Christie's reference to "Occupied Territories" is not absolute indication of views toward Israel.

Submitted by Rich McMahon (United States), Apr 4, 2014 at 12:29

I share Dr. Pipes' general views concerning Gov. Christie and agree he is far from an ideal choice for the Republican Presidential nomination. However, I think it is an over-reach to conclude that based on his lack of a direct apology for using the term "Occupied Territories" he does not consider this area rightfully owned by Israel.

Politics necessitates crafted rhetorical maneuvering; had Christie issued a forthright mea culpa after meeting with Adelson he would have provided legitimacy to the vary arguments (i.e., per the "commanding role of money in American politics") that liberal media used anyway, albeit much less convincingly, to disparage him. Arguably, his use of the word "misspoke' conveyed a de facto apology.

It is a long road to the Republican nomination and we have ample time to scrutinize Christie's views of Israel, as well as to see whether his reference to the "Occupied Territories" continues.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".