Here's an example of his frustrating exchange with the Israeli "guests" who were featured at the event he attended:

Here’s another example of the naked dishonesty on display. One lady asked whether Israel has complied with the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court vis a vis the route of the barrier. The guests answered “No, that they still haven’t moved the barrier to the green line.” I retorted that the lady asked about the Israeli Supreme Court ruling NOT the ICJ ruling. Eventually the guests answered that Israel has moved the fence “A bit, near Jerusalem.”

What a lie. I explained (keeping my emotions in check) that Israel has complied, that the revised ruling brings the fence closer to the green line, it eliminates all routes that create enclaves and it now leaves, consistent with the Clinton parameters, between 5-8% of the West bank on the Israeli side, leaving 99.7% of the Palestinians on the Palestinian side. Take a look at the map; see the route changes for yourself. (Here is a more detailed version). See this post from OnlyInIsrael for more on this.

He understands that in the dispute between Israel and the Arabs, Israel is in the right and must be supported. His view is that Israel has a right to exist and need not prove it. But any move that Israel makes should not be viewed as a reason why Israel does or does not have a right to exist.
Yet the loony left portrays it like that. For example a certain former justice minister who more than once dishonestly subverted the will of the people by negotiating behind the backs of the government, Yossi Beilin:

The first stage of the road map was supposed to last for a few months and end in May 2003. Both sides circumvented its terms: The Palestinians preferred an internal cease-fire to a war against terror, and Israel preferred a withdrawal from Gaza to a settlement freeze. The United States, on its part, did not continually monitor the situation on the ground, and each side blames the other for failing to implement the road map.

Well yes both sides didn't do their part. But only one of those failures really contradicts the premises of a peace agreement. And of course as It's Almost Supernatural points out, another bit is a lie:

Sharon, on his part, has not implemented his commitment from Sharm el-Sheikh and has not allowed Abu Mazen to demonstrate to his public that everyday life has improved. Contrary to the commitments in the road map, Sharon is continuing to build in the settlements, and even recently resurrected the plan for massive construction between Jerusalem and Ma'aleh Adumim, a plan that would eliminate the possibility of establishing a contiguous Palestinian state in the framework of a final status accord. The legal status of the Gaza Strip after the Israeli withdrawal is not sufficiently clear and the status of the northern West Bank is even more hazy; no one knows what the Palestinians will be permitted to do there.

Expanding Maale Admumim has no effect on the contiguity of Yehudah and Shomron. It is all within the security fence. (I've seen the argument that the expansion of Maale Adumim will take away the only road the Palestinians use for travelling north to south. Of course there's plenty of room to build another road.
Read It's Only Supernatural's complete post to get a sense of the dishnonesty that many peace-niks engage in.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.