re: #4 Obdicut

The scapegoating claim was from the title, and if you use the bookmarklet, you get the title that is printed. I understand that sometimes you should change the title, but I also understand it if you don’t—wanting the original source to remain as intact as possible.

But Soros did say that the US needs to jump in front of this and side with the protesters immediately, that the US wants to do this, but Israel is stopping this from happening. This is how I understood his comment.

However, proper diplomatic procedure was not so cut and dried. The US, in hindsight, handled this pretty well. Although, a pledge of support from the State Department carries less weight than it did before the revolt. In the world of foreign policy, promises, a history of working with someone, has to mean something and cannot be tossed aside quickly. The actions toward one country in one case reverberate to all nations and every case. This is the difficulty in foreign policy.

Soros overlooked this complexity, and instead chose to focus on Israel as an obstacle. I’m not sure how honest this is. It certainly plays into the hands of the Pat Buchanan’s who feel that Israel controls US foreign policy.

Soros didn’t do anything to lessen the stereotype of a nefarious Israel.