Bronner is clearly a “believer” in this offer, as he characterizes it thus:

While such an offer falls short of President Obama’s demand that Israel halt all settlement building now, it is the most forthcoming response that senior Israeli officials have given to date and suggests that American pressure is having some effect.

While I totally agree that Barak’s offer is a fraud, Richard, here again you obsess about Bronner- which is a sideshow.

Bronner reports. He reports here what he is getting from the “powers that be” on Israeli side. This does not mean he personally is for it or against. And his assessment is not brilliant but it is even handed ( fair) and not wrong either.

The above blockquote from your post is an excellent example of your interpretation which puts your feelings about Bronner onto what is said. To say that American pressure is having some effect in no way says that Bronner does not or cannot see that it falls short;it not does it mean that he is for it.

Here’s another example:

I don’t even know whether Bronner realizes that in this passage, discussing Israel’s conquest of the Territories in the 1967 war, he reveals himself as a Revisionist:
[quote Bronner]

“…Taking the West Bank, previously held by Jordan, fired the collective imagination in Israel because so much of it — including the cities of Hebron, Nablus and Jericho — was part of the biblical Jewish homeland that Zionism sought to reclaim.”

To say Bronner is a revisionist for not saying some Zionists is way overboard if not totally unfair.

Most of what you say here is not about Bronner who is the messenger. This anti-Bronnerism is tiresome.

First, Abe you have no idea about the level of support for Zionism among Jews. Can you tell us what your sources are on which you claim the knowledge you do? Zionism was by no means a majority or consensus movement within the Jewish world until after the Holocaust. This is common knowledge, Abe. So open up a book on the subject before you betray both yr prejudice & ignorance.

Second, the British had no “duty” under the Mandate to “help the Jews build their national home.” They were there to figure out how to find a peaceful modus vivendi bet. Arabs & Jews. At various times, the British expressed sympathy with Zionist aims and at other times they expressed sympathy with Palestinian Arab aims.

I’d also suggest that you take a course in English composition. Your ideas would come across better if you had better command of the language.

Also, publishing six comments in a single day hogs the discourse, shows you to be either a troll or a hasbarnik, & is simply not permitted.

Further, this claim also violates my comment rules since not only is it bogus, but it is unsupported:

the Saudi plan calls on Israel to take in 5 million Palestinians.

I have no interest in debating whether Israel’s return of the Golan to Syria is or isn’t governed by an old war between Turkey and Syria. Again, this is bogus and grandstanding.

If you further violate the rules your comment privileges will be ended.

Jihadists jabotinsky? pity. I presume you don’t know what Jihadist is and who is Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky was one of the main leaders of Zionism and he created the Jewish task force and the “Shomer” that were the basis for the Jewish “Hagana” and “Irgun” that was splited in the 20th.

I think that need to learn some real history and not hanging in semi historical links.

Proof Golan is historically Israels.Brilliant article
[URL deleted for violating comment rules]