Britain burned a lot of American goodwill with their vote for the settlements resolution at the United Nations, something that you strongly supported.

It would hardly be surprising if they now wished to engage in some damage control and maintain good relations with an incoming American administration on a multitude of security and financial matters important to Britain, particularly during the pendency of Brexit negotiations. Why would they burn important political bridges in the USA for a Paris resolution that will lead nowhere.

Heck, most of the statements from Paris amount to little more that begging Trump not to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. Ironically, the UN vote might have actually forced the Israel issue with the incoming administration, and they might move the embassy (and cut UN funding) just to spite the UN and Obama and solidify support among base Republicans (and put key Democrats in a very uncomfortable position while they try to fundraise among Jews for 2018).

position of leadership in the Middle East. To fill that role they need to maintain a delicate balance between opposing settlement expansion while still being on the same page as Israel and the US in general. When Arabs/Palestinians want to speak to grown ups who have Israel's ear, the USA is no longer an option.

The idea that the U.K. burned up a lot of goodwill in the US over that vote is silly. The US isn't Israel, and the UK has had a firmer anti-settlement policy than the US for decades.

or have ignored Trump's repeated comments on the issue.

Whether you like it or not, Trump will set American foreign policy in three days, and Congression and American popular opinion is still quite solidly pro-Israel.

Quite simply, Britain needs the USA more than the USA needs Britain, particularly as Britain negotiates its exit from the EU. Engaging in further confrontation with Trump and Congress over Israel will not create peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, but could needless alienate and antagonize American leadership. Theresa May distanced herself immediately from John Kerry after the UN vote, and its refusal to sign onto the Paris statement was not surprising.

Fuck, no! Fuck that lunatic, stereotypical Ugly American and his narcissistic tendencies.

At the risk of copping a lecture on diplomacy and international relations, other countries do have their own stances on the I/P conflict and having ones that differ from the US is NOT 'confrontation' and if having different views (eg daring to support a two-state solution) means alienation and antagonising a bunch of loonytunes in Congress, then that's a problem the US needs to deal with, not other countries. Israel isn't the most important thing in the world when it comes to relations between the US and other countries, and in many cases it's not even going to rate a mention on the list of things that matter between allies....

That's rich, particularly since you repeatedly advocate a one state solution which essentially amounts to the end of Israel.

However, I'm glad you now finally acknowledge the extent of American Congressional and soon to be presidential support for Israel, a support so strong and solid that a popular American ally like Britain believes is must be obsequious to the USA on the issue lest it lose broader American support. Weren't you just recently telling us how support for Israel is rapidly declining in America?

as active participants with free agency and responsibility.

The rise of the right and demise of the left in Israel, along with increased support for the settlements, has not occurred in a vacuum. Nevertheless, you and other routinely absolve or excuse anything said or done by the Palestinians, including from the period before 1967 when Israel did not control the territories.

Simply, the best way to convince Israelis to make concessions to the Palestinians is for the Palestinians to demonstrate they truly wish to leave peacefully with Israelis.

Step one, of course, is for Hamas, a recognized terrorist group throughout the West (and increasingly in the Arab world) to not rule and speak for about half the Palestinians and control all of Gaza.

Step two, the PA should stop naming streets, giving out candy, and paying financial compensation (with foreign aid) to the families of "martyrs" who kill civilians for political purposes, i.e., terrorists.

I believe you get the idea.

Lastly, no Israeli government on the left or right will turn over control of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. It would involve relinquishing sovereignty over the Wailing Wall, the holiest site in all of Judaism that was desecrated and denied to Jews before 1967. Similarly, no Israeli government will accept the return of millions of "refugees." It would be the end of Israel as the only Jewish state.

You claim to oppose non-democratic or religious states. I'm curious why I never read screeds by you against the multitude of VERY illiberal Arab and Muslim tyrannies, including the PA and Hamas, who surround Israel, the only democratic state in the region where all faiths are allowed to pray and live, including Muslims?'

Are you a supporter of Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Do you support the creation of a Palestinian state so that there's two independent and viable states for Israelis and Palestinians?

If yr not a supporter of the settlements and do support a two-state solution, how is it possible to hold that view while condemning the US for merely abstaining from a UN resolution on the settlements?

Better to talk about the post than each other