PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues "...it is undeniably in Israel's interest to leave the West Bank."


jAZ
06-09-2009, 11:57 PM
Good post from Josh Marshall.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/06/doing_israel_no_favors.php

06.09.09 -- 4:08PM // link | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (47)

Doing Israel No Favors

Mort Zuckerman, owner and publisher of US News & World Report, has a lengthy opinion piece out in the magazine entitled: "Obama Should Not Abandon Israel in His Effort to Court Muslims."

The title summarizes the premise, which is that while Obama has reasons to court Muslims he is endangering or threatening Israel in order to do it. The core flaw to the reasoning though is that getting out of the West Bank doesn't endanger Israel. It's actually critical to the country's future well-being, even its survival.

There are a few core points to note in this regard. People who argue that the Palestinians and other Arab states are either unwilling or unable to make peace buy into a basic fallacy -- namely that 'giving up' the West Bank is a sacrifice that must be reciprocated by some meaningful and confirmable sacrifice on the other side. In other words, land for peace, as the phrase goes.

But are several levels of problem with his formulation. First, strategic considerations. It used to be argued that Israel couldn't surrender the West Bank because without it, the country would lack 'strategic depth.' In other words, the country's 'waistline' would be too narrow and an invader from the east could easily cut the country in half. But hardly anyone makes this argument any more. And for good reason: successive Israeli generals and members of the country's security establishment say this isn't true.

Next, the settlements themselves, particularly the outlying ones sometimes called 'political' settlements are a security liability in themselves since they're isolated population centers that must be defended in any conflict and occupation duty tends to degrade an army's war-fighting capacity.

But these pale in comparison to the real heart of the matter. Israel doesn't have enough Jewish citizens to make Jews the clear majority in both Israel proper and the Occupied Territories. Therefore, whatever the morality or international law of the matter, holding the Occupied Territories permanently puts Israel on a course to one of two options: becoming a binational state in which Jews make up half or less of the population or a non-democratic state which probably cannot survive under the norms governing first world countries in the 21st century.

Let's be clear what that means: a country that permanently holds territories with residents who lack citizenship, the vote and many of the rights of the citizens of the country in question. You can throw around inflammatory words like 'apartheid' which I don't think is appropriate or apt because of the very different origins of the two situations. But it strikes me as naive to believe that such a situation can be maintained permanently without growing international pressure and isolation that will strangle the country.

What this logic tells me is that getting out of the West Bank isn't a prize to be exchanged for peace if and when you can find a leader on the Palestinian side who you have perfect trust in. Getting out of the West Bank is quite simply necessary to the survival of Israel as a Jewish state. So ideally you get out in exchange for a durable peace. And you try to do it in the smartest and most orderly manner. But you get out regardless. And realizing the necessity of leaving means, at a minimum, as a first step, stopping doing things that make it harder, perhaps nearly impossible, to leave. And the first thing on that list is continuing to build new settlements and infrastructure which creates a growing constituency to stay in the settlements forever.

There's nothing remotely original about this argument. It's the same inexorable logic that has led former 'Greater Israel' advocates like Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert to come to more or less the same conclusion.

And let me note, to be emphatically clear, that there are many other reasons for Israel to leave the West Bank -- the prospect of a durable peace, which I think is probably achievable, its contribution to regional stability which is a real advantage to the US, the rights of the Palestinians to their own self-determination, etc. etc. etc. But I've focused on this point because at the end of the day it is undeniably in Israel's interest to leave the West Bank.

--Josh Marshall

Mr. Kotter
06-10-2009, 12:14 AM
You and Josh Marshall suckin' off the Arabs too, eh? :rolleyes:

Gosh....surprise, surprise, SURPRISE! LMAO

jAZ
06-10-2009, 12:28 AM
You and Josh Marshall suckin' off the Arabs too, eh? :rolleyes:

Gosh....surprise, surprise, SURPRISE! LMAO

Did you forget your sock?

patteeu
06-10-2009, 06:04 AM
The problem with Marshall's analysis is that he's arguing for giving up the West Bank for nothing in return. That's idiotic. Israel can continue to operate as they are now with more control over the West Bank than they'd have if they gave it up but without granting citizenship to the West Bank palestinians forever if need be. As soon as they give it up without any peace in return, they lose that ability to operate freely for security purposes and they gain nothing.

Marshall may have a decent point about why Israel wouldn't want to annex the entire West Bank and make it a fully integrated part of Israel, but he doesn't make a compelling argument as to why they'd want to give it up for nothing in return, IMO.

HonestChieffan
06-10-2009, 06:20 AM
Israel will manage. The right fist of Thor will have to come crashing down on some nutbag but don't worry, they won't be abandonded by the US and fall off the map. The part that no one wants to deal with is that by using Israel as a pawn to appease the Muslims, Pallestinians, Iran, or whomever/wherever, it puts Israel in a position of having to go it alone.

Woe be it to whomever they pick.

jAZ
06-10-2009, 07:42 AM
The problem with Marshall's analysis is that he's arguing for giving up the West Bank for nothing in return. That's idiotic. Israel can continue to operate as they are now with more control over the West Bank than they'd have if they gave it up but without granting citizenship to the West Bank palestinians forever if need be.
They guarantee endless war in your case. That's untenable and idiotic both for their interests, the regions interests and ours.

jAZ
06-10-2009, 07:48 AM
Israel will manage. The right fist of Thor will have to come crashing down on some nutbag but don't worry, they won't be abandonded by the US and fall off the map. The part that no one wants to deal with is that by using Israel as a pawn to appease the Muslims, Pallestinians, Iran, or whomever/wherever, it puts Israel in a position of having to go it alone.

Woe be it to whomever they pick.

You clearly have no idea what you are witnessing or talking about.

Israel isn't going it alone in this case. Obama has picked sides, and the side he picked is the moderate coalition half of the Israeli political spectrum that was in power until just recently and barely lost the last battle of coalition building for the PM slot. Obama is trying to force BiBi into adopting the same moderate policies that the other half of political leadership in Israel had been working towards (and is supported by much if and maybe a majority of Isrealis).

HonestChieffan
06-10-2009, 07:54 AM
Find me an example where the Jews did not fight for their survival?

Ill wait.

jAZ
06-10-2009, 07:57 AM
Find me an example where the Jews did not fight for their survival?

Ill wait.

I'm not sure what you think you are waiting for, exactly. Your post here completely ignores the entire dispute I had with your post.

I said Obama is supporting Israel. You said you cotton is soft.

stevieray
06-10-2009, 07:58 AM
Poor Jaz.

HonestChieffan
06-10-2009, 08:03 AM
Support must have a different definition in Jizspeak.

dirk digler
06-10-2009, 08:09 AM
Find me an example where the Jews did not fight for their survival?

Ill wait.

Holocaust?

Brock
06-10-2009, 08:15 AM
Holocaust?

Wow, ignorant.

dirk digler
06-10-2009, 08:22 AM
Wow, ignorant.

How so?

I maybe looking at this narrowly but there wasn't any major uprising at any concentration camps except for 1 that I know of.

HonestChieffan
06-10-2009, 08:23 AM
Don't think they will let that happen again....

dirk digler
06-10-2009, 08:27 AM
Don't think they will let that happen again....

I would hope not and I would hope the world wouldn't let it happen again....

Oh wait they did in Darfur.

FishingRod
06-10-2009, 11:34 AM
You know something that never gets mentions is... if you are Jordan, do you actually want the West bank to be part of your country? It is populated with a problematic and potentially hostile population. How will this population react after decades of shouting about wanting your own state, only to find you are now a second class citizen of Jordan instead? Sounds like a much bigger pain in the butt than just griping about the Israelis.

KC Dan
06-10-2009, 11:39 AM
Until Palestinan's and Middle East countries recognize Israel's right to exist; no peace (and I repeat, no peace) will ever be possible. If the arab side wants peace, they will recognize Israel's right to exist and then the weight of the world (including the US) would be on Israel to make the necessary concessions. It will never happen in our lifetimes. I hope so but it won't.

Brock
06-10-2009, 12:07 PM
How so?

I maybe looking at this narrowly but there wasn't any major uprising at any concentration camps except for 1 that I know of.

How so? Because you're uneducated.

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

Calcountry
06-10-2009, 12:12 PM
The peace process, from a Muslim's point of view to Israel: You give us a piece(of your land), and we will continue the process.

dirk digler
06-10-2009, 12:16 PM
How so? Because you're uneducated.

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

I stand corrected on the uprisings. Thank you

alanm
06-10-2009, 12:22 PM
Doesn't matter what Josh or Chairman Zero, for that matter, think or want.
Ben ain't listening to their shit. He'll do what he has to do to ensure the security of Israel.

Chief Faithful
06-10-2009, 12:35 PM
The problem with Marshall's analysis is that he's arguing for giving up the West Bank for nothing in return. That's idiotic. Israel can continue to operate as they are now with more control over the West Bank than they'd have if they gave it up but without granting citizenship to the West Bank palestinians forever if need be. As soon as they give it up without any peace in return, they lose that ability to operate freely for security purposes and they gain nothing.

Marshall may have a decent point about why Israel wouldn't want to annex the entire West Bank and make it a fully integrated part of Israel, but he doesn't make a compelling argument as to why they'd want to give it up for nothing in return, IMO.

There an additional obvious issue absent in Marshall's analysis that makes his commentary inconsequential and causes me to question if he has any grasp of the political reality of the situation in Isreal. The political reality that is the underlying driver to Isreal's posture is Zionism, which is the belief that much of the West Bank is their God given property. These are the people who live in the settlements, who dominate the political environment in Isreal, who create the illegal settlements, and who protest when the government tries to do anything about it.

In this reality any political head of state or Prime Minister who tries to close the settlements will not survive the political fall-out. Thus, there must be a solution that recognizes Isreal and the settlements. The Arabs will never agree and was the sticking point with Arafat preventing agreement during the Clinton administration.

Marshall's analysis is simplistic and devoid of the underlying realities that dominate the regional politics. His analysis is just another commentary from a western blogger who has little understanding of the political environment of which he writes. If he understood the political environment Marshall would realize Isreal has much to loose by leaving the West Bank settlements without a solution to the issue of recognition of Isreal and the settlements.

vailpass
06-10-2009, 12:36 PM
You clearly have no idea what you are witnessing or talking about.

Israel isn't going it alone in this case. Obama has picked sides, and the side he picked is the moderate coalition half of the Israeli political spectrum that was in power until just recently and barely lost the last battle of coalition building for the PM slot. Obama is trying to force BiBi into adopting the same moderate policies that the other half of political leadership in Israel had been working towards (and is supported by much if and maybe a majority of Isrealis).

What do you think Netanyahu will think of Obama's picking of sides? Will he support surrendering territories? If not do you think Obama will oppose him?

wild1
06-10-2009, 12:40 PM
It's not in their benefit at all. They've done everything over the years including surrender all kinds of land. Nothing will settle the dispute as long as they still exist.

Chief Faithful
06-10-2009, 12:42 PM
Until Palestinan's and Middle East countries recognize Israel's right to exist; no peace (and I repeat, no peace) will ever be possible. If the arab side wants peace, they will recognize Israel's right to exist and then the weight of the world (including the US) would be on Israel to make the necessary concessions. It will never happen in our lifetimes. I hope so but it won't.

Exactly, and from Israel's perspective the right to exist includes the legal settlements. From their perspective that is the bottomline feeling they have already given up much of what is their God given inheritance and birthright.

irishjayhawk
06-10-2009, 12:42 PM
It's not in their benefit at all. They've done everything over the years including surrender all kinds of land. Nothing will settle the dispute as long as they still exist.

I agree. And I'll add also as we continue to support them.

Chief Faithful
06-10-2009, 12:56 PM
It's not in their benefit at all. They've done everything over the years including surrender all kinds of land.

That is exactly Israel's view. I really don't think Obama understands how deep rooted an issue this is for Israel. Secondly, the Arabs understand and the Muslims are using it as a way to coalesce the many diverse Arab tribes for political aspirations. Thus, neither side sees Israel leaving the West Bank in their interest. Obama is really showing his inexperience and naivete

orange
06-10-2009, 01:29 PM
You know something that never gets mentions is... if you are Jordan, do you actually want the West bank to be part of your country? It is populated with a problematic and potentially hostile population. How will this population react after decades of shouting about wanting your own state, only to find you are now a second class citizen of Jordan instead? Sounds like a much bigger pain in the butt than just griping about the Israelis.

Jordan renounced their claim to the West Bank in 1988. The West Bank and Gaza will be an independent Palestinian state.

patteeu
06-10-2009, 01:48 PM
You clearly have no idea what you are witnessing or talking about.

Israel isn't going it alone in this case. Obama has picked sides, and the side he picked is the moderate coalition half of the Israeli political spectrum that was in power until just recently and barely lost the last battle of coalition building for the PM slot. Obama is trying to force BiBi into adopting the same moderate policies that the other half of political leadership in Israel had been working towards (and is supported by much if and maybe a majority of Isrealis).

Obama shouldn't be interfering in an ally's internal political affairs like this.

HonestChieffan
06-10-2009, 01:51 PM
What do you think Netanyahu will think of Obama's picking of sides? Will he support surrendering territories? If not do you think Obama will oppose him?

On a give a shit meter, where do you think Israel is on what Obama thinks?

HonestChieffan
06-10-2009, 01:55 PM
If Israel feels forced to move hard on the Pallestinians or Iran, it may work out the best for the US in proving how weak we are seen by others. We may be percieved as week as the Carter years and he made it happen in record time.

North Korea is totally unafraid of Obama as is Iran. But if Israel can shut down Irans move to go Nuke, then NK has lost its customer and the US will have found the solution to Akmawhatshis name and his band of loonie kooks. Then maybe the wake up call will have come through.

orange
06-10-2009, 01:59 PM
If Israel feels forced to move hard on the Pallestinians or Iran, it may work out the best for the US in proving how weak we are seen by others. We may be percieved as week as the Carter years and he made it happen in record time.

North Korea is totally unafraid of Obama as is Iran. But if Israel can shut down Irans move to go Nuke, then NK has lost its customer and the US will have found the solution to Akmawhatshis name and his band of loonie kooks. Then maybe the wake up call will have come through.


Lieberman: Israel will not attack Iran - even if sanctions fail

By Ofer Aderet


Israel will not attack Iran even if the international sanctions against Tehran fail to convince President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give up his country's nuclear program, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told the Austrian daily Kleine Zeitung.In an interview published this weekend, Lieberman was asked whether Israel planned to strike Iran as a last resort.

"We are not talking about a military attack. Israel cannot resolve militarily the entire world's problem. I propose that the United States, as the largest power in the world, take responsibility for resolving the Iranian question," Lieberman told the paper.

"The best way to stop Iran's nuclear program is through severe sanctions, very severe sanctions," he said. "The resolutions of the UN Security Council are insufficient. Iran must be presented with harsher and more effective sanctions. It worked against Libya. We must isolate Iran; only this way will results be possible."

Lieberman reiterated his position that Iran is an international problem.

"It is unacceptable that a head of state, a member state of the UN, calls daily for Israel's destruction. Iran's cooperation with North Korea, [Venezuelan President] Hugo Chavez and Syria is evil incarnate, but this is not our problem," he said.

"It's a problem of the entire region and the whole international community. Representatives of the Arab world have discussed with us recently not the Palestinians, but Iran. The Arabs recognize that their existence is not threatened by Israel, but by Iran."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081170.html

vailpass
06-10-2009, 02:38 PM
On a give a shit meter, where do you think Israel is on what Obama thinks?

They may say one thing in public but in private I'd guess the day Obama got elected the Isreali goverment put a 4 year calendar on the wall and are marking it off one day at a time.

HonestChieffan
06-10-2009, 02:46 PM
And I bet Israel is announcing its military objectives in a freaking newspaper. Believe that and Ive got a great deal on some land just for you.

Adept Havelock
06-10-2009, 03:48 PM
Find me an example where the Jews did not fight for their survival?

Ill wait.

Germany, circa 1933-1945. Dumbass. :spock:

As one militant Israeli said (Dayan?)..."The steps to the Frank attic should have run with blood. Both the Germans and those whom they came to take". I'm paraphrasing, but it boiled down to the notion that if the first 100,000 taken (or the second 100,000) had decided to take a Nazi with them, odds are the "Holocaust" never would have taken as many as it did.

Sorry Brock, but minor uprisings at Treblinka and Warsaw and the Sobibor escape are a drop in the bucket. I suppose you'd hold up Kengir and Novocherkassk as proof the majority of the Russian people fought against communism as well.

wild1
06-10-2009, 03:57 PM
For a culture that is supposedly not willing to fight for their survival, they sure have survived a lot

Adept Havelock
06-10-2009, 04:01 PM
For a culture that is supposedly not willing to fight for their survival, they sure have survived a lot

Who said "the Jewish Culture" is not wiling to fight for their survival? LMAO

Seeing where mute acquiescence led to the Shoah, they are probably more inclined to fight these days. That's why the IDF takes their oath on Masada, and Saryet has the same motto as Norweigan Special Forces: "Never Again".

I simply offered one example that showed, as usual, that HCF is FOS.

HonestChieffan
06-10-2009, 07:10 PM
Who said "the Jewish Culture" is not wiling to fight for their survival? LMAO

Seeing where mute acquiescence led to the Shoah, they are probably more inclined to fight these days. That's why the IDF takes their oath on Masada, and Saryet has the same motto as Norweigan Special Forces: "Never Again".

I simply offered one example that showed, as usual, that HCF is FOS.

Your and idiot.
Again

Adept Havelock
06-10-2009, 07:12 PM
Your and idiot.
Again

ROFL

jAZ
06-10-2009, 11:24 PM
He'll do what he has to do to ensure the security of Israel.

Good relations with the US is the 3rd rail of Israeli politics. Each of the last PMs who failed to manage the US relationship well (including BiBi) lost their spot, I believe.

As I said, the Obama Admin is trying to create an environment that brings him on board with the position of the moderate factions (2 state now).

Failing that, Bibi could lose his seat to a moderate coalition. Which would be just fine as well. Either way.

jAZ
06-10-2009, 11:25 PM
Obama shouldn't be interfering in an ally's internal political affairs like this.

Wow, I thought you were all about acting in our own national interests first. That must only be Repubilcans and wars.

patteeu
06-10-2009, 11:55 PM
Wow, I thought you were all about acting in our own national interests first. That must only be Repubilcans and wars.

I don't think this interference is in our national interest. Duh.

jAZ
06-10-2009, 11:58 PM
I don't think this interference is in our national interest. Duh.

So you misspoke, and have no objection to "interfering in an ally's internal political affairs" as long as the interference matches your prefered policy choice.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 12:04 AM
The peace process, from a Muslim's point of view to Israel: You give us a piece(of your land), and we will continue the process.
Wait, isn't that exactly how the modern state of Israel came to be? We (the United States and Great Britain), gave them (the Israelis) pieces of land from Muslim states that had nothing to do with their oppression or Holocaust, basically forcing those countries to give up their land or dare face the wrath of the two most powerful nations on earth at the time.

patteeu
06-11-2009, 12:08 AM
So you misspoke, and have no objection to "interfering in an ally's internal political affairs" as long as the interference matches your prefered policy choice.

No, I said what I meant. I thought Obama was supposed to make our allies like us again or something?

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 12:11 AM
No, I said what I meant. I thought Obama was supposed to make our allies like us again or something?
Maybe he is. If what jAZ said about a majority of Israelis wanting more moderation in their politics, then maybe it is those people that Obama wants to woo as allies, the ones who can vote out the hardliners, not merely the power elite.

patteeu
06-11-2009, 12:13 AM
Maybe he is. If what jAZ said about a majority of Israelis wanting more moderation in their politics, then maybe it is those people that Obama wants to woo as allies, the ones who can vote out the hardliners, not merely the power elite.

jAZ didn't say what you must think he said. He said that there may be a majority of Israelis in favor of that kind of so-called moderation (aka appeasement) right after he admitted that the party that championed that policy lost the last election. Not much of a majority.

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 12:32 AM
jAZ didn't say what you must think he said. He said that there may be a majority of Israelis in favor of that kind of so-called moderation (aka appeasement) right after he admitted that the party that championed that policy lost the last election. Not much of a majority.
Well, I don't know what the majority of Israelis believe, but I'm sure we're not the only country that can win an election in spite of the majority.

Mr. Kotter
06-11-2009, 12:37 AM
Well, I don't know what the majority of Israelis believe, but I'm sure we're not the only country that can win an election in spite of the majority.

Yeah, but tyranny of the majority is the real bitch....ain't it? ;)

Nightwish
06-11-2009, 12:46 AM
Yeah, but tyranny of the majority is the real bitch....ain't it? ;)
Is there something wrong with trying to woo the center? The moderates lost by a very narrow margin. Like us, Israel has its fair share of swing voters, too. Every president in recent memory has played the same manipulation game with Israel that Obama is now doing. I don't see how this is any different, except that Obama is advocating the moderate approach instead of the hardline approach that we have championed (perhaps unwisely) in the past.

Personally, I hope the moderates do eventually win the day, if for no other reason than that it'll piss off the religious right. I get sick of all these idiots who gush over everything Israel does because they think God will deliver the smackdown if they don't.

Reaper16
06-11-2009, 01:51 AM
Is there something wrong with trying to woo the center? The moderates lost by a very narrow margin. Like us, Israel has its fair share of swing voters, too. Every president in recent memory has played the same manipulation game with Israel that Obama is now doing. I don't see how this is any different, except that Obama is advocating the moderate approach instead of the hardline approach that we have championed (perhaps unwisely) in the past.

Personally, I hope the moderates do eventually win the day, if for no other reason than that it'll piss off the religious right. I get sick of all these idiots who gush over everything Israel does because they think God will deliver the smackdown if they don't.
It is insane.

patteeu
06-11-2009, 06:07 AM
Is there something wrong with trying to woo the center? The moderates lost by a very narrow margin. Like us, Israel has its fair share of swing voters, too. Every president in recent memory has played the same manipulation game with Israel that Obama is now doing. I don't see how this is any different, except that Obama is advocating the moderate approach instead of the hardline approach that we have championed (perhaps unwisely) in the past.

Personally, I hope the moderates do eventually win the day, if for no other reason than that it'll piss off the religious right. I get sick of all these idiots who gush over everything Israel does because they think God will deliver the smackdown if they don't.

It appears that Likud succeeded in wooing the center. It's just that the center isn't where you think it is.

RINGLEADER
06-11-2009, 07:53 AM
They guarantee endless war in your case. That's untenable and idiotic both for their interests, the regions interests and ours.

The Palestinians have been offered their own state multiple times -- including the corrupt Fatah who were offered the West Bank recently. What is Israel going to do if the other side won't take a deal?

jAZ
06-11-2009, 07:55 AM
jAZ didn't say what you must think he said. He said that there may be a majority of Israelis in favor of that kind of so-called moderation (aka appeasement) right after he admitted that the party that championed that policy lost the last election. Not much of a majority.

Well, parlimentary elections are about coalition building among several factions with a range of views on a range of topics. It's hardly a reflection of the will of the people on one single issue like you are trying to make it out to be.

http://israelpolicyforum.ngphost.com/blog/poll-58-israeli-jews-back-two-state-solution

Poll: 58% of Israeli Jews back two-state solutionThe Pulse
Posted May 15, 2009 - 10:53am
"Some 58% of Israel's Jewish public backs the 'two states for two peoples' solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a Smith Institute poll commissioned by Ynet revealed."

On the peace process, 57 percent of respondents said that Netanyahu should tell U.S. President Barack Obama that he supports a two-state solution when he visits Washington next week.

Note that 2nd stat.

patteeu
06-11-2009, 08:08 AM
Well, parlimentary elections are about coalition building among several factions with a range of views on a range of topics. It's hardly a reflection of the will of the people on one single issue like you are trying to make it out to be.

http://israelpolicyforum.ngphost.com/blog/poll-58-israeli-jews-back-two-state-solution

Poll: 58% of Israeli Jews back two-state solutionThe Pulse
Posted May 15, 2009 - 10:53am
"Some 58% of Israel's Jewish public backs the 'two states for two peoples' solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a Smith Institute poll commissioned by Ynet revealed."

On the peace process, 57 percent of respondents said that Netanyahu should tell U.S. President Barack Obama that he supports a two-state solution when he visits Washington next week.

Note that 2nd stat.

You're changing your story now. First it was the moderate policies of the outgoing administration which presumably included more than just a declaration of support for a two state solution. Then it was two state now. Now it's just support for a two state solution. FYI, a substantial portion of Netanyahu's coalition supports a two state solution. A (slim) majority of Israelis support the netanyahu coalition and the outgoing administration can muster only minority support.

jAZ
06-11-2009, 08:47 AM
You're changing your story now. First it was the moderate policies of the outgoing administration which presumably included more than just a declaration of support for a two state solution. Then it was two state now. Now it's just support for a two state solution. FYI, a substantial portion of Netanyahu's coalition supports a two state solution. A (slim) majority of Israelis support the netanyahu coalition and the outgoing administration can muster only minority support.

One of those details you <s>whitewashed</s> (edit, whitewashed is a loaded term that I shouldn't use here as it's unfair to you) miss with your "presumably included more than just a declaration of support for a two state solution" was the obvious "two states now". By that I meant to recognize that Bibi's faction isn't (at least in theory) against two states entirely, they just won't discuss it until other conditiions are met first. Where as moderates in Israel are willing to concede it as a starting point.

Not remotely rocket science, which leads me to believe you are simply playing dumb here because its entertaining for you.

The Mad Crapper
03-26-2011, 06:22 PM
If B.O. supports Israel, why does he surround himself with psycho moonbats like this broad:

http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/03/video-obama-advisor-invade-israel.html

go bowe
03-26-2011, 10:08 PM
If B.O. supports Israel, why does he surround himself with psycho moonbats like this broad:

http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/03/video-obama-advisor-invade-israel.html
if that loon works in the white house, i might just have to join the mad crapper's side...

AustinChief
03-26-2011, 11:33 PM
if that loon works in the white house, i might just have to join the mad crapper's side...

She does.. She is on the National Security Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

Here is where she fumbles around trying to explain her past comments... she backs off a little but mostly excuses herself by claiming to be out of her depth on these issues...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/presidential-primaries-obama-s-top-aide-i-don-t-believe-in-imposing-peace-1.240009

So, she admits not being an expert and is now on the National Security Council?? WTF?

The Mad Crapper
03-27-2011, 06:54 AM
if that loon works in the white house, i might just have to join the mad crapper's side...

You get the top bunk, brother. :p

go bowe
03-27-2011, 07:01 PM
She does.. She is on the National Security Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

Here is where she fumbles around trying to explain her past comments... she backs off a little but mostly excuses herself by claiming to be out of her depth on these issues...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/presidential-primaries-obama-s-top-aide-i-don-t-believe-in-imposing-peace-1.240009

So, she admits not being an expert and is now on the National Security Council?? WTF?ok, i hope she doesn't do anything beyond human rights issues...

good grief... :facepalm:

go bowe
03-27-2011, 07:03 PM
You get the top bunk, brother. :pwell thanks, pard...

The Mad Crapper
03-29-2011, 09:10 AM
She does.. She is on the National Security Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

Here is where she fumbles around trying to explain her past comments... she backs off a little but mostly excuses herself by claiming to be out of her depth on these issues...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/presidential-primaries-obama-s-top-aide-i-don-t-believe-in-imposing-peace-1.240009

So, she admits not being an expert and is now on the National Security Council?? WTF?

She's also married to Obama's "regulatory czar", Cass Sunstein.

blaise
03-29-2011, 09:53 AM
She does.. She is on the National Security Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

Here is where she fumbles around trying to explain her past comments... she backs off a little but mostly excuses herself by claiming to be out of her depth on these issues...
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/presidential-primaries-obama-s-top-aide-i-don-t-believe-in-imposing-peace-1.240009

So, she admits not being an expert and is now on the National Security Council?? WTF?


Seems odd that she says she was out of her depth, when she says in the initial interview that there's an abundance of information on the Israel/Palestine issue. She kid of laughs when she says it, as if the situation is so obvious anyone could see what needs to be done.