Turkish officials estimate that 15,000 Syrian refugees are waiting on the Syrian side of the border, and expect up to 50,000 more.14:11 06.02.16 | 0 comments
I contend that the only two sides in our conflict are  those who understand that the "other" isn't leaving and will, therefore, be prepared to negotiate a settlement, and  those who will never accept the "other" as a legitimate partner for anything other than leaving. To actually be "pro-Israel" must be to support an eventual situation in which Jews and non-Jews, Jews and Arabs, and Israelis and Palestinians can all live in peace and cooperation in whatever settlement can be agreed upon. This is equally true of being "pro-Palestinian." That is, to continue to support a "victory" for either Israel or Palestine is to ignore the fact that it can never happen. "They" are not going to leave, no matter who "they" are. Was Dr. Baruch Goldstein pro-Israel? Those who will never accept the "other" (here represented by those who were affected by those murdered in Hebron) would probably assume that it's obvious that he was "pro-Israel." I would contend that he was anti-Israel as he contributed to the conflict, not its solution. To object to the policies of a government, no matter which, doesn't make a person anti-[the State]. When we objected to the policies of the G. W. Bush government, that didn't make us anti-American, just as those who object to the policies of the Obama government aren't anti-American. This is also true of those who object to the policies of the Netanyahu government are not necessarily anti-Israeli. Were those of us who had conscientious objections to America's participation in the war in S. E. Asia anti-American? No, we were objecting out of love and patriotism to America. That war didn't represent true American values.