Chomsky’s point is well-taken. He argues that Obama not only goes along with prior presidents’ stances on the conflict but one-ups them by eviscerating the proposal of the Arab Peace Initiative that requires a 2-state settlement (which the world agrees on but that the US and Israel have blocked for more than 30 years).

He also makes a good point that *everyone* has the right to defend themselves, but the real issue is whether they have the right to defend themselves by use of force when peaceful alternatives are available, which he believes there are in this case (just like there were in the case of Britain vs. Ireland).

His concern is with what he calls an extremist position on the part of the US and Israel (extremist because they stand alone against the consensus of the rest of the world regarding the conflict).

I have to agree that US politics and media portray Palestinians as the aggressors. They don’t even portray the conflict as a Hatfields & McCoys style feud (which would also be inaccurate, but closer to what’s happening than pure, one-sided Palestinian aggression).

I recommend Chomsky’s article because he goes into detail about the conflict, broken agreements, politics and some other facts generally not covered by US press.

As an aside, my personal worry is how difficult it is to have an honest discussion of what’s happening in the conflict without being branded. A one-sided stance, to which Obama contributes according to Chomsky, is causing a chilling effect on free speech in politics, media and academia. And of course free speech is only the first step at discussing truly viable solutions to any conflict.

This conflict is a litmus test for world peace. It is one of the (if not the) most difficult conflict(s) of our times, and only with a peaceful solution can we have any hope for progress in other arenas.

Thanks for posting the article.