O Jerusalem, Part Trois

I am loathe to be seen as being a pedantic bore; nonetheless because the survival of Israel is fundamentally about the future contours of all western civilization, free or slave, I am compelled to orate on this matter thrice more. And lest we forget, brave palestinian freedom fighters get streets named after them on the west bank - but only when the number of Jewish school children murdered on a bus ride home exceeds thirty-five. Just three weeks ago, wild celebrations erupted in Hebron after palestinian terrorists (oops brave freedom fighters) crept into a west bank settler's home and slaughtered this family, including two children under the age of three.

This asymmetric war results in the death of innocents daily, and do not for a second conclude that palestinian innocents, particularly children and other non-combatants caught in the proverbial cross-fire, are not mourned here, as well. No one ensnared in this cauldron of endless violence should be deemed a life not worth saving.

It is for this reason that I am so concerned by Presidential rhetoric that seems only to enflame and embolden those committed to Israel's demise. The Mid-east is too explosive today for careless or poorly conceived speeches that play well to the international community, but put lives on both sides of the conflict in greater jeopardy.

Here is the cognitive dissonance that I find inexplicable from a serious-minded national leader:

Israel is today, and always will be, the national homeland for the Jewish people. No Palestinian demand to dismantle the Nation of Israel will be permitted or seen as consistent with the obligation of the Palestinians to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors.

(Paraphrasing Mr. Obama's many statements to Jewish audiences, most recently AIPAC);

"I need to articulate the legitimate scope of a fair settlement, so that the Palestinians will be assured that they can attain their own homeland through direct talks with the Israelis, and not by seeking unilateral recognition by the United Nations and with the greater international community." (Almost direct quote from Mr. Obama's AIPAC speech);

The "Right of Return" for palestinians (descendants of those who fled their homes in 1948, estimated to be in multiple millions) is a matter entirely appropriate for the parities to negotiate and resolve themselves through compromise and fair accommodation of each others interests in this regard.

(Paraphrasing Mr. Obama's Press Conference this week with Prime Minister Cameron in London)

Why would the President find the Right of Return to be necessary for the establishment of a Palestinian homeland, as this means they want no part of it, as they insist on moving to Israel.

Indeed, we have a President who says that peace is too urgent to be delayed even another single year or month. Accordingly, simultaneously, he tells us that the Palestinians must know that the Jewish Homeland's right to exist is non-negotiable, but the Right of Return (which will extinguish this same Jewish state, overwhelming it with non-jews) constitutes a negotiable issue for "ending" this conflict.

Where is the adult in the room who tells the current tenant of the WH that he can not hold two wholly inconsistent concepts to both be valid simultaneously? Just asking . . .