You are not disagreeing then, because once a Jewish leader can tell Obama no to suicide plans, then the problem is solved by itself. The issue is knowing what we are doing is the right thing even if it runs against what the president desires.
Nope. I did disagree. And your explanation here is faulty.
I disagree very strongly with the
perspective of both you and Rabbi Singer. The perspective underlying his comments and yours is that bibi and company really want to do the right thing, are totally equipped mentally and physically to do so, and accept philosophically and axiomatically why it must be done, but (says bibi) "oy va voy, we cannot face obama or stand up to his pressure and gosh we just haven't thought of the simple way to explain it to obama yet, so therefore we instead have no choice but to implement horrific Jew-hating policies of cowardice which get Jews murdered."
There is no evidence for this view. It is in fact a rather convoluted conspiracy theory.
My perspective, which I believe is fact-based, and which is very different from yours and Singers, is that bibi acts consistently with his beliefs (and/or desires), and he pursues the policies of cowardice because he believes in those policies axiomatically. He thinks it is the true and only path to peace. He only wishes that obama and the world players would praise him for his actions instead of attacking him. He only wishes there would be positive PR in the news for Israel so he could use it as leverage in whatever foolhardy negotiations he's engaged in to surrender the Jewish future and win the nobel peace prize.
"Pressure" is a convenient excuse to hide from rightwing scrutiny and nothing more.
All of the tough-guy talk by bibi (and by the way there's a lot less of that these days! He publicly proclaims many leftist policies he never would have dared supported in public in his younger days because it would have killed his career) is meant to mislead the nationalist public. Whatever snippets of tough talk or Jewish pride we hear is purely for rightwing consumption to win him elections and keep him in power. His ACTIONS indicate that he fully supports the two state paradigm and sees no other acceptable way forward. All his actions from his first election as prime minister in the 90's until today suggest I am right.