Mazeartist thank you.
Bootyman, If your question is why Bush is not putting any pressure on the bad guys, it is because what both j and I wrote above.
Bush and America act for America’s self-interest. They want Israel to be there to counteract the growing arab and muslim threat to american interest. At the same time they don’t want to create too many enemies and they don’t mind if there is also a palestinian state. So they play the balancing act. That is exactly why we should never rely on America or any other nation to do what is best for Jews – becasue they think of themselves first.
If your quetion is why Jews don’t get more involved in protesting or taking any action, similar to the town criers question, look at the conversation above…
then i guess w. bush is not the great friend everyone makes him out to be.
Joe, You don’t have to read a book by Kahane to know that he advocated violence against Arabs and was a generally nasty guy. His supporters killed numerous innocents without condemnation, and often with over support, from the JDL, no doubt fueling the fires of anti-Semitism in addition to being morally outrageous. Are you suggesting that one would have to read Koranic interpretations and other writings by those who advocate suicide-bombing before speaking out against them?
And are you seriously suggesting that you would feel perfectly comfortable living under Jewish theocracy? Let the stonings begin, then, I guess…
http://life-of-rubin.blogspot.com/2005/02/geting-best-deal-possible-for-now.html
Ben I don’t know what you are talking about. If you have some specifics then we can talk. I can’t answer vague statements based on nothing.
My answer to you is that Rabbi Kahane was an extremely nice guy who put himself out to protect his Jewish brothers and sisters. The JDL saved numerous Jewish lives and did not kill numerous innocent people.
Yes Ben, you do have to read what ANYTHING to increase your knowledge. I strongly suggest that you do some learning and reading in addiiton to talking.
Maybe if you would read you would find out what rabbi Khane really advocated instead of the libelous nonsense you write here.
Joe, are you honestly trying to tell me that the JDL did not kill civilians and that all the historical accounts of the organization that I have read, including the Anti-Defamation League’s, are “libelous”? It is you who is making the vague and unfounded assertions around here.
Ben,
read the bible and study the oral law/talmud as well and then tell me how many millions, thousands, hundreds, dozens or even if any one was actually stoned, or had lava poured down there throats, or how many evil rebellious kids were killed too. Can anyone else give me a ballpark figure?
You seem new here, stick around, you might learn something about Judaism.
Known facts: a court that executed more than one person in seven years was categorized as cruel and investigated. Anyone who knows how detailed the circumstances required to actually apply capital punishment according to the Torah knows that it’s virtually impossible: two witnesses to the actual crime (absolutely no circumstantial evidence) who warned the perpetrator both of the prohibition and the punishment and who got a confirmation out of him/her before perpetrating the crime that he/she knows that it’s forbidden, punishable by death, and then does it anyways. It’s also known that the rabbis understood the case of the rebellious son to be merely hypothetical- it also has specific and elaborate details in order to be fulfilled, like eating a specific amount of raw meat and drinking a barrel of stolen wine, all in one sitting, or something like that- and was given as a mitzvah to scare rebellious kids. It never happened and never will.
VIVA LA THEOCRATICA!
How about discussing and agruing about the Bush administration to do something, we actually sign a petition or something…
I set up a petition to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, since it was supposed to have moved in 1999.
Hey Jo,
where is your petition? Since I probably will not look here again (too far down), email me the info email address a few posts above.