Middle East - what's next

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

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

[SportsDino]

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).

[Edward64]

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

Mr. Mitchell, 75, brings his own credibility in the region, Mr. Indyk said. The commission he led under President Clinton investigated the roots of the violence between Israelis and Palestinians. Its recommendations were accepted by leaders on both sides.

By choosing Mr. Mitchell, experts said, Mr. Obama can demonstrate his good intentions without being forced to embark on a new initiative when the conditions are not ripe.

“Mitchell is a statement of intent, which says to the world, ‘I care about this issue; be patient with me,’ ” said Aaron David Miller, an analyst at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

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.

[Flasch186]

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

[Anthony]

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.

[Dutch]

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.

[Edward64]

A different perspective on things.

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

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal on Sunday praised Iran for helping Hamas achieve "victory" over Israel in Gaza, according to Iranian media reports.

"The victory of the people of Gaza was a miracle of God and the Islamic Republic definitely has a share in this victory," Meshaal said after meeting with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency.

[jeff061]

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

[Flasch186]

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

[flere-imsaho]

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

[Edward64]

I think there's been interesting developments in ME.

Israel approves plan to build 900 homes - CNN.com

The Jewish state's Interior Ministry said it had approved the construction of 900 units in Gilo. The approval of construction moves forward the process for the project; it will now be opened to public objections.

Final approval will follow several other stages, and construction is likely several years away.

Washington said it was dismayed at the move.

"At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these action make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a written statement.

"The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent-status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties," Gibbs said.

"Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations."

The United States has stepped back from its position requiring a total freeze in settlement expansion, leading to uproar among Palestinians.

And the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has threatened to resign, which could lead to the collapse of the Middle East peace process if he does.

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

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).

[JPhillips]

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Edward64

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).

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!

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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.

[Galaril]

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

[Greyroofoo]

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

[EagleFan]

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

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...

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Galaril

AI am now all for turning this guys fucking country into a parking lot.

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.

Originally Posted by Dutch

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.

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

Originally Posted by molson

Is this the same hypothetical future where Obama lives up to his foregin policy rhetoric and promises?

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[Edward64]

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

Washington (CNN) -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Friday that Israel's announcement of new settlement construction in disputed territory in East Jerusalem was "insulting" to the United States.

The Israeli announcement came during Vice President Joe Biden's visit this week to Israel. It complicated U.S. efforts to set up so-called proximity talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, the latest attempt to nudge the two sides back toward talking directly.

Clinton said the United States' relationship with Israel is not at risk: "Our relationship is durable. It's strong. It's rooted in common values."

"But we have to make clear to our Israeli friends and partners that the two-state solution -- which we support, which the prime minister himself says he supports -- requires confidence-building measures on both sides," Clinton told CNN's Jill Dougherty. "And the announcement of the settlements the very day that the vice president was there was insulting."

[jeff061]

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.

Like every other presidential candidate. Ever.

[Edward64]

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

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

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Benjamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Obama walked out of his meeting with Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a U.S. congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Even though I believe Israel should be more accomodating to the US (e.g. the Biden visit fiasco) this is really poor, childish diplomacy.

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?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

they're a key ally in the most volatile region in the world (even if their presence is the primary reason it's volatile).

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Bull. There's a way of doing things. This is not that way. This was very disrespectful.

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.

Originally Posted by article

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

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.

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?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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

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

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'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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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.

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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

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.

[JPhillips]

This is the real probelm:

But the main reason for Obama's ire, according to a senior administration official, who asked not to be named, was that Biden had gone to Israel specifically to deliver a message to Netanyahu: the main issue is now Iran and its nuclear program, and we can't allow ourselves to be distracted by other issues or to jeopardize the emerging alliance against Tehran in support of tough sanctions—an alliance which includes most of the leading Arab states. In particular, Netanyahu—who campaigned for office himself on the primacy of the Iranian nuclear issue—can't afford to allow Israel's leading defender on this issue, the president of the United States, to look as if he's weak or lacking influence. (Haaretz's Aluf Benn first suggested Biden's secret message in an essay for NEWSWEEK last week.)

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

since we no longer need Israel as a counter to the Soviets.

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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)....

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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).

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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)....

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

[Dutch]

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

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

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 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.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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

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