In the context of any negotiations, be it an international dispute or a marriage in trouble, a person who in any sense stands in a mediating role has to talk in language designed to bring both parties to the table, and not talk in terms that will chase one party away. Remember, here he is trying to convince the international community of the need to stop a Palestinian petition for statehood…not push the parties farther apart.

That said, I think the President’s speech does paintIsrael in a morally superior light. It represents the first time any President has spoken so eloquently of our history, of the hatred against Jews that Arab children are routinely taught, of the enormous geopolitocal imbalance facing Israel…of the existential threat posed by states that want to wipe Israel off the map.

To repeat, I think his speech does paint Israel in the morally superior position…and recognizing the Palestinan’s “right” to a state of their own does not negate this one iota.

Although he very eloquently stated some of the dangers that Israel faces, he also made a moral equivalency between the two sides. Stating that “each side needs to…” and “both parties must…” implies that Israel and the palistinians are equally responsible for the “lack of progress”, and that is simply not the case. The facts are that Israel wants peace and is ready to pursue it and the plalistinian leadership does not.

Don’t forget: This isn’t a sacrifice Obama is doing for the Jewish state (as other presidents did many times), this is purely demanding respect for the US itself, and the Obama addministration particularly, since the PA is doing a unilatteral move which will undo everything the US did in the last 17 years!

I really must admit…

Obama has good speech writers.