“The balance is tipping and if it tips, there will not be a two-state solution and how would that make Israel safer?” asked Robinson, in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post.

Oooh. Scary. And what, pray tell, would her logic be on this? Can we have a supporting statement? Some facts that might make us think that settlement building is going to force Israel to yield to a single, binational state?

“A one-state solution has huge implications. So for the sake of being able to have a two-state solution, we need a freeze on settlements,” she said.

Um. Well, perhaps the JPost interview just didn’t include her reasons behind those scary statements. Or perhaps that “balance” she was talking about was the world’s support for Israel. (Actually, that wouldn’t surprise me, but good luck to the world in getting Israel to legislate itself out of existence.)

I searched the article in vain for an actual reason why settlement building will lead to the dreaded one-state solution (which is, let’s be honest, the death of Israel). I am left with believing that the Medal of Freedom honoree is talking out of her ass. It’s a pretty safe assumption when you read quotes like this:

“We are a group that contains a number of those who would be, if you like, perceived to be quite balanced on the Israeli side,” said Robinson.

Hm. Robinson, Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu… yep, quite balanced on the Israeli side, if by “the Israeli side” you mean “people who warn about a one-state solution as the logical result of settlement building.”

I’m sorry, these people are supposed to be our “wise elders”? I stand by my label of “Senile old anti-Israel farts.”