The European Union’s foreign ministers harshly denounced Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian West Bank, writing that settlement expansion is threatening a potential two-state deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The statement comes as some analysts speculate that a broad national unity government announced could give Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rightist government political space to slow settlement expansion or even cut a deal — though few view such moves as overwhelmingly likely.

The E.U. Foreign Affairs Council statement, however, stressed the importance of slowing the settlement enterprise before the Israeli communities jutting deep into a future Palestinian state forclose the possibility of peace. Noting that “settlements remain illegal under international law, irrespective of recent decisions by the government of Israel,” the 27 E.U. foreign ministers wrote:

The viability of a two-state solution must be maintained. The EU expresses deep concern about developments on the ground which threaten to make a two-state solution impossible…

The EU expresses deep concern regarding settler extremism and incitement by settlers in the West Bank. The EU condemns continuous settler violence and deliberate provocations against Palestinian civilians. It calls on the government of Israel to bring the perpetrators to justice and to comply with its obligations under international law.

Settler extremism has not only affected Palestinians, but also the Israeli army, which last year was subjected to a reprisal attack by ideological settlers.

The document also cited rapid settlement expansion — settlement construction increased 660 percent in the first six months after 2010′s settlement freeze — and the legalizing of so-called outpost settlements that are at inception considered illegal by Israeli law. The Israeli government said the E.U. statement was “based on a partial, biased and one-sided depiction of realities on the ground.”

Palestinians, too, share some blame in the failure to get a two-state solution off the ground. The Second Intifada, an often violent Palestinian uprising after the Oslo peace process stalled in the late 1990s, shook Israeli confidence that peace was possible. Just last month, Palestinian Authority President Mahmood Abbas rebuffed Israeli overtures for talks without preconditions, insisting on an Israeli settlement freeze.

The international community and the U.S. consider the settlements “illegitimate.” Several high profile figues, including top current and former Israeli officials, recently called for various forms of halting settlement activity.

A class taught by the military to officers at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia, came under fire when a report on Wired’s Danger Room blog last week exposed it for teaching soldiers to engage in a “total war” on Islam and taking a war on Islam “to the civilian population wherever necessary.” The full set of course materials, hundreds of documents and slide shows obtained by ThinkProgress, reveal just how deep Islamophobia ran through the military instruction. The material contained dozens of citations to the work of some of America’s best known anti-Muslim bigots.

Not all of the material in the course, however, was anti-Muslim. Materials from reputable sources such as the Brookings Institution and RAND corporation also appeared among the readings, and only some of the presenters to the class used blatantly Islamophobic material. (The public affairs officer of the Joint Forces Staff College didn’t respond to repeated inquiries by press time.)

But the “Islamophobia network,” discussed in the Center for American Progress’ “Fear, Inc.” report, played a prominent role in many of the 266 documents acquired by ThinkProgress. Islamophobic “misinformation experts” — as they’re defined in “Fear, Inc.” — cited in Army teaching materials included:

Robert Spencer – 34 mentions across 8 documents (his blog, JihadWatch.org, was cited 11 times across 7 documents)

Spencer is the co-founder of Stop Islamization of America and the director of JihadWatch.org. He has argued that “traditional Islam itself is not moderate or peaceful. Spencer is prominent pseudo-intellectual in the “counter jihad” blogging community who argues that Islam is inherently violent. He says “It is the only major world religion with a developed doctrine and tradition of warfare against unbelievers.”

Steven Emerson – 16 mentions across 4 documents

Emerson is the founder of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and a former journalist at U.S. News & World Report and CNN. His greatest notoriety came from prematurely declaring that Oklahoma City bombing was committed by Muslims. The actual culprit was right-wing anti-government militant Timothy McVeigh. Emerson tells his followers that “Nearly all of the Islamic organizations in the United States that define themselves as religiously or culturally Muslim in character have, today, been totally captured or dominated by radical fundamentalist elements.”

Center for Security Policy (CSP) – 60 mentions across 3 documents

CSP is led by notorious Islamophobe Frank Gaffney and produced the report, “Shariah: The Threat to America” which has served as the blueprint for “anti-Shariah” legislation across the country.

David Yerushalmi – 9 mentions across 3 documents

Yerushalmi is general counsel for CSP, a co-author of “Shariah: The Threat to America” and the founder of Society of Americans for National Existence. The Anti-Defamation League concluded that he has a “record of anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry.”

Daniel Pipes – 50 mentions across 10 documents (his organization, Middle East Forum, was cited 39 times across 10 documents)

Pipes, the director of Middle East Forum, is increasingly strident about the supposed threat posed by Islam and Muslims in America. He argues, “All immigrants bring exotic customs and attitudes, but Muslim customs are more troublesome than most.”

Finally, right-wing news publications were frequently cited in the training materials acquired by ThinkProgress. The Washington Times was cited 76 times across 16 documents; The National Review 130 times across 6 documents and Fox News 130 times across six documents.

Instructors’ reliance on far-right thinktanks and experts adds to the increasingly disturbing portrait of counter-terrorism instruction at the Joint Forces Staff College, potraying the West as at war with Islam and Muslims. The sheer frequency of citations in the course materials raises questions that hopefully will be answered by an investigation launched at the behest of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who admirably said the questionable course material was “totally objectionable, against our values, and it wasn’t academically sound.”

The New York Times published two articles this weekend highlighting the disarray that is Mitt Romney’s foreign policy positions. Romney not only appears “out of touch,” for example, on his Russia policy and “all over the map” on the war in Afghanistan, but also, the former Massachusetts governor has demonstrated a “perplexing pattern,” the Times reported, of being at odds with many of his own foreign policy advisers.

Moreover, seeming to concede President Obama’s dominance of national security issues this campaign season, a Romney adviser told the Times that Romney isn’t interested in talking about foreign policy. “Romney doesn’t want to really engage these issues until he is in office,” the adviser said.

And there’s good reason. Romney’s inexperience on foreign policy and national security issues has dogged his campaign with confusion, ignorance and private and public disagreements among Romney’s campaign advisers and surrogates:

AFGHANISTAN

Romney has been “all over the map” on Afghanistan. As the Washington Post reported late last year, Romney “has not explained what he thinks the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is at this point and what would constitute success.” And keeping with his adviser’s above statement, Romney said in a major foreign policy speech that he’d wait until he becomes president to “order a full review of our transition to the Afghan military.”

Romney also says that the U.S. should not be negotiating with the Taliban, a position that puts him at odds with his top national security campaign surrogate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), his own advisers and even former top Bush administration officials. “Romney’s supporters and foreign policy advisers argue that after a decade at war, the only option is a political settlement,” the Times noted.

IRAN

Romney said that if Obama is re-elected, Iran will get a nuclear weapon. “If you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon,” he said. That line “caused some of his advisers to cringe” the Times reported this weekend. But overall, again, Romney has no real policy on Iran that differs much from the current administration’s approach. Romney has proposed much of what Obama is already doing. The Times noted that “when pressed on how, exactly, his strategy would differ from Mr. Obama’s, Mr. Romney had a hard time responding.”

But Romney does occasionally ramp up bellicose rhetoric on Iran which prompted a former Israeli Mossad director to say the former Massachusetts governor “is making the situation worse” with Iran. Romney has ignored what the IAEA, U.S. and Israeli intelligence think about Iran’s nuclear program and his campaign advisers even attacked the Obama administration for public discussion of the consequences of attacking Iran.

Read more

Following on reports late last night and early this morning, Israel made concessions aimed at ending hunger strikes by Palestinian prisoners in an Egyptian-mediated deal. The agreement won approval today from key hunger-striking prisoners, some of whom are detained indefinitely without charge.

Earlier today, before the prisoners accepted the deal, the New York Times reported on the concessions made by Israel to the hunger-striking prisoners:

Israel had accepted three of the prisoners’ main demands: to restrict the military courts’ ability to extend the terms of some 300 inmates being held without charge or trial under what is known as administrative detention; to end the solitary confinement of 17 prisoners who have been kept in isolation; and to permit family visits for prisoners in the West Bank who come from Gaza.

Prisoner Khader Adnan sparked the mass protest of around 1,600 prisoners after he refused food and was released 66 days later. Last week, the Israeli HIgh Court rejected appeals from two prisoners who went even longer and are reportedly in danger of death.

The hunger strikes stoked fear in Israel because of protests in their support; prisoner deaths could inflame this movement. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour covered the hunger strikes and other non-violent pro-Palestinian activism on her CNN show last week:

Earlier this month, Human Rights Watch called on Israel to end detentions without charges, a practice some Israeli figures have admitted is often unnecessary.

Traditionally, veterans tend to vote Republican. Fifty-four percent of veterans voted for John McCain in 2008 and 57 for George W. Bush in 2004, as Business Insider points out.

But this year, veterans are splitting for President Barack Obama.

According to a new poll by Reuters/Ipsos, “If the election were held today, Obama would win the veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in the general population:”

Romney, along with his primary rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, had also accused Obama of “appeasement” toward U.S. enemies – a charge that drew a sharp Obama rebuttal. “Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 out of 30 top al-Qaeda leaders who’ve been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement,” the president shot back. He has reproached GOP candidates: “Now is not the time for bluster.”

If the election were held today, Obama would win the veteran vote by as much as seven points over Romney, higher than his margin in the general population.

The shift in support could stem in part from the fact that Romney has no specific plan to address veterans’ issues. On top of that, Romney-backers are working hard to “swiftboat” the president and claim he does not support American troops.

But Obama has done his share to earn the support of veterans. He released a plan to help save the homes of foreclosed-on veterans, started an initiative to get soldiers into jobs when they return from wars, and the First Lady has started a series of programs to ensure job opportunities to military spouses.

Congressional debate over the defense budget has set Republicans in the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) against the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta endorsed the president’s proposed base budget, House Republicans are fighting for an additional $4 billion in funding and $8 billion above caps set by the Budget Control Act.

On Friday, House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) took to Fox News, claiming that the budget cuts endorsed by, among others, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey would undermine U.S. national security:

FORBES: If you listen to what the Navy says, it will reduce the number of ships in our navy down to the lowest level in a hundred years. [...] But worse than that is that fact that, for the first time, we’re moving dangerously close to not being able to guarantee the security of the United States of America. And I don’t think the American people want us to be there.

Watch the clip:

But Forbes’ argument for higher defense spending is undermined by the facts. Politifact examined the argument about the reduction in naval ships, and concluded that:

[A] wide range of experts told us it’s wrong to assume that a decline in the number of ships or aircraft automatically means a weaker military. Quite the contrary: The United States is the world’s unquestioned military leader today, not just because of the number of ships and aircraft in its arsenal but also because each is stocked with top-of-the-line technology and highly trained personnel.

Thanks to the development of everything from nuclear weapons to drones, comparing today’s military to that of 60 to 100 years ago presents an egregious comparison of apples and oranges.

And the Center for American Progress’s Lawrence J. Korb, Melissa Boteach and Max Hoffman looked at the Republican defense budget proposal and found that strategic cuts to our defense budget, including reducing our nuclear stockpile, can be implemented without undermining national security. In an issue brief earlier this year, Korb and Alex Rothman observed that budget cuts could save $600 billion over a decade without undermining national security. “Unnecessary defense spending does not make our nation safer,” they wrote.

While Republicans claim that budget cuts would damage national security, keeping the defense budget sequestration cuts — which for FY 2013 would limit the budget to $472 billion — would allow the Pentagon to spend at its 2007 level, a year in which even defense hawks weren’t complaining about the budget being too low, for the next decade. This budget would keep real defense spending above the Cold War average, a period in which the U.S. faced a genuine existential threat from the Soviet Union.

Today, Forbes kicks off the “Defending our Defenders” tour in which House Republicans will hold town-hall events across the country in a push to persuade voters to oppose defense cuts and support GOP efforts to boost the coming year’s defense budget. They face an uphill battle. Polling data released last week shows that 65 percent of American think defense spending is already too high.