General Discussion

You could argue is that it is and was the US recommending the future Israel. For years, the media has said of US presidents or diplomats that they failed to achieve peace in the Middle East as if had they worked hard enough and been smart enough it would have happened.

I remember an observation the source of which I don't recall that the "two state solution" was a veil that allowed liberal Zionists to not see the reality. This was in 2014 when they spoken of the veil being torn away.

Until Trump, US policy was against the settlements. However, Presidents always had a reason to veto UN resolutions on the issue. The exception was the US abstaining on the 2016 resolution that was written completely in line with US policy and avoiding every excuse for vetoing past resolutions. Note because we abstained,it passed, but it would have been better if we voted for it. This was after the election in 2016 ... and I would bet if the vote was before the election I wonder if due to political concerns we would have voted for it.

My answer was I don't think there is a politically palatable one policy fits all on Israel. What I wrote is not the status quo. Demanding a genuine end to the three wars is something we have never demanded. Support for a two state solution implicitly calls for demanding an end to the illegal settlements AND Israel not controlling about 75 percent of Gaza.

The status quo is ever expanding settlements and Israel taking a large buffer zone in Lebanon and more land in Gaza. Looking back at the Middle East that Clinton and Kerry, which was very troubled is far worse now.

I do think the Leahy rule of not providing weapons to countries in violation of international law is something we can do .... but it will trigger comments like Fetterman's.