On throwing, and getting thrown, under a bus.

Mitt Romney had strong opinions about Obama's speech about (and to?) the Middle East.  Nor was he alone.  The stars of the Republican firmament lined up to deride the president's appalling betrayal of such a beloved ally.  But did the Arab world erupt in celebration of this slap in Israel's face?  No.  It yawned.

That's because Obama hardly said anything new.  The speech was a much-needed clarification of his oft-murky policy, and it even inspired.  But it merely gave voice (albeit a very important official voice) to things everyone already knows about the conflict and its presumed resolution.  The temperature of the Republican response indicates the strength of the American (or at least conservative) public's attachment to Israel.  In an election season, everyone wants to be seen as the most hyperbolic clamorer for America's commitment to Israel's specialness.

I love Israel's specialness.  That sounds snarky, but I don't mean it to.  I sincerely regard it as a special place; I would love to go there someday; and I in no way intend for any of my comments in this post or ever to smell even remotely like anti-Semitism.

But that special place, given its current leaders' actions, is also a national security liability to the United States.  As Israeli governments obstruct Palestinian statehood, they sharpen one of the most powerful recruiting tools available to terrorist organizations who target the United States and its citizens.  I don't pretend that the occupation of the Palestinian territories is the cause of terrorism.  I think it has a lot more to do with widespread systemic failures in the Arab world, notably in education and corruption.  But in the volatile mix of the Middle East's many problems, Palestine acts as a catalyst for extremism-- and more particularly, for the direction of that extremism against the United States.  Why not do everything we can to take that catalyst out of the mix?

Right now I'm not even talking about the justice or morality or predestination of either camp's position.  I'm not even advocating any particular final solution.  At the risk of oversimplifying, I'm talking about American lives.  As long as terrorism exists, Americans at home and abroad will be targets of it.  As long as the Palestinian territories are occupied, there will be more terrorism.  As long as the peace process stalls, the Palestinian territories will be occupied.  It is in the interests of American lives to remove obstacles to the peace process.

Which are legion.  One is Hamas's refusal to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.  One is Israel's refusal to allow Palestinan refugees to return to their homes.  One is the corruption and division within the Palestinian Authority.  There is probably no end to this list, and over most of these things on it we as Americans have little or no control.

But one of the biggest roadblocks to the peace process is continued settlement construction in the West Bank.  While Israeli governments bless the developers building new Jewish suburbs of East Jerusalem -- on land the Palestinians expect to become part of their country someday -- the Palestinians have trouble seeing them as sincere negotiators.  Stopping construction would deprive the naysayers in the Palestinian camp of one more excuse for their reticence.  Meanwhile, I don't see how the construction of new Israeli settlements in the West Bank makes America safer (if you can, let me know; I'm interested to hear it), and I can think of a lot of ways it hurts us.  The benefits to pressuring Israel to stop settlement construction seem to far outweigh the costs.

You might be saying we have little control over where the Israelis build settlements, and you might be right right.  But we send an awful lot of money to them every year, and we could conceivably specify that some of those dollars will only flow to an Israel that only builds within its own borders.  Maybe Israel would decide they value their new settlements more than American money, and it wouldn't work.  But I haven't even heard anyone propose that we try.

Why is there no politician urging us to make at least some of the aid we send to Israel conditional on the halting of settlement construction?  I'm not even talking about demolition, much less any kind of abandonment of the special relationship we have with Israel.  Just Stop Building New Settlements. We are still committed to Israel's existence and security, that I don't question; but I hope we are not committed to (or bound by) their caprices, especially when they undermine our own security.   I'm mostly looking at you, GOP: your irrational and exclusive obsession with Israel runs counter to your much-vaunted national security pedigree -- heck, call it a spending cut; that's pretty popular right now.  I haven't even heard any Democrats propose any kind of substantive pressure on Israel either.  Can we make this a conversation?  Or does AIPAC money talk louder than American lives?