Mid East policy speech

[BlueStreak]

All that proves is that without the more powerful third party to moderate the bully takes over the playground. And if the playground monitor is simpatico with the playground bully-------Well, just take a gander at those charts again. Especially the one in my avatar.
Today, I caught some discussion of this very matter. It was interesting because one of the commentators asked, "Maybe it's time for the Israeli government to get the hint that we might not always have their back? In fact, we might even begin to hold them responsible for some of what goes on over there."

Or maybe when you have two kids that refuse to get along no matter what you do, you end up just letting them fight it out? Can't be their friggin' Nanny forever. (Or Sugar Daddy either.) They have to grow up sometime.

Dave

[Zeke]

Maybe I'm milking this American Indian tribes versus Middle East "tribes" thing too much but -- related to the former -- the revisionist history that the Americas were Utopia before 1492 always makes me ill. (And it would have continued to NOT be Utopia if Columbus had actually sailed off the edge of the Earth to find nothing.)

Somehow, I think there's a Middle East lesson in there somewhere...

[flacaltenn]

Maybe BlueStreak:

It's just the scale of things. Like the phrase 'Balkanizing' pertaining (primarily) to the break-up of Yugoslavia. Yeah Tito was a monster, but when you "federate" all of those ethnic areas under one flag, it's like neutralizing the PH. No potential chemical explosion. Got nothing to do with the potential bully factor until you cut all those areas loose to self-govern. Maybe Zeke can make the argument that all that American Indian inter-tribal warring could have been indefinately put on ice once the British/French arrived -- if the governators weren't fighting each other!

Remember when Biden wanted to divide Iraq into 3 pieces? From the history lesson we're discussing here, I think we can predict THAT outcome as well.

BTW: Can't read your avatar at any scaling. But I assume it shows how the poor Palis are losing more and more claim to land as the clock ticks. You gotta remember that British Palestine included all of current Jordan and small bits of Syria. 80% of that British Mandate went to "Palestinian" Arabs.. Specifically to EXCLUDE Jews and Zionists from any entry or citizen rights in THAT part of Palestine which became Jordan. Leaving the Jews to beg for scraps of the 20% or so that was left West of the Jordan River.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by flacaltenn

Maybe Zeke can make the argument that all that American Indian inter-tribal warring could have been indefinately put on ice once the British/French arrived -- if the governators weren't fighting each other!

As we've been fighting with each other even under the fiduciary care of the Federal government for ~150 years (which is as "peaceful" a period as we've ever had), I find it unlikely that there's anything the United States can do to actively cease unrest in the Middle East.

Why? Their factions are just as committed to being asses towards each other as American Indians have been with significantly enhanced military acumen.

Not good.

[piece-itpete]

Obama's spending capital on an imaginary new 'push' because it's an easy no lose way to pander to the far left coming into '12 without actually doing anything.

Originally Posted by Zeke

In this sense, what's the difference between Eastern US American Indian tribes and the current Palestinians?

You're not shooting rockets into Chicago or sending suicide bombers into DC?

Pete

[finnbow]

I guess what has me a bit chagrined about this whole dust-up with Obama's speech is that he vocalized what has been pretty much our defacto policy for the past 20 years (1967 borders with land swaps) and he's taken to the woodshed by the Netanyahu and the GOP.

Our body politic is willing and able to vocalize all sorts of various positions regarding our various allies in the world without all the "sturm und drang" (Freedom Fries anyone?), but the instant that anything is said with which the Likud party or their (mostly GOP) enablers in Congress ever-so-slightly disagree (even if it's been said before), it solicits a "how dare he throw Israel under the bus?" response.

Compounding my confusion on this issue is that anyone who says that the Jewish/Israel lobby has too much influence in Washington is shouted down as anti-semitic, while at the same time our politicians are forced to bow down before AIPAC. I would argue that Israel has greater influence on our politics than the residents of at least a dozen of our own states.

[flacaltenn]

FinnBow:

I'm not really buying that it's the same-0.. I must not have been following Camp David and the peace attempts for the past 30 years or my ears haven't been working..

Let's try some logic.

1) If you START with 1967 borders as an initial condition --- Then
2) In order to swap for anything, Israel has to give UP acreage that it held prior to 1967.
3) The end result being that Israel loses land it held prior to 1967.

NEVER was in the cards previously.. You'd have to give me concrete examples...

What parts of pre-67 Israel were EVER on the table in serious negotiations other than "joint use" travel corridors that amounted to road access?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I guess what has me a bit chagrined about this whole dust-up with Obama's speech is that he vocalized what has been pretty much our defacto policy for the past 20 years (1967 borders with land swaps) and he's taken to the woodshed by the Netanyahu and the GOP.

Well, quite possibly because as posted earlier, this has been a desired end point for negotiations, not a starting point.

I still get back to this: If the ultimate goal is not about territory, and assuming its about peace, why would / should Israel negotiate with anyone until the Palestinians and their ideological affiliates agree that Israel has a right to exist? They could give up territory back to 1967 and still end up with a bunch of neighbors who want them extinguished.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I guess what has me a bit chagrined about this whole dust-up with Obama's speech is that he vocalized what has been pretty much our defacto policy for the past 20 years (1967 borders with land swaps) and he's taken to the woodshed by the Netanyahu and the GOP.

Our body politic is willing and able to vocalize all sorts of various positions regarding our various allies in the world without all the "sturm und drang" (Freedom Fries anyone?), but the instant that anything is said with which the Likud party or their (mostly GOP) enablers in Congress ever-so-slightly disagree (even if it's been said before), it solicits a "how dare he throw Israel under the bus?" response.

Compounding my confusion on this issue is that anyone who says that the Jewish/Israel lobby has too much influence in Washington is shouted down as anti-semitic, while at the same time our politicians are forced to bow down before AIPAC. I would argue that Israel has greater influence on our politics than the residents of at least a dozen of our own states.

So why vocalise and extend political capital at this time when your domestic programs are still not firm. Not very political astute! I say put the Pal/Israeli issue on a far back burner.
Moreover the end result is to embolden the Likkud to erect more far out settlements.......boots on the ground.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Compounding my confusion on this issue is that anyone who says that the Jewish/Israel lobby has too much influence in Washington is shouted down as anti-semitic, while at the same time our politicians are forced to bow down before AIPAC. I would argue that Israel has greater influence on our politics than the residents of at least a dozen of our own states.

Its always been an amazing dichotomy here. The left seems more impacted by what is typically a very solid voting block in the Jewish community. The right seems to place high value on the foreign policy side of the relationship with Israel. Either way, Israel does get a significant share of our attention.