Trumps "clearly articulated message"?

Give me a break.

"Asked later where he gets his information on Israel, Greenblatt, a real estate attorney from Teaneck, New Jersey, said he reads materials sent out by AIPAC and listens to a weekly radio program featuring Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Greenblatt also said he sometimes talks to people in the Israeli government. He doesn’t know any Palestinians."
 
"According to Trump, Greenblatt is one of his two main Israel advisers. The other is a bankruptcy lawyer who has represented Trump named David M. Friedman. Friedman serves as President of American Friends of Bet El settlement. In columns on the pro-settler website Arutz Sheva, he has accused President Obama of “blatant anti-Semitism” and suggested that unless Palestinian citizens of Israel decide “to support the state,” Israel should reconsider its policy of “bestowing upon them the benefits of citizenship.” In a column last July, he compared J Street to “Kapos during the Nazi regime.”

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.717837

I don't see how any rational individual can reassign the stated commitments of one candidate on another, however convenient?

Remember David, in a real democracy, it is the voting public who ultimately decide what commitments they'll accept and be bound by or not!
Alan B.

Alan. America is, in fact, a 'real' democracy. As such, the people 'have agreed' through their direct representatives in the senate (409 - 9) to ratify the contents of the Bush letter. That's how democracy works! Obama and Clinton have repeatedly ignored both the Senate and by doing so, have ignored the constitution. The nuclear deal with Iran a more obvious example.

Two things pete, historically David was attempting to bind Trump with another candidate's alleged commitment; and not seeking a rerun on the Iran deal?

And as far as I know the senate is and remains a house of review?

Moreover, and given they agree on any proposal they originate, it must also pass through the lower house, (congress) then have a president with the power of veto sign off?

Even so, nobody can expect to remain bound to any Israeli agreement, when Nethanyahu's (smoke and mirrors) verbal commitments are not worth the paper they are written on or must be rescinded, given his wife Sara has to give her permission first?
Alan B.

Alan. Point taken regarding specifics of American governmental system. (I only just have a 'handle' on the Australian system..... How many numbers above the line now) However, I do understand that the contents of the Bush letter was democratically endorsed by the American people.

Regarding "nobody can expect to remain bound to any Israeli agreement", not so long ago Jordan was vilified by various arabian neighbouring states and others, for signing an agreement to buy/import future Israeli (leviathan) gas. The Jordanians' major concern was the guaranteed stability of their primary energy supplies. Their response to the criticism was that 'when the Jews make a contract it is never broken' (or words to that effect, cannot locate the link to the direct quote at the moment.
I am sure that you would agree that committing your country's future energy needs to a specific, major and possible sole supplier, is a most considered decision. A decision not undertaken lightly in the face of being accused a 'traitor' by your somewhat beligerent, indeed violent and unstable, neighbouring co-religionists.
Alan, " given his wife Sara has to give her permission first?" .... Disappointing level of comment/argument don't you think? Or was that just a slightly miss-timed touch of humor/sarcasm?
Cheers.

Yes pete, it does seem as if Sara, by all accounts, does wear the pants in the Nehanyahu family?

But to get back on topic, David was attempting to bind Trump to another conservative candidates commitment?

And that can't be allowed to fly anymore than you can undertake on my behalf that I won't use humor to underline my commentary. End of story!
Alan B.

Alan. The use of humor is a preferable (and often effective) way of underlining a point than hurling abuse, (particularly when that humor is based on a 'truism' ) which is so often used in commentary with this particular author. In this case, your use of it was refreshing.

Back on point. I see no problem with commentators 'reminding' one particular government of commitments made by previous governments. In the political realm, it is a valuable tool in trying to get stability in the policy realm. Accusations of 'broken promises' are used, on a daily basis, in our own federal parliament. This will cause issues for both Trump and Clinton into the future.

Back off point. Alan. I rarely, if ever, engage in a dialogue with commenters on these pages with this particular author. Often, when reading and responding I often finish up feeling slightly soiled.

Your commentary is/was worth engaging.

#SteeleRedux

You are obviously miffed that Greenblatt is more persuaded by AIPAC and Hoenlein than the PLO, Hamas and the thousands of anti-Israel websites spewing out a cocktail of pure unadulterated Jew-hatred - then banning people like me from commenting - as I have written about on OLO in recent weeks.

I would argue Greenblatt's choice of informants is to be praised - not denigrated.

# Alan B and #Prompete

There are two important matters neither of you mentioned in discussing whether future Presidents should be bound by the commitments given by President Bush in his letter to Sharon dated 14 April 2004.

1. Those commitments were specifically endorsed not only by the House of Representatives (407-9) as Prompete correctly pointed out - but also by the Senate (95-3) as both of you seem to have overlooked.

Bush's commitments so embraced and endorsed by 502 members of Congress with only 12 dissenters certainly has soaring wings.

2. The Bush-Congress commitments were given to Israel in consideration of Israel unilaterally disengaging from Gaza and some settlements in the West Bank

As Bush stated in his letter:
"We welcome the disengagement plan you have prepared, under which Israel would withdraw certain military installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw certain military installations and settlements in the West Bank. These steps described in the plan will mark real progress toward realizing my June 24, 2002 vision, and make a real contribution towards peace."

Trump was spot on when he said:
"… your friends need to know that you will stick by the agreements that you have with them. You've made that agreement, you have to stand by it and the world will be a better place."

Seems a pretty reasonable summation - wouldn't you both agree?

Had Obama and Clinton stuck by the Bush commitments - not tried to circumvent them - I believe the current two year suspension of negotiations between Israel and the PLO could have been avoided.