Change of plans for Hamas on that whole 'Gaza will be a graveyard for Israelis' thing. It appears they don't have room to bury any more people.........

No room for more graves in Gaza cemeteries - Times Online

I'm not revising history, the justification for Afghanistan and Iraq wars was the 911 attack. We blew the heck out of those two countries for it.

Israel has attacks against it all the time. They beat on Gaza in response. And we talk self-righteously about it here in the U.S. talking about which side we support, and poor Israelis vs poor Palestinians. Through most of human history one side or the other would have been viciously destroyed by now.

I don't see one fact I've stated that is not common knowledge, and I'm not playing the 'Faux News' or the 'liberal media' party lines, I'm saying that this situation results from an artificial system that popped up after WW II (both the states creation themselves, and the inability to commit war as it would have occurred in the past, causing the situation to maintain and fester).

Consider it ME fatigue that it wasn't already mentioned. George Mitchell of the Northern Ireland troubles fame is a special envoy to ME.

Seasoned Negotiator to Serve as a Mideast Envoy - NYTimes.com
I guess he has good of a shot as anyone else.

I do remember at one time in the 80s when I thought no way would there be peace in Ireland.

hmmm, I think that this is a wrong play in that if one of the side admits that a response is 'disproportionate' instead of just ignoring that topic dont they open themselves up to not just the world's judgment of said topic but perhaps even some liability?

And I am not placing my opinioni on whether it is or isnt disproportionate but the statement itself and it's ramifications:

Israel threatens response to new militant rockets - Yahoo! News

i'm getting tired of this. this is the life that that area wants. constant war and despair. they all need to be annihilated. palastine. israelis. they need to go.

So Hamas fires rockets into Israel, in hopes that Israel kills hundreds of people, in hopes that Hamas gets some medicine to care for their wounded?

Makes perfect sense to me.

A different perspective on things.

Hamas leader praises Iran's help in Gaza 'victory' - CNN.com

Response in war is supposed to be disproportionate. Whether or not they admit it the response will be the same.

but does the actual admittance open up a whole new can of beans?

No, it just shows that the Israelis like to be blunt about things.

I think there's been interesting developments in ME.

Israel approves plan to build 900 homes - CNN.com


I think there has been relative peace between Fatah West Bank and Israel. Abbas is a moderate leader that Israel can/should work with but seems to be aggravating/prolonging the process.

My roadmap to peace is:

1. Abbas cedes authority of Gaza and focuses on West Bank
2. Israel and Abbas negotiates peace and nationhood for West Bank
3. Peace comes with West Bank
4. World helps West Bank stabilize and prosper economically
5. West Bank opens doors to anyone from Gaza willing to relocate

Too simplistic but hey, would be nice.

It's not bad and obviously the West Bank is Palestine, but what would Israel do with a bunch of Arabs in Gaza? They will never give them citizenship so I think Israel wouldn't be to interested in "resolving" the issue of ownership there.

Syria gets the Golan Heights back after they let inspectors in to completely dismantle their WMD programs and shut down their terrorist camps.

I think if West Bank proves their peace with Israel model works, there will be strong pressure on Gaza to do the same. Hey, if I was in Gaza and I saw my cousins prospering on the other side, I would want to relocate also ... (the US $xxB in relocation, small business aide etc would be well spent).

I generally agree with Edward, but you have to define the West Bank and that's the problem. What settlements stay, what go? And, Netanyahu isn't even interested in a negotiated peace right now.

Obviously the big problem here is that the West Bank won't prosper. It's got nothing of value there besides fresh water, which (unfortunately) makes it just value enough for Israel to not want to give it up!


The simplistic answer is the original lines from 1967 when the UN told Israel to not move anybody into the occupied territories. Obviously, that's not going to ever happen as well.

The real problem for Israel at this point, is what exactly do the Palestinians have to barter with besides a reduction in violence and once Israel gives up the occupied territories, what do they have left to barter with to reduce future violence?

And none of this addresses the "other" problem. Which of course, is the continuing "final solution" strategy that a lot of powerful (or powerful wannabe) Muslims have adopted/maintained vs the Jews.

As a one of the many forum members here who has served in the US Armed Forces(Air Force 1990-1998) but one of the more liberal posters here being from the socialist state of Massachusetts I got to say this got me ready to go get my commission back. I am now all for turning this guys fucking country into a parking lot.

Iran's Ahmadinejad: Sept. 11 attacks a 'big lie' - Yahoo! News

So Ahmanutjob is a 9/11 truther, who knew? Maybe he's a birther as well!

Makes the world a really safe place when countries are run by nut jobs like that idiot...

Well, the good news is that Iran is a democracy and he'll get his day in court when the people go to the polls.

...or not...

Which would be the wrong decision. The vast majority of Iranians are good people and we would only turn them (and countless others) against the U.S. permanently by carpet bombing the entire country.

On the other hand, I'm still not sure why we don't just assassinate Ahmadinejad.


One day in the near future Iraq will be a theocratic client state of Iran and I'll ask you if you still think it was all worth it.

Is this the same hypothetical future where Obama lives up to his foregin policy rhetoric and promises? If so, I don't think we have to worry about that scenerio.

It depends. If your view of Obama's foreign policy rhetoric and promises includes depictions of unicorns and free ponies for everyone, then it seems the more likely scenario would be both Iraq and Iran being peaceful and prosperous western-style democracies.

So actually the same level of fantasy as possessed by the delusional armchair generals who got us into Iraq in the first place.

I'm just going by his words - he promised withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months. Then once that promise helped him get through the primaries, he changed it in the general election to "all combat troops removed from Iraq in 16 months". Neither promise will hold up.

I think Obama did realize, that since he doesn't have to deal with primaries in 2012, "better than Bush" and "some change" would be enough, and that the voters wouldn't care much, or simply forget, what he said to get elected.

Pretty sure the US relationship with West Bank Palestinians is getting warmer and somewhat chillier with the Israelis. I think the West Bank group has shown they are no longer (as) rogue vs their cousins in Gaza.

I'm okay with it. Hope we gave them a more forceful and frank response in private.

Clinton: Israeli settlement announcement insulting - CNN.com

Like every other presidential candidate. Ever.

I didn't see this reported on CNN or MSNBC but was on FOXNEWS.

FOXNews.com - Reports: Netanyahu 'Humiliated' by Obama Snub

Even though I believe Israel should be more accomodating to the US (e.g. the Biden visit fiasco) this is really poor, childish diplomacy. Makes me wonder if it was a mutually, staged setup as an apology for the Biden visit.

I don't agree. One of the key tools of diplomacy is the granting or withholding, of access and favor. In the past couple of months the Netanyahu government has repeatedly done exactly what the U.S. government doesn't want, and flaunted their actions directly in front of our diplomatic officials. Obama's response is exactly correct.

I mean, Netanyahu continued to do this while visiting the White House. Clearly he's not interested in playing ball, so why should Obama spend anymore time with him?

Bull. There's a way of doing things. This is not that way. This was very disrespectful. I completely agree with the administration's stance against the recent actions of Israel, but even so, I can't believe Obama's people let this go down this way. Regardless of how two sides may disagree on an issue, there is an expected level of professionalism and diplomacy in all of these situations. Israel isn't even an enemy--they're a key ally in the most volatile region in the world (even if their presence is the primary reason it's volatile).

This is insulting and stupid diplomacy. It's the kind of asshat thing I wouldn't have been surprised to see the last administration do. Pretty surprised--and disappointed--to see this one do it.

No, they're just a focal point. It's a volatile region because they went from nomad bandit tribes to ultra-wealthy in a VERY short period of time (under 20 years) thanks to oil. Israel makes a good focal point, but look at the Sunni/Shiite violence in Iraq, the way Jordan treats its Palestinian refugees, and how Syria treats the whole region for evidence. If Israel gave up and moved all its people elsewhere, this region would still be volatile.

Netanyahu has gone out of his way to not only not play ball, but to humiliate U.S. diplomatic efforts at every step, including before and during his trip to the White House itself. It's not only unbecoming of a close ally, it's ridiculous from a country that receives around $3 billion in U.S. aid each year.

U.S. administrations have gone to exceptional lengths to use kid gloves on increasingly difficult, recalcitrant and unreasonable Israeli administrations. I applaud Obama for finally taking a stand and making it clear to Netanyahu that he can go suck wind.


Boo fucking hoo. If the Israelis think they can openly undermine U.S. policy while visiting the White House itself then they're just as divorced from reality as their Palestinian opponents.

Kind of a quibble here, don't you think? Not really the point of my post to debate the importance or relevance of Israel in ME affairs. Maybe we move on from ranking where Israel stands on a ranking of volatile ME issues and get back to the point? ;)

Remove your Dem glasses, dude. This was an asshat move.

You need to figure out the difference between the personal and the political. What Israel is doing is political, even if it's stupid. What Obama did was personal. A personal insult is not the same as a diplomatic disagreement, even an active opposition to a diplomatic stance.

I think we have to question whether they're really a key ally in the region anymore. I would think that Jordan & Egypt have done more (behind the scenes) in support of our affairs in the Arab in recent history than Israel have.

Aside from the historical reasons for supporting Israel, it's important to note that Israel was important to the U.S. from a geopolitical standpoint during the Cold War as an important force projection and proxy counter. It's been twenty years since that really mattered, however.

I'm not sure how party affiliation is even relevant here.


I've followed Israel-American diplomatic machinations for over 20 years now. Your assessment is shockingly naive and is exactly the type of reaction the Israelis are hoping for from an under-informed American public.

No one who follows the ME seriously would suggest they are not. Don't let recent disagreements veil from you the fact that Israel is still by far the most key ally the US has there, and that's above and beyond the strong support the country has here internally in any case (which affects domestic politics).

Egypt is divided. The government helps us because the $3 B we give them to not attack Israel helps prop up their dictatorship government. Their people are not strong supporters of US interests. Jordan has to play a game of diplomacy, because they are surrounded by powerful nations that don't like each other and are willing to steamroll over Jordan if need be, and Jordan has no oil.

Any support they are giving is circumstantial to their situations, and if circumstances were to turn in their favor politically, they would be against us in a second. Israel is the only country there that has strong ideological reasons to marry itself to the US (in addition to the foreign aid).

Every Arab country in the ME that does anything to support US efforts is doing whatever it does for political reasons that are for its own benefit first and foremost, and of course, the US itself is also acting in its own interests in the ME.

You're a noted Democrat on this board, Israel is an issue of more primary importance to conservative interests historically, and it's usually safe to assume thatm, as a Dem, you're almost certainly an Obama fan boy as well. Not exactly a reach.


My "assessment" that you quoted has nothing to do with American-Israel diplomatic machiantions and everything to do with being a decent human being. Obama acted like a jerk. He should be called on it when it happens. The politics of the last 20 years should have no bearing on how one holds oneself in public, how one handles things on a personal level in matters of professional courtesy.

While there is no doubt that Israel is the closest of the ME countries to the U.S. both ideologically and politically, the question I'm asking is what material benefit the U.S. receives from this alliance, especially since we no longer need Israel as a counter to the Soviets.

When you're actually in the White House, the personal is political and vice versa. Previous Israeli Prime Ministers have at least tried to not humiliate the U.S. during periods of public diplomacy, while Netanyahu has gone out of his way to continually put Obama into embarrassing situations.

Are you saying there's some sort of decorum Netanyahu should expect even when he's directly undermining U.S. diplomatic efforts while he is in the White House itself?

Obama sent a political message to Netanyahu through his action. I don't see it as Obama being a jerk, I see it as Obama making it crystal clear that he doesn't believe Netanyahu is a good faith actor in this process.

This is the real probelm:


A lot of the Arab world is nervous about Iran and would be at a minimum quiet about harsher sanctions or even a US/NATO attack. Israel's behavior, though, makes it politically untenable for Arab nations to be seen as supporting an Israeli initiative.

I'm fine calling out Obama for a personal slight, but you can't take the issue out of the context of increasing Israeli obstinacy and foolishness.

Gosh, I sure am glad that once the Soviet Union went belly up we no longer had any enemies bent on our destruction.

Very droll.

Israel was a counter to the Soviets in the region but doesn't act as a similar counter today to our current threats in the region.

Hmm ... lemme see here, depending upon the source of the estimate

Yemen 99% Muslim
Oman 62% Muslim
UAE 88%-93% Muslim
Qatar - 71%-77% Muslim
Bahrain - 81% Muslim
Saudi - 89% Muslim
Kuwait - 68% Muslim
Jordan - 93%-95% Muslim
Iraq - 97% Muslim
Iran - 98% Muslim
Syria - 90% Muslim
Turkey 99% Muslim
Lebanon - 60% Muslim
Israel - 16% Muslim

Hmm ... one of these things is not like the other, looks like a potentially significant ally against a common enemy to me.

You're smarter than that, Jon.

In the Cold War era Israel fought several proxy wars against Soviet clients and ensured, through their active use of military power, that no Soviet client state would gain too much hegemony in the region.

The nature of Islamic fundamentalism as an opponent is completely different. Israel does not act as a counter to Islamic fundamentalism, but as its catalyst. If anything acts as a counter to Islamic fundamentalism, it is secularism, education and the existence of moderate Arab states (speaking in the context of this region).

Of course I'm not sure why I'm bothering to explain the nuance of middle east politics to someone whose solution to the entire region is to nuke it back to the stone age (and beyond)....

Ultimately that probably comes down to whether you belief a "moderate Arab state" is a realistic long term possibility or whether they are all an issue with some being simply more passive or active in their current activities.

Here's what it really boils down to though: that what discomfits my enemy is a good thing. And surely there can be little question that Israel's presence & strength discomfits a great number of enemies in the region while if Israel vanished from the planet tomorrow our enemies would remain our enemies.

The problem of course is that every stable/peaceful place on Earth is so because of the total defeat of it's opponents.

dola: Obviously I'm not a proponent of nuking anybody...just making a point. :)

Fair enough, I know you have divergent views on this. I tend to believe we'll eventually have moderate Muslim-majority states in the same way we have moderate Christian-majority states. The question, then, will be if, in general, moderate states can survive fundamentalism of any stripe. Given the current divide on this in the U.S., maybe that alone is an open question.


Here's the thing: the presence of Israel does not discomfit radical Islam. Instead it feeds it and gives it a very big reason for existing and for being radicalized. In fact, that which it discomfits are the moderate or even secular elements within these states who might otherwise be our allies.


I'm not saying Israel should cease to exist. I'm not even saying it should accede to the demands of the Palestinians. I'm saying that the geopolitical reasons for its importance to the U.S. have changed radically since the fall of the Soviet Union and from a strategic point Israel may no longer be a net benefit for U.S. interests in the region.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not here.

Yeah, I think we've hit the point of fundamental disagreement that we can't overcome. I'm of the belief that "radical" and "Islam" is redundant and that Israel ultimately has nothing to do with the "acting out" behaviors; i.e. if that wasn't an excuse then there'd just be a different excuse.

Not sure there's any way to reconcile our difference of opinion there, but not much we can do about that really. On the bright side, not even a sliver of the fate of the world rests on our ability to reconcile our differences so (to paraphrase Bill Murray) we've got that going for us.

I'm just going by what I read in the history books.

Oh fuck.

Turkey is going to up the ante with Israel by sending relief ships escorted by Turkish warships. And as if that weren't bad enough, Turkey has requested an emergency meeting of NATO where they may be able to invoke Article V due to a non-member attack on a member flagged ship. Of course NATO members won't attack Israel, but it could dissolve the alliance.

I hope we cut political ties with Israel as well.

How about we actually let an investigation take place...

So the Biblical prophecy can come closer and closer to coming true?

I think I've gone off in this thread before about how irritated I get with the whole "primacy of Israel in US foreign relations" before, so I'll save my rant.

I wish we'd treat them just like any other country though, instead of treating them like some sacred cow. It hamstrings a lot of our potential options in the region.

Is that necessarily our problem though? They're big boys...they shouldn't need us to prop them up at our own expense anymore (financial or otherwise). What makes them any different than any other country in the world? Our relationships with them should be judged the same way any of our other foreign relations are.

There's quite a few reasons why they are different to other nations, from a US point of view.

The United States really needs Israel, because it gives them an ally and counter-weight located in a very convenient place. Unfortunately, Israel has become very powerful (thanks again to the United States) and has shown time and time again that it will act on whatever it feels its best interests are, regardless of support or approval from the US. It's now hamstrung the US, because any action it takes, regardless of whether it has US approval or not (and I imagine the majority of the time it does not), is also blamed on the US because of the close ties between the two countries, AND the US is in the delicate position of basically having to offically remain silent, or at least not outright condemn, Israel.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't give them the benefit of the doubt.

+1

Now you're talking. You see, we don't disagree on everything.

Your country has a blockade set up and ships refuse requests to have their cargo inspected as they try to get through the blockade and your reaction would be...?

Excusing the issue of why the blockade is set up (which is a pretty big part of the issue), I'm certain my country and its military would not have acted like Israel's did. I don't think your's would have either.

Not exactly sure how you can compare Australia to Israel.

And that's a very good thing, unfortunately.

So you wold rather they allow them to continue and just pray that they aren't carrying weapons? I could see that going over well... :)

No, I wouldn't expect that. I think they have several options available to them, but as usual they go with the most extreme option because they know they can get away with it.

Just ask Scrappy Coco

I don't think he did, he was responding to Eaglefan's post about what he would do if it was his own country. How else is he supposed to answer?

What options are those?

... not everyone believes in the bible broski.

At the very least wait until they hit Israeli waters before doing anything. Then you have the option of naval blockades to stop the ships heading towards their destination. Will take some time, but this is what my country would do, and does do, when we get illegal ships entering our waters. This is the logical first step, and a step that should come well before you storm the ships with commandos.

Well in other news

"Al-Qaida says No. 3 leader, bin Laden's brother-in-law, killed" — NBC News
No links posted yet.

Woo-hoo! I'm sure there is no way the Al-Qaida will ever be able to replace him with some other radical!

Whenever we kill the Al-Queda no. 2 or 3 I always imagine the head guy exclaiming, "Uh-Oh, we're going to need another Timmy!"

Probably why you're so willing to cast off Israel. All I can say is you better be really sure you're right because it doesn't end well for those against Israel if you end up being wrong.

Of all 1000+ posts in this thread this has to be the dumbest. Biblical prophecies? Are you serious?

:rolleyes:

That area that now makes up Israel was out of the hands of the Jewish people for a long, long time before the 20th century.

Best to just leave religion out of this thread altogether IMO. It doesn't tend to lead to constructive chit-chat.

In international waters on a Turkish flagged ship? Yeah, you better let that slide. Is that ship, even if it was full of weapons worth what they are going ot pay? Obviously not.

I'm fully behind a state of Israel, but God almightly it would be nice if some of the political leaders would see that their actions aren't helping safeguard their nation.

I think you're misguided in your belief of Israel. They are the biggest threat to our security because of our close relationship with them.

Fixed that for ya.

Israel are far-and-beyond the others. I doubt it's even close. If you'd like an interesting insight into how easily Israel could drag the US into a war with Iran, read this:

http://www.foi.se/upload/nyheter/201...d%20omslag.pdf

"Now Timmy, before you shake that nitroglycerin, I'm going to go over here behind this lead blast shield."

SI

History is full of "bibles and guns" coming across borders. Almost nothing good ever comes out of such "aid". Why should this be any different?

If these are peaceful ships just carrying food, why would they allow inspections? Why are they trying to outrun military blockades? I guess as long as it's some other country, we should just wait to see what happens. But it's really easy to be anti-Israel these days.

Also, I believe most articles were saying there were hardly any Turks aboard the ship? So yeah, it was Turkish flagged but what does that mean?

Here's a great article from StratFor comparing this to the Exodus campaign to drive the British out of the Palestine Mandate.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100...3645c5d73e93b4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12K...layer_embedded

Here is a link to youtube videos of the Israeli's interacting with the peaceful protesters. No matter what you think about the event, these are interesting video clips.

Pretty vivid details in this article that seem to match much of what the videos show.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...896796,00.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...wn-goal/57490/

Basically, to draw a crude analogy, I see Israel as like a guy whose next door neighbor keeps on picking on him, overturning his trashcans, stealing his newspapers, throwing rocks at his dog, etc.

From my point of view, Israel is "right" in general, and Israel's foes are "wrong."

But then, this is like the poor guy just snapping and, upon seeing his "wrong" neighbor standing on the corner walking toward his house, starting to shoot at him or something while the guy is still on the sidewalk.

In the grand scheme of things, Israel is "right." But, in this particular incident, they are totally in the wrong.

I mean, dropping commandos onto a ship in international waters flying the flag of a sovereign nation? Seriously? That's a declaration of war, basically.

I can't begin to understand the pressures under which Israel operates. And I can see how those pressures could lead to a move like this. But it was a very, very bad thing to do. And, since the parties on the other side of this (Iran, etc.) have no incentive to live and let live, I'm not sure how we get out of it.

Al-Qaida #3 = drummer from Spinal Tap.

It's an interesting cycle in general that says a lot about human nature, and occurs again and again throughout history. When one side is generally "right", and the other "wrong" (even from an objective perspective), the "right" side will eventually use their rightness to justify bad activities. Those bad activities can gain a momentum, because any opposition to the "bad" is spinned as opposition to that which is generally right (and you get terms thrown at you like anti-semitic, racist, un-american, intolerant, ect, which are all very effective in stifling opposition)

Is this true? I always thought the general assumtion was that the U.S. had kind of a leash on Israel, and if it were "unleashed", Israel would be much more aggressive in eliminating threats in the region.

I kind of imagine them lobbing nukes over to Iran in response to Iran's nuclear programs if they were completely unrestrained.

No "basically" about it, it is one. I mean the US treated the blowing up of the battleship Maine as a declaration of war by Spain.

And the other problem is treating all the MidEast majority Muslim countries as the same "neighbor". Turkey, for one, has been far closer to Israel diplomatically than other countries in the region.

Not entirely true, in terms of general assumption. There is also an assumption is that Israel is far more aggressive because they know the US has their back in case anything disasterous happens.

While I agree with the generalities of the analogy, it is more like your neighbor firing flaming potato cannons at your house every day for a while. Occasionally strapping M80s to his dog while throwing milkbone's in your house and yard.

I Google'd it. 57,000 hits for "flaming potato gun" including a handful of youtube videos and a site that cautions: "Flaming, explosive, black powder, or living projectiles can often make a legal spud gun illegal in many jurisdictions"

:D

SI

LOL.

When I was in college, one of my roommates was an engineer and lived on an army base (his dad was military). We built not just your standard issue potato gun, this one was made of PVC piping with exhaust holes, a butane ignited trigger, and what was supposed to be a top-mounted clip for extra rounds. We used to fill it up with shaving cream when we got drunk and knocked on people's doors in the dorm...hilarity (and sometimes aggression) ensued.

Doesn't Egypt work with Israel on the blockade in Gaza? Didn't Israel offer the ships to stop in Egypt for inspection? Did Turkey contact Israel ahead of time and let them know of the ships coming with aid?

To answer my own questions:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37442104...ideastn_africa

Amid the increasing tensions, the Israeli military said it carried out an airstrike in Gaza on Tuesday, and an Islamic militant group said three of its members were killed after firing rockets into southern Israel. Israeli authorities say the rockets landed in open areas and caused no injuries.

Two militants infiltrating into Israel from Gaza were killed in a separate incident Tuesday, the military said.

Good to see that this has not stopped other good work.

I am a Catholic and too have to agree. More surprising is from a rational intelligent poster non the less. I hope we never start conducting policy based any religious writings.

They're wrong a lot of the time. We should come out and say they're wrong when they're wrong. We shouldn't treat them any different just because they're Israel. That said, there's no way we should EVER abandon them as an ally.

My comment was said mostly tongue-in-cheek but I do find it amazing how much more possible a prophecy involving Israel standing alone against everyone seems to be becoming. You can't run your policy because of it though.

Not any more. Egypt has apparently opened their side of Gaza and are claiming it's permanent.