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.