<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Robert M. Gates: another realist joins Obama&#8217;s team</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fresnozionism.org/2008/11/robert-m-gates-another-realist-joins-obamas-team/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fresnozionism.org/2008/11/robert-m-gates-another-realist-joins-obamas-team/</link>
	<description>A pro-Israel voice from California&#039;s Central Valley</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:48:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: ME</title>
		<link>http://fresnozionism.org/2008/11/robert-m-gates-another-realist-joins-obamas-team/comment-page-1/#comment-7018</link>
		<dc:creator>ME</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:20:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fresnozionism.org/archives/1081#comment-7018</guid>
		<description>Yes, if being a realist means one agrees with the &quot;linkage theory,&quot; then in principle, it does not sound bad.  

It is not exactly expressing support for Iran.  I think sometimes, and I have mentioned this before, the term &quot;peace&quot; gets supplanted into the mix, but really, it is an appeal to the rational elements of Islamic society.  

This is a positive article and the excerpts are good.  I don&#039;t think the concepts pigeon hole Israel to the extent you indicate. 

This is a good reference for April 12, 2009 or April 10 blog comments on legal realists stuff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, if being a realist means one agrees with the &#8220;linkage theory,&#8221; then in principle, it does not sound bad.  </p>
<p>It is not exactly expressing support for Iran.  I think sometimes, and I have mentioned this before, the term &#8220;peace&#8221; gets supplanted into the mix, but really, it is an appeal to the rational elements of Islamic society.  </p>
<p>This is a positive article and the excerpts are good.  I don&#8217;t think the concepts pigeon hole Israel to the extent you indicate. </p>
<p>This is a good reference for April 12, 2009 or April 10 blog comments on legal realists stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shalom Freedman</title>
		<link>http://fresnozionism.org/2008/11/robert-m-gates-another-realist-joins-obamas-team/comment-page-1/#comment-6407</link>
		<dc:creator>Shalom Freedman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:59:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fresnozionism.org/archives/1081#comment-6407</guid>
		<description>I am sorry to say that what I foresee for Hillary Clinton is a Condeleeza- ization at State Department. She will not be able to stake out a strong position as more pro- Israel than the President without facing tremendous criticism for being disloyal, and pursuing her private political agenda.
 I believe the &#039;tilt&#039; towards a policy which is inimicable to Israeli interests will come, perhaps even very soon. I do not believe it will take the form of direct pressure against Israel of a kind which might arouse Congressional opposition. It will come by a series of initiatives towards those hostile to Israel, first of all , Iran. It will come through strengthening forces, even military forces in the Middle East which are potentially dangerous to Israel. It will come through shifting toward multi- lateral initiatives in the U.N. and elsewhere. 
However I believe that Obama would not at this point risk his tremendous popularity and political capitol to take on Israel now.
What I suspect is that there will come an effort to somehow discredit Israel by making it time and again seem as the stubborn one, the odd man out, the one who persists in Occupation, and does not want peace, the obstacle to the U.S.&#039;s winning universal love in the Middle East. 
I hope I am wrong. But I believe we are heading for very tough days ahead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am sorry to say that what I foresee for Hillary Clinton is a Condeleeza- ization at State Department. She will not be able to stake out a strong position as more pro- Israel than the President without facing tremendous criticism for being disloyal, and pursuing her private political agenda.<br />
 I believe the &#8217;tilt&#8217; towards a policy which is inimicable to Israeli interests will come, perhaps even very soon. I do not believe it will take the form of direct pressure against Israel of a kind which might arouse Congressional opposition. It will come by a series of initiatives towards those hostile to Israel, first of all , Iran. It will come through strengthening forces, even military forces in the Middle East which are potentially dangerous to Israel. It will come through shifting toward multi- lateral initiatives in the U.N. and elsewhere.<br />
However I believe that Obama would not at this point risk his tremendous popularity and political capitol to take on Israel now.<br />
What I suspect is that there will come an effort to somehow discredit Israel by making it time and again seem as the stubborn one, the odd man out, the one who persists in Occupation, and does not want peace, the obstacle to the U.S.&#8217;s winning universal love in the Middle East.<br />
I hope I am wrong. But I believe we are heading for very tough days ahead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
