First of all, I've enjoyed your recent posts and have agreed with most of them. In this case perhaps what's needed is more of a clarification, so I'll try. In terms of what's changed, my time frame is since the end of the 1967 war. At that point Israel had defeated Syria, Jordan and Egypt, humiliatinig armies many times its size. The Soviet Union seemed very powerful then, too. So let's list what's different now.
1) Obviously, the USSR is gone.
2) Isreal has peace treaties and diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan. Who knows what will happen in Egypt, but its ruling military council took pains to make it clear it would abide be its treaty obligations to Israel. I believe any future government will honor the treaty as well because first of all, Israel can still kick the shit out of them. Second, they'd lost US foreign aid. Third, they need to bring a better life to their people.
3) Jordan's gov't. is rational and not threatened by the instability sweeping the region.
4) Syria's government may fall and, even if it doesn't, will be pre-occupied for years trying to simly stay in power
5) The Hamas/Palestinian Authority thing is a wild card but neither they nor Lebanon have the ability to seriously threaten Israel's existance.
6) Strangely, you left out the one country that IS a threat to Israel: Iran. I, for one, would support an Israeli strike to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities. I bet Obama would be happy to hold their coat when they do it.
All this is speculative but, hey, my speculation is just as good as yours. Maybe even better.
...and Mexico ruled by the Taliban, both with missiles pointed at US cities. That's what Israel faces every day with Hamas and Hezbollah.
Iran with its newly acquired missles capable of targeting all of Israel is another threat. Add, the likelihood of nukes attached to those missles and we may just find that Obama's rejection of past US policy in favor of Hamas and the Palestians marks yet another step in his seemingly effort to destroy everything American during his first term in office.
is it safe to assume you won't be voting for Obama in 2012?
...based on his treatment of Israel. Yes, I'm Jewish, but I'm an American first and foremost. You don't see Bill O'Reilly pounding the drum to help Ireland out of its financial crisis, do you?
Frankly, I was offended by your post and its implications. Yeah, go ahead and tell me I was reading too much into it.
Reread your original post. You inferred Israel is surrounded by enemies, which is true. Based on your numerous past posts, I came to the obvious conclusion you are a liberal, and you probably voted for Obama in 2008. Based on that, I asked you a question if you will vote for Obama in 2012. Nothing more, nothing less.
Now I have no fucking if you are Jewish or not. Am I to infer that you believe I'm anti-Semitic? I'm offended by your post and implications. Do you know what's really funny. This WASP is married to a Jew. Boy is she going to be pissed off to find out after all these years that I'm anti-Semitic. Guess my kids are going to be pissed off as well. Wow, I'm in deep shit.
You read way too much into these posts.
Well, that means your kids are Jewish, too. Even Hitler would agree, and he's the ultimate arbiter. I'm a lapsed Jew. I have no use for the religion, or, in fact, any religion. I'll admit to having a soft spot for Israel but I'm an American, first and foremost. I can't stand Netanyahu, am in favor of a Palestinian state and am glad Obama gave all of them a headslap. I say cut off foreign aid to the whole area until they grow up. If the Irish could make peace after 400 years, so can they.
In fact, I'd give some aid to Egypt and Tunisia to help them ease into democracy and not fall into the grips of the Islamo-fascists.
Then again, we may need the Israelis to bomb those Iranian nuclear plants, so...Sheesh, this is complicated!
...vote based on Israel's best interests, not America's. Where did I infer that you were in any way anti-Semitic?
BTW, I consider myself a left-of-center independent.
You got called out. Deal with it. That was a weak way to squirm out. There was nothing in his post having any implication of you being an anti-Semite.
You read way too much into his post.
I could care less what Israel faces every day. I'm an American, and I'm only concerned with America. As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the world can kiss our ass. I just wish that the Israelis and Palestinians would figure out how to stop having hissy fits with each other, or kill each other off. The sooner these fundie jackoffs are dead and gone, the better.
"I could care less what Israel faces every day. I'm an American, and I'm only concerned with America. As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the world can kiss our ass."
How is this any different from:
"I could care less what other people face every day. I'm a wealthy American, and I'm only concerned with my family. As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the world can kiss our ass."
You are a total fucking hypocrite.
Never mind your wishing for the mass extermination of millions of people just so you won't have to be bothered with them anymore. Sick fuck.
You nailed it. There is no bigger hypocrite on this board than WW.
My first concern is with America and Americans. Before being a leftist, or a progressive, or a Democrat, or a liberal, or socialist, or a commie, or an anarchist, or anything else you want to label me, I am an AMERICAN. My primary concern is for my country and my fellow countrymen. In my estimation, our devotion to Israel is at America's detriment, and that devotion would not exist if it wasn't for religious lunatics. To quote Madison, "A just government, needs them not."
If you feel an undying devotion to Israel, then might I suggest you move there and serve in their military.
Perhaps I can remind you this often is a world, not of black-and-white, but of gray. Thus, it's not simply either "throw Israel under the bus" or "Israel, right or wrong." Which seems to be Obama's policy, and I support it. Israel was for years surrounded by countries clammoring for its destruction. That has changed, and will change more. Also, don't forget that Israel was for a long time our sole, democratic ally in the region during the Cold War. That's changed, too. Now, they can still be an effective counterbalance to Iran, the region's main threat.
Beyond that, instability in the region is not good for America. So pushing Israel toward a Palestinian settlement is good. Pushing it toward a settlement that would jeopardize Israel itself is bad. Not just for Israel, but for us.
One cannot solve a problem at the same level thinking when it was created. Every administration for the 20 years has called for returning 1967 boundaries as a starting point. Obama just said it publicly and some consider it as throwing Israel under the bus.
Considering the Geopolitical changes taking place, neither US, Israel or Palestine can continue with same attitude into the next century. Something will surely blow up on someone's face for sure.
ou said "Israel was for years surrounded by countries clammoring for its destruction. That has changed." and "Israel was for a long time our sole, democratic ally in the region during the Cold War. That's changed, too."
Why has that changed? Which of it's neighbors are not clammoring for its destruction? If anything, Egypt may be going from neutral to hostile if the M. Brotherhood gains a say. Likewise, if Hamas becomes part of the Palestinian Authority, it goes from mildly hostile to openly seeking destruction.
Is Syria suddenly pro-Isreal?
Why do you think their neighbors are any more peaceful?
Likewise, what other area in the region is "democratic?" I think it is a little early to call Egypt or any other. Just because past bad guys were bounced (or, in the ase of Syria, may be bounced) doesn't mean the good guys are winning.
First of all, I've enjoyed your recent posts and have agreed with most of them. In this case perhaps what's needed is more of a clarification, so I'll try. In terms of what's changed, my time frame is since the end of the 1967 war. At that point Israel had defeated Syria, Jordan and Egypt, humiliatinig armies many times its size. The Soviet Union seemed very powerful then, too. So let's list what's different now.
1) Obviously, the USSR is gone.
2) Isreal has peace treaties and diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan. Who knows what will happen in Egypt, but its ruling military council took pains to make it clear it would abide be its treaty obligations to Israel. I believe any future government will honor the treaty as well because first of all, Israel can still kick the shit out of them. Second, they'd lost US foreign aid. Third, they need to bring a better life to their people.
3) Jordan's gov't. is rational and not threatened by the instability sweeping the region.
4) Syria's government may fall and, even if it doesn't, will be pre-occupied for years trying to simly stay in power
5) The Hamas/Palestinian Authority thing is a wild card but neither they nor Lebanon have the ability to seriously threaten Israel's existance.
6) Strangely, you left out the one country that IS a threat to Israel: Iran. I, for one, would support an Israeli strike to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities. I bet Obama would be happy to hold their coat when they do it.
All this is speculative but, hey, my speculation is just as good as yours. Maybe even better.
Of course that is SOP with you.
" Before being a leftist, or a progressive, or a Democrat, or a liberal, or socialist, or a commie, or an anarchist, or anything else you want to label me..."
I labeled you a hypocrite, plain and simple. So that is one strawman you can drop.
"My primary concern is for my country and my fellow countrymen."
Fine - but not what you said before. Not a primary concern, but your ONLY concern. You said you didn't care at all what happens anywhere else. If you want to backtrack now because what you said before was incredibly stupid and hypocritcal, then at least be honest about it now.
It still doesn't address why you wouldn't accept a similar statement from someone who replaced 'country' with 'family'.
As for alledging I have an 'undying devotion to Israel' simply because I caught you in your own hypocracy, there is another new strawman you've nicely built. From that pathetic logic, if you care about your fellow countrymen in Mississippi, why don't you move there?
once he found out that they were briefly on the same side when Wisconsin was front page news.
Oh BTW Willy he is still in office and it doesn't look likely that he is going anywhere. Probably a good thing that you don't have the stones to put your money where your mouth is.
...I'd never thought someone here would call me a hypocrite for loving my country.
"but not what you said before. Not a primary concern, but your ONLY concern."
Then I misspoke. I have a itty bitty tiny bit of concern for the rest of the world. But as far as I'm concerned, Americans should worry about America. I fail to see how this qualifies for hypocrisy.
As I've said, I could give two shits about Israel. John made a good point in that we ought to own the piece of shit strip of land by now. I'd wager we'd be better off turning it into a parking lot for American tourists. I wonder if Disney would be interested.
you are being called a hypocrite for being a hypocrite.
I know you think all your lies and hypocrisy gets lost amongst your thousands of posts here, but your posts are here for any and everyone to read, they are no more consistent than whatever side of an arguement you happen to be.
The only thing consistent about you is that you are left of Chavez and that you have no regard for the truth.
You said, "I'm only concerned with America."
Now you say it is your first concern.
My first concern is the U.S. also, but I do not want to see genocide anywhere else. Did you give a rat's ass about South Africa? Did you support U.S. schools from divesting there because it was an evil system, even though it would not be good for their endowments?
Or did you take the attitude, "I am an American, and I am only concerned with America." Did you take the attitude that if S. Africa wanted to oppress black Africans, that was not your concern?
If you could go back in history and became president in 1939, would you make business deals with Germany and Japan, thereby keeping us out of WW II? After all, you are an American and are "only concerned with America."
Also, you are really showing ignorance to assume that most Isrealis are religious nuts. I don't know the number, but a huge number are very secular. And of course, you don't care if school children are on a bus and are blown to shit. (Yes, I also feel bad for Moslem civilians when they are on a bus and get blown up.)
As much money, military aid, direct and indirect assistance as American taxpayers have sent Israel and Palestine, we should fucking Annex the area, make it our 51st state and just be done with it!
With the "Arab Spring" movement going on, things are going to change in the Middle East, and Israel is going to have to adapt.
Since it's creation, they (we) have dealt mainly with a bunch of dictators and governments that could be bought.
We did buy them for decades, and as far as the people that are rising to power are concerned, we funded their subjugation.
We are going to have very little credit with these new governments.
Israel is going to have to change it's game plan. It has been tring to control Palestine by force for over 40 years, and the area is still volatile.
The occupation has failed to bring any true security to Israel, and has been a rallying cry for other country's and extremists.
So to review. We have no one to deal with in these emerging countries, very little money to barter with them and a war wearier country that might not be able to properly help defend Israel.
I think it's time for them to deal.
then Isreal will no longer be surrounded countries whose governments are dedicated to the annihalation of Isreal. That issue is still FAR from being resolved. I think Obama has gotten ahead of himself which shows his naivete'.
What he is really doing is bartering Isreal's security with unknown entities. But if Lebanon is any indication, or the early examples coming out of Egypt, he has set a course that will not end up well for anyone.
He's made some suggestions to jump-start a process that's stuck in the mud. The Israelis are big boys and can take care of themselves. They've already rejected the proposal on the '67 borders. But it sent a message that we expect flexibility. The old way didn't work. Carter, as lame as he was in other areas, was the only Prez who had much success in this area. Every other Prez, Rep. and Dem., pretty much failed.
diametrically opposed positions. Isreal wants to exist, and the Arabs don't want that. Arafat demostrated that.
Giving up the strategic West Bank heights is NEVER going to happen. The Arab world has time and time again demostrated thru their actions they can't be trusted. Using THAT as a starting point is ridiculous because it will never happen and Obama should know that.
Why not just pick up where things left off the last time evryone met? I'd never RESUME a negotiation back to square 1. You always pick up where you left off.
The "Arab Spring" movement is basically a bunch of food riots that got organized into rebellions. Their main concern should be setting up their own counties. That, however is going to be difficult and having a militant Israel to deal with would be a good distraction for those governments.
I think it can still go either way, and I'm not as sure that the old governments that are being replaced were as truly bent on the destruction of Israel as they claimed. The rhetoric alone was good for getting aid and deals with other countries and keeping their own people in line. With the current changes underway, Israel has two basic choices. Keep the hardliner approach they' ve had for the better part of the last four decades, or try and reset relations
Problem with the hardliner approach is we don't have anyone to buy out now, there are too many people involved.
If Israel is able to broker a peace with Palestine, which will involve going back prity much to the boarders established before the war, they might have a chance to establish ties with the new governments that are forming.
I read a report the other day that groups of Palestinians were conducting, for the most part, peaceful protests. If that keeps going, and Israeli soldiers are gunning them down, they're screwed. We won't be able to aid Israel in that case, and it will energize the new governments to act on old rhetoric.
"""and I'm not as sure that the old governments that are being replaced were as truly bent on the destruction of Israel as they claimed. The rhetoric alone was good for getting aid and deals with other countries and keeping their own people in line""
"Keeping their own people in line"...this is my point.
It is THESE people, or at least elements of, who are now in a position to wrest power. If I were Isreal, I would wait until that palys out before making ANY deals which would jeapordize security.
Camp David 2000 came very close and really shined a light on what was paramount to both parties. THAT is what needs to be focused on. THAT is where you start.
It would be nice if both sides could simply return to that as a starting point. Trouble is, both sides reject it. A fixation that there's anything to be gained in using Camp David as a starting point is politcally naive. I think both sides will have to be miserable for a while before they can seriously negotiate anything. It also may be true that the winds of change sweeping the region will force changes on them. And they may be waiting to see what happens. Obama was just stirring the pot, as Presidents must occasionally do.
-- Modified on 5/21/2011 7:59:10 AM
The "keeping their own people in line" reference was not towards militants, it was aimed at regular people in these counties.
Used as an explanation to the regular people why their countries resources were used towards military and intelligence...
instead of schools, food and national resource development.
It also wasn't referring to the Palestinians
Do the Israelis have to go back to the exact same boarders... no.
However the do have to give the Palestinians damn close to the same amount of resources they had before the war.
Another sticking point is Jerusalem. This is a no win if either side has it or if it's split down the middle.
It should me made into a city state, like the Vatican, run by some kind of religious tribunal.