Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

Besides, even if you gently remove Israel from the map in whatever way, you're still left with Sunni and Shi'a conflict, slightly younger, although still nasty. Saudi Sunnis, Iranian Shi'a, both with huge arsenals and the lion's share of the world's oil flowing between the straight that divides them. Without a third party these factions either cannot be balanced and it will all burn or they'll unite and hold the world's most strategic resource hostage.

...Is Obama advocating removing Israel from the map?

[Funk]

Besides, even if you gently remove Israel from the map in whatever way, you're still left with Sunni and Shi'a conflict, slightly younger, although still nasty. Saudi Sunnis, Iranian Shi'a, both with huge arsenals and the lion's share of the world's oil flowing between the straight that divides them. Without a third party these factions either cannot be balanced and it will all burn or they'll unite and hold the world's most strategic resource hostage.

...Is Obama advocating removing Israel from the map?

no he has just told them that thay need to give back some land (the last of the 6 day war Territories)in line to  United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.
if only because he care to try Land for Peace

[Nikov]

Besides, even if you gently remove Israel from the map in whatever way, you're still left with Sunni and Shi'a conflict, slightly younger, although still nasty. Saudi Sunnis, Iranian Shi'a, both with huge arsenals and the lion's share of the world's oil flowing between the straight that divides them. Without a third party these factions either cannot be balanced and it will all burn or they'll unite and hold the world's most strategic resource hostage.

...Is Obama advocating removing Israel from the map?

no he has just told them that thay need to give back some land (the last of the 6 day war Territories)in line to  United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.
if only because he care to try Land for Peace

It is called a hypothetical. Even without Israel, there is no peace. The problems run far deeper than 1947.

 

...and is stronger militarily now than they've ever been.  Arab Spring or not, all of the countries bordering Israel know they have to have workable relationships with the US for their economies to survive, and no government but Syria has even rhetorically entertained the idea of launching a war with Israel for a generation.

Israel currently has defensible borders and assets built to defend them. That is why it is stronger now than it has ever been. And a strong Israel is the best deterrant against conventional attack, more so than any piece of paper or sense of economic mutual interest. For you to say that Israel can go back to the precarious state it was in when Syrian tanks could drive to the sea in thirty minutes and will be safe because only Syria has bothered to suggest an interest in war since those indefensible borders were shored up with the 6-Day War is the most ridiculous doublethink I've heard about the middle east yet.

[knaveofstaves]

no he has just told them that thay need to give back some land (the last of the 6 day war Territories)in line to  United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.
if only because he care to try Land for Peace

Yeah, if there's anything new to this that's not about tone, new in substance, it's about the distribution of land. The '67 borders are just a starting point, Israel and Palestine would negotiate from there, and the right-wingers throwing a fit about '67 borders are basically misguided.

For you to say that Israel can go back to the precarious state it was in when Syrian tanks could drive to the sea in thirty minutes...

Like this. Nikov. Basically misguided fellow.

[PTTG??]

More importantly, Israel is not the United states. They are separate countries. The citizens of Israel are not US citizens, and vice versa.

Israel and the United States are not the same country. The elected government of the US is not elected by and does not represent Israel. Israeli citizens do not pay US taxes. US citizens do not pay Israeli taxes. The US constitution does not mention Israel.

Israel has Israeli soldiers paid with Israeli tax revenue. These Israeli soldiers are not expected to defend the US.

Is my point becoming clear in any way?

[Aqizzar]

...and is stronger militarily now than they've ever been.  Arab Spring or not, all of the countries bordering Israel know they have to have workable relationships with the US for their economies to survive, and no government but Syria has even rhetorically entertained the idea of launching a war with Israel for a generation.

Israel currently has defensible borders and assets built to defend them. That is why it is stronger now than it has ever been. And a strong Israel is the best deterrant against conventional attack, more so than any piece of paper or sense of economic mutual interest. For you to say that Israel can go back to the precarious state it was in when Syrian tanks could drive to the sea in thirty minutes and will be safe because only Syria has bothered to suggest an interest in war since those indefensible borders were shored up with the 6-Day War is the most ridiculous doublethink I've heard about the middle east yet.

At what point did anyone say that Israel should demilitarize?  I'm really not sure what you're going for here.  What's on the table is that Israel and Palestine (and a couple other countries I suppose) look at the 1967 treaty lines, y'know the ones that were drawn after the war, and figure out what modern territories they can exchange now so that that as few people as possible need to move to retain their respective citizenship when the lines are drawn.  Where in that do you get the idea that Israel would inherently become vulnerable to a Syrian invasion, were such a thing even a realistic possibility in the 21st century?

[Africa]

Again, the thing about indefensible borders. First off, I never feel sorry when Israelis start whining about their borders, because the damn country refuses to declare its own borders, and has for 40 years. When you say where your borders are, then you may have some credibility to bitch about them.

Also, American rhetoric constantly holds Israel's security as the highest inviolable goal, but again, at what point does Israel's need to absolutely be risk-free outweigh the entire Palestinian nation's right to have basic human freedoms? Like I was saying before, you don't hear Palestinians crying about their security because even having security to worry about would be a huge step forward. Israel can't out-victim the Palestinians - that's why nobody buys it even when their politicians complain they can't talk about peace to terrorists who want to destroy them. Well look at the other guy! The entire planet agrees they are in the right in their demand for the remaining 22% of British Mandate Palestine, and yet all of Europe is hemming and hawing and saying they have to go through negotiations with Israel instead of just asserting that right. So if Israel shouldn't have to talk to terrorists who want to destroy it, why should the Palestinians have to talk to tyrants who want to keep them from ever being free? This is Israel's PR problem and what they never seem to grasp. It's been getting progressively worse ever since the PLO's initial terrorism campaigns made people notice that there was such a thing as a Palestinian, and it's never going to get any better.

In any case, Netanyahu and co. are just digging their country's grave deeper and deeper. Everybody there seems to revere David Ben Gurion. But after the 1967 war, he warned (as, honestly anybody could have who had a bit of foresight) that holding on to that territory would lead to disaster. Well no shit! But not even his prophetic words are enough to make people realize that Israel WILL destroy itself if it doesn't get rid of the West Bank, and that maintaining an apartheid regime over two and a half million people is a thousand times worse of a threat to Israel than terrorism will ever be. That's the bottom line of this conflict and one of the most insane things about it - people resisting their best interest as if it's a molester coming after their kids. What a freaking world.

Also, hard to know what came out of this meeting with Obama, other than Netanyahu continuing to be a rejectionist, but some US official is warning that in September it's going to be 187 countries voting to admit Palestine and 2 voting against. That's the "diplomatic tsunami" Ehud Barak warned about.

[alway]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Israel is currently believed to possess between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads with the ability to deliver them by intermediate-range ballistic missile, aircraft, and submarine.

Somehow I doubt the fact that Israel is some precious little kid with whom you must play with child gloves lest they fall and hurt themselves. Seriously; they have enough nukes to turn the entire region into a smoking hell-hole; they even have thermonuclear weapons. And that isn't even getting into the fact that they have one of the best, most modern militaries in the world. Unless a world superpower like China, Russia, or the US were to invade, they would at the very least be able to fend off the attack.

[PTTG??]

More importantly, Israel is not the United states. They are separate countries. The citizens of Israel are not US citizens, and vice versa.

Israel and the United States are not the same country. The elected government of the US is not elected by and does not represent Israel. Israeli citizens do not pay US taxes. US citizens do not pay Israeli taxes. The US constitution does not mention Israel.

Israel has Israeli soldiers paid with Israeli tax revenue. These Israeli soldiers are not expected to defend the US.

Is my point becoming clear in any way?

[Heron TSG]

...Israel is some precious little kid with whom you must play with child gloves lest they fall and hurt themselves.

I'm just spectating and I know this has no bearing on the argument, but I'm on an etymology streak. Child is a synonym of kid in the meaning 'young human', but the kid from 'kid gloves' (the phrase you seem to be intending to use) refers to a young goat. Kid gloves are very soft because they are made from kid leather, the leather made from the hides of goat kids. To handle something with kid gloves is to handle it carefully because the gloves are soft and intended for delicate handiwork. A common misconception, and the one your phrasing involves, seems to be that the gloves are gloves meant for handling children, as they are fragile.

Spoiler: Barbarossa flies away: his planet needs him. (click to show/hide)

[Bauglir]

More importantly, Israel is not the United states. They are separate countries. The citizens of Israel are not US citizens, and vice versa.

Israel and the United States are not the same country. The elected government of the US is not elected by and does not represent Israel. Israeli citizens do not pay US taxes. US citizens do not pay Israeli taxes. The US constitution does not mention Israel.

Israel has Israeli soldiers paid with Israeli tax revenue. These Israeli soldiers are not expected to defend the US.

Is my point becoming clear in any way?

You know what, no, it isn't. You'd think you'd have realized that the first time you felt it necessary to repost. If it didn't work the first time, it isn't going to work the third time.

[Knight of Fools]

My biggest question is: Why would Obama fire up an issue that was just under 50 years old and risk the blaze running out of control?

The USA and Britain have invested quite a bit in Israel, since they decided to finally give them a place in Palestine back in the day.  Having someone in the middle east that likes us is a good thing, but now it seems like we're just trying to pander to everyone that just wants us to let them be.  We keep poking them and asking, "Does this make you happy?", but they keep screaming, "Just leave me alone!"

And I think that's what we need to do.  Just leave things alone.  Sometimes, inaction is the best course of action.  Picking at a scab just means it'll never heal.

So, is Israel going to join the anti-American sentiment in the Mid-East, now?  Feels like it.  Will everyone else suddenly love the States because Obama said Israel should undo something it did nearly 50 years ago?  Definitely not.

So, what has the president accomplished with this statement, here?

[knaveofstaves]

So, what has the president accomplished with this statement, here?

My feeling personally? The debate in the United States has ossified, and this statement cracks it open. Having the face-to-face with Netanyahu, and going to AIPAC on Sunday, broadens the range of ideas that are acceptable to express in polite company.

Everyone agrees that Hamas has crimes to answer for. Israel, also, has murdered unarmed civilians, and stolen land. Only people who can unreservedly agree with both statements will be honest participants in the peace process. And Obama has established himself as one of those people.

[DJ]

Without a third party these factions either cannot be balanced and it will all burn or they'll unite and hold the world's most strategic resource hostage.

And what, put an embargo on USA? Don't be silly, they need to sell the oil as much as America needs to buy it. How else will the sheikhs buy solid gold Bentleys?

[RedKing]

My biggest question is: Why would Obama fire up an issue that was just under 50 years old and risk the blaze running out of control?

Because his predecessor didn't do shit about the issue? And frankly up until now, Obama has done even less. I think with bin Laden out of the way, he's choosing to make this his foreign policy focus for the remainder of the 1st term (and hopefully into the 2nd term).

And yes, IMHO, it was a rug that was overdue to be pulled. Israel has long acted like that one snotty brat you know who acts like a bigshot because he knows his daddy will always bail him out when his mouth writes a check that his body can't cash. I think Israel would be far less cavalier about its relations with neighboring states and its treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories if it were suddenly deprived of that multi-billion annual flow of military aid. And to me, this is Obama putting Netanyahu and the rest of the Likudniks on notice -- "Ok, bullshit's over. Get serious about a peace effort or you might be on your own."

But I think it's also a masterful stroke of domestic politicking. It's long been a given in American politics that the annual US aid to Israel was sancrosanct. It simply had too large of a lobby to force through a decrease, let alone a total revocation. But these are different times. You have deficit spending as one of the top issues right now, and you have a right-wing populist faction that has been beating the drum for cutting foreign aid. Obama may have just out-manoeuvered them by putting Israel up ono the block as Exhibit A. "Okay, you're right. Let's cut foreign aid. Israel is our biggest recipient, so let's start there, right fellas?"

If the Tea Partiers agree, then you've managed to harness domestic political enemies to accomplish a goal that Democrats have been itching to do for decades.

If they start backing away and hemming and hawing, then they lose credibility and lose momentum for cutting funding to things like the State Dept. and USAID. Either way, it's a win.

Yes, the right-wing is going to be incensed. Guess what, he's not really losing any votes there. He lost those votes the moment he ran for office. But he does reburnish his cred with the left-wing of the Democratic Party, both for embracing an issue of importance to them and by taking a position rather than triangulating. In short, between the bin Laden assassination (let's call it for what it was) and this speech, Big O showed he still has a pair, and knows how to swing 'em.