"Don't Equate Israel With South Africa." Well, it's a nice headline, I have to give the Strib credit for that, and for criticizing the Presbyterian Conference's referring to Israel with language all too similar to that they previously used to describe the aparteit regime in South Africa. Beyond that, the editorial was vague to the point of mush. The Strib editorial writers seem to be trying out a kind of faux diplomatic jargon for this one. "Concessions" must be made? What concessions? By whom? Apparently by Israel, and apparently, land, but this is not clear. However, settlements on what the Strib refers to as "disputed land" in East Jerusalem, seems to be a tilt towards the Palestinians. What about Hamas? Hezbollah? The "right of return"? Recognition of the legitimacy of the state of Israel itself? How can you have a "two-state solution" without confirming the legitimacy of both states? Syria? Iran? Nothing.
But let's give them passing marks for putting a toe in the water without locking themselves into positions from which it will be difficult to retreat.
I cringed at the recent meeting between Obama and the Saudi ruler. Powerful third parties discussing the fate of countries not present at the meeting smacked too much of Munich 1939 for my taste.
