I'm not exactly sure what people mean by "evenhandedness".

If it means, the Israelis give, the Palestinians and other Arabs give, Iran backs off, incitement in the West ceases altogether and everybody compromises and agrees to live side-by-side and together in peace, with Arab citizens in Israel as they are and Jews in a new Arab state - fine.

But I don't think that's what is implied by "evenhandedness".

First place, when people cast the Arab/Israeli conflict in terms of "Israel/Palestine" it's historically and factually misleading.

Israel is not merely engaged in a conflict with the PA or with the Palestinian people but in fact with blocs of nations, NGO's, sometimes the UN and unfortunately many people opposed to Israel's very existence on religious and/or ideological grounds.

So this isn't a situation in which you have 7 million Israelis vs a 4, 5 million Palestinians, in which Israel has either the upper hand or can determine by herself whether or not there is peace.

In fact Israel cannot control extremist factions beyond her borders, nor can Israel control what people think either about her own existence or about Jews around the world.

Hamas for example, as well as Hezbollah and Iran have openly and repeatedly stated that Israel should not exist and many of their verbal attacks are directed at Jews per se as are their terror attacks although they often kill Israeli Arabs as well.

In these cases should the US be "evenhanded" in its approach? How and why? Should we ensure that these states or factions be armed with F-16's?

Now, look at a map of the Arab League states + Iran. The Arab League has had a boycott in place against the Jews of what is now Israel since the 1930's. It is also enormous, heavily populated, and we spend a fortune on oil and gas products from this region and so does the rest of the world.

In fact when looking at such a map it is difficult to see Israel.

Should the US be evenhanded with regard to this huge imbalance of size, population, wealth and resources?

Why?

Should we perhaps institute a boycott against people and states who boycott Israel or who threaten her people and her very existence?

That will be the day, right?

Indeed what we have now are movements on campuses and even, shamefully, Christian churches to divest from - Israel - and effectively join the Arab League boycott.

Boy that's evenhanded isn't it?

With respect to the stateless Palestinians, no solution can emerge from Israel alone. The entire region plus outside Western actors are responsible for the endless war and terrorism and regional compromises are required as well as a cessation of incitement and stopping all the antisemitic propaganda.

And, probably also donations of money and land from other Arab states will be required to make a viable and secure place for the Palestinians to live.

An evenhanded US would state this position clearly instead of demanding that a tiny state give what it doesn't have and can't afford: land and unilateral concessions.

This is especially true given that withdrawals from territory have resulted in more violence, not more peace. So such demands are meaningless unless they're accompanied by ironclad security guarantees and I don't think anybody, given the miniscule size of Israel and the determination of her enemies and their number, can make such guarantees.

It would be different if people on both sides were committed to peace, if there really was an acceptance of mutual existence, and if Jews weren't the dogs of the planet and regarded with so much hate - but we are. And the hatred is real, it is frightening and it is extreme.

Finally there is the "moderate" Arab position, which would ensure that Israel ceases to exist demographically, via "right of return" for millions of Arabs, descendants of those who fled in 1948, and which demands that Jews exit the West Bank and East Jerusalem which would not only create indefensible borders for Israel but which would put historic Jewish holy land beyond those borders and also create an apartheid - really apartheid - judenfrei Arab state - probably armed - alongside an indefensible Israel.

How "evenhanded" is that?

Basically I don't think that any solution which demands this kind of evenhandedness will do anything to ensure peace, but it might well ensure the destruction of a democratic ally which happens to be the homeland of a hunted and hated minority only a few decades after the Shoah claimed millions of people.

In what universe does this make sense?

"Evenhanded" means jews are in their "rightful place", as victims, defenseless, dhimmis, dead.

Yes that is sort of what I figured.

Otherwise some logic and compassion would have surfaced by now.

People would have come up some creative ideas to help the Palestinians without harming the Israelis.

Also, considering the problems afflicting this vast region the focus on Israel is not only illogical it is criminal.

Not only are the Palestinians continuing to be victimized by nations where they live in ghettos and have been expelled en masse but the Israelis have been suffering from decades of terrorism and war.

Meanwhile hundreds of millions of people deal with oppression as well as ridiculously skewed economics - a few are obscenely wealthy, others can't buy bread. Environmental challenges are growing. The desert broadens as populations soar. Millions of people have been killed or displaced in civil and interstate wars.

We have got to get real here and step back from the brink. Creating another disaster won't solve any of these problems, it will simply create more victims.