Here I don't care if you think that the former Jewish city made Jew-free once by Jordanian forces should be Jew-free again in the name of "peace", but wouldn't you think that actually encouraging violence can be bad?

Of course, there is the remote possibility that the PA official was lying. So which is it? Is Obama encouraging violence against Jews or is the PA lying?

So now we know what Obama does to get Abbas to talk.

What should Israel get in exchange for agreeing to talk?

I do not think that Obama is intentionally inciting violence.  But he is like the little kid with matches.  He has no conception of the reprecussions of his tantrums.  And of course when the house does burn down, he is the first to look shocked and surprised.

We are moving towards war.

The Arab countries are now trying to reapproach Iran.

What Obama will likely see as an end to a conflict is in reality the Arabs' perception that Obama won't be on their side if Iran attacks. The Arab states have only restarted agitating against Israel after the US stopped blocking every Iranian attempt to do so.

I do not think it is the Arabs alone that feel that way, however they are in the hottest spot at this time.  I agree.

Saudi-Arabia is absolutely terrified of a Shiite revolt in her oil-rich east.

Bahrain is divided into a Sunni and Shia population and many of the Shiites are ethnic Persians.

Qatar and the Emirates are one American fleet away from being invaded by Iran. And guess what would happen if Iran actually did invade?

That's incidentally what Iran needs nuclear weapons for, to force those countries to accept annexation or Iranian overlordship. Iran won't use nuclear weapons to start a war with Israel. Their targeting systems are too bad to hit something that far away and Hizbullah wouldn't help them because doing so would utterly destroy their last chance to claim that they are acting in Lebanon's interest. Syria likewise cannot afford to be part of that. (Of course this changes if it is understood that the US won't help Israel.)

He must be very naive indeed if he doesn't know that encouraging PLO members to "protest" against Jews can become problematic.

One would assume that with Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff he would know where the PLO come from and what their relationship with Hitler was and what their grand plan for "Palestine" was.

If this turns out to be true (and it is unlikely since the source is a PA official and they _always_ lie), I'll hate Barrack Obama.

And if it's not true, I wonder if this new pogrom will finally make Obama realise that for a year now he has been brought the world closer to total war than anybody else since Neville Chamberlain.

When the Arabs smell blood and a chance to win a war against Israel, they will attack. They have not decided that Israel is allowed to survive now. They just couldn't attack any more because Israel was stronger.

On Obama, you are learning!  He is really a man-child.

ON Rahm, he may be jewish, but he is no firend of Israel.  His religion is a smoke screen for his hatred of the nation.  he can hate the nation while proclaiming he is not because he is Jewish.

Rahm's father was born in Jerusalem and a member of the Irgun. I.e. he was a fanatic and too right-wing for my taste.

I thought his son would be a more rational version of his father.

His own history in the past suggested that he is. He served in the IDF as a civilian in the second Gulf War, he is orthodox, and his wife is Jewish too. And he helped Bill Clinton with getting elected and the Oslo peace treaty. (That Arafat broke the treaty and started another war was not Clinton's fault.)

At that point his credentials were in order.

So what's going on now?

Did you know that the last words in a Jewish Passover Seder (a ritual meal) are "Next year in Jerusalem"? Obama hosted a Seder in the White House. I wonder what his last words were. "In Jerusalem, until next year?"

"In Jerusalem, what is a year?"