re: #20 Charles

Get a load of this statement by Feinstein, though:

Really?

There are reasons to support two states, but does Feinstein actually believe that Hezbollah and Syria would just pack up the Scud missiles and put them in storage if the Palestinians had a state?

Good grief. That’s the kind of reality-denial that keeps this conflict going. It’s not about “two states,” and it never has been.

Feinstein isn’t saying anything much different than this administration’s State Department keeps saying. Again, from yesterday’s State Dept. briefing discussing the possible transfer of missiles from Syria to Hizballah:

QUESTION: Any reaction to the statement made by the minister or high official – Israeli official that they would bomb Syria, bring it to the – back to the Stone Age. I mean do you see provocative action or a threat by Israel through such a statement by high official talking to a British newspaper, issuing such a threat when Israel has 200 nuclear bomb and none of the Arab countries has any?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, I sense an escalation in our questions here. Look, one of the reasons why we came into office committed to pursue Middle East peace in all of its tracks, not just between Israelis and Palestinians, but Israelis and Lebanese, Israelis and Syrians, is because we recognize that armed conflict will not solve the broader conflict, that this can only be done through a negotiated settlement, a comprehensive settlement. That’s why we’re pursuing this as aggressively as we are.

Nearly all of the reporters who cover the State Dept are blatantly anti-Israel- especially Matt Lee who writes for the AP.
Here we see a reporter trying to equate the arming of Hizballah with scud missiles with some report by some Israeli minister in an English newspaper.