Middle East

[thorswitch]

That's actually a rather sensible post. What the hell is it doing on the Post & Email?

[TollandRCR]

That's actually a rather sensible post. What the hell is it doing on the Post & Email?

Beats me. I don't know much about "Harry Hunter;" I am not even sure he is a Birther. Some people think that it is another pseudonym for CEL3, but I'm still not convinced that "John Charlton" is CEL3, either.

[mimi]

This doesn't look good.

Time's Swampland :

Unacceptable Non-Apology
Posted by Joe Klein Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 8:37 pm
30 Comments

It should go without saying that the problem with Israel's announcement of another 1600 illegal housing units in East Jerusalem wasn't the timing of it, which is, so far as I can tell, the only thing Bibi Netanyahu has apologized for, but the policy of illegal expansion into Palestinian areas itself. It seems quite clear that Israel's current government, rife with anti-Arab bigots like Avigdor Lieberman and flat-out colonists like the Interior Minister who made this announcement, is intent on not only thumbing its nose at the American President but also scuttling the looming peace talks.

I'll be overseas when it happens, but I'll be very interested to see what sort of reception the patriots at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) give Netanyahu when he comes to speak at their annual conference at the end of this month. The appropriate response would be stone silence. (Actually, the appropriate reaction would be to withdraw the invitation to speak.) A standing ovation for Bibi--the reflexive response granted Israel's leader on these occasions--would send a controversial message here: it would give the impression that these Israelophiles approve of foreign leaders who insult the American Vice President (and, by extension, the President).

There can be honest disagreements about middle easy policy--the vast majority of American Jews, including me, would like to see a two-state solution; the American Likudniks, a minority of American Jews, would not. Every American President since Nixon has opposed the expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, and every American President since Truman has fully supported the state of Israel, morally and financially. I'd hope that all American Jews, on both sides of the two-state issue, would agree that an insult directed at the Obama Administration is an insult directed at us all...and that AIPAC members, who I'm sure see themselves as Americans first, will behave accordingly.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03 ... z0iF4cQRKW

Klein wondered what AIPAC's response would be. Here it is:

Politico:

Ben Smith: AIPAC hits White House
March 14, 2010
[...]"The Obama Administration's recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern. AIPAC calls on the Administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State," says the unsigned statement sent out by spokesman Josh Block. "The Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom the United States shares basic, fundamental, and strategic interests."

The statement criticizes the administration's "escalated rhetoric" as "a distraction from the substantive work that needs to be done with regard to the urgent issue of Iran's rapid pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the pursuit of peace between Israel and all her Arab neighbors."

"We strongly urge the Administration to work closely and privately with our partner Israel, in a manner befitting strategic allies, to address any issues between the two governments," the statement says.

The statement reflects a defiant stance from the Israeli government and its American allies. They're confident on the one hand in Obama's unpopularity in Israel and in the popularity of Netanyahu's refusal to compromise on Jerusalem. It's also a gamble that, politically, Obama has nothing to gain from escalating a battle with a key ally as his domestic agenda hangs in the balance and his regional agenda appears to have stalled.

The statement also calls into question any American expectation that Netanyahu -- whose initial reaction was to blame domestic political foes for the announcement -- will move this week to calm tensions.

Remainder:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... House.html

I think Israel and AIPAC are both going to lose some support with this.

edited

[mimi]

Jerusalem Settlement Expansion Way Beyond the Current U.S.-Israel Spat
By Spencer Ackerman 3/17/10 3:42 PM

[...]

Peace Now found 18 plans to build 7,094 new housing units for Jewish population in East Jerusalem, and another 1,450 hotel rooms, in different stages at the regional committee. There is another plan to build 2,337 housing units, approved for validation and waiting for official publication.

Six of the plans are for building Jewish compounds in the middle of Palestinian neighborhoods; eight plans are for expanding existing Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and four plans are to build 4,000 housing units at Givat Hamatos – a new neighborhood planned in East Jerusalem.

If Obama can’t get Netanyahu to back down on Ramat Shlomo, what chance does he stand of getting him to back down on the additional thousands of housing units beyond the 1967 borders of Jerusalem? And if Obama can’t manage that, why should the Palestinians and the Arab states trust him to broker a deal that satisfies Palestinian national aspirations for a state on the land that the Israelis are continually settling?

http://washingtonindependent.com/79531/ ... srael-spat

Last week it was 1600 housing units.

[TollandRCR]

This highly aggressive negative response to Pres. Obama, plus the recent Mossad assassinations, make me think that Israel's current administration does not seek a two-state solution or, for that matter, peace in the Middle East. I am very fearful that Israel will strike at Iran's nuclear facilities pre-emptively and that that could suck the United States into a war defending Israel from Iran and some other Muslim states. We are dealing with zealots on both sides. Perhaps the only thing that will force Israel to stop what appears to be a mad rush towards war is actual termination of all American aid to Israel, our largest recipient of foreign aid. This will send many in Congress into an uproar, but if Obama were to back down, he might be writing one of the most deadly and destructive chapters in the history of Israeli/Muslim confrontations. This is a place where "no" must mean "no." If that is not heeded, Israel is risking suicide.

[TollandRCR]

Newsweek March 15 2010 A Rotten Deal by Aluf Benn, Editor of Haaretz.

Israel didn't just spit in Joe Biden's face last week. It jeopardized America's willingness to protect it from Iran.

[mimi]

Settlement Construction Approved Right Before Obama-Netanyahu Meet
By Spencer Ackerman 3/23/10 5:20 PM

If the Israelis’ announcement of new settlement construction in Jerusalem during Vice President Biden’s Israel trip was “insulting,” what’s this?

The Jerusalem municipality has given final approval to a group of settlers construct 20 apartments in a controversial hotel in East Jerusalem, Haaretz learned on Tuesday.

The announcement comes as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington smoothing over ties with the United States over the latest settlement-related tensions, and hours before the premier was to meet with President Barack Obama in Washington.

Apparently Netanyahu’s fiery speech last night was only a prologue of how disinterested the Israeli PM is in mending fences with the Obama administration. Marc Lynch of George Washington University tweets that Obama should cancel his meeting with Netanyahu at the White House, scheduled to begin in just a couple of minutes.

http://washingtonindependent.com/80172/ ... nyahu-meet

I wish Obama whould cancel his meeting. But, he won't.

[TollandRCR]

I wish that Hillary Clinton had not given the speech that she gave at AIPAC. We don't need that, and neither does Israel. It would be interesting if the White House starts to require advance approval of all her formal speeches.

[mimi]

Rep. Gohmert introduces resolution endorsing an Israeli military strike on Iran.

As the Obama administration continues to attempt to productively engage Iran over its nuclear program, while also forging an international coalition to pressure Iran, many on the right, many on the right have been agitating for military action by the United States or Israel. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) has introduced a resolution to endorse an Israeli military strike against Iran, supporting “Israel’s right to use all means necessary” to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program:

A draft resolution is circulating among members of the House of Representatives that endorses an Israeli military attack on Iran “if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time.” The resolution, written by Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and currently being circulated for cosponsors prior to its introduction, does not clarify what is meant by a “reasonable time.”

“The United States does not want or seek war with Iran” the resolution states in its introductory section, “but it will continue to keep all options open to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.” It goes on to express support for “Israel’s right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran…including the use of military force.”

During a press conference at the Pentagon last month, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen aired his fears about a military assault on Iran: “I worry a lot about the unintended consequences of any sort of military action. For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/23/goh ... rael-iran/


GOP doing what they do best.

[twinx]

A reasonable time?

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen aired his fears about a military assault on Iran: “I worry a lot about the unintended consequences of any sort of military action. For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled.”

I would trust the judgement of Mike Mullen over this other guy from Texas (happens to be a birther) anyday.

[TollandRCR]

I wish that Hillary Clinton had not given the speech that she gave at AIPAC. We don't need that, and neither does Israel. It would be interesting if the White House starts to require advance approval of all her formal speeches.

Obama signaled his opinion of the recent departures by the Israeli government from the path to a two-state solution. Times Online March 26, 2010 Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner.

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

Netanyahu came with a flow chart to demonstrate that he was out of the loop when the decision was made to announce the new settlements in east Jerusalem while Biden was in Israel.

“The Prime Minister leaves America disgraced, isolated and altogether weaker than when he came,” the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz said.

The meeting came barely a day after Mr Obama’s health reform victory. Israel had calculated that he would be too tied up with domestic issues to focus seriously on the Middle East.

And from the middle of the article, a remarkably racist statement from what is apparently a Israeli newspaper

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”.

[mimi]

Doug Mataconis:

Barack Obama Slaps Israel In The Face
by Doug Mataconis @ 11:20 pm on March 25, 2010.

This is just embarrassing:

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 Binyamin 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, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US 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”.

Left to talk among themselves Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He spent a further half-hour with Mr Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks to try to restart peace negotiations. However, he left last night with no official statement from either side.

(….)

Newspaper reports recounted how Mr Netanyahu looked “excessively concerned and upset” when he pulled out a flow chart to show Mr Obama how Jerusalem planning permission worked and how he could not have known that the announcement that hundreds more homes were to be built would be made when Mr Biden arrived in Jerusalem.

Mr Obama then suggested that Mr Netanyahu and his staff stay at the White House to consider his proposals so that if he changed his mind he could inform the President right away. “I’m still around,” the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot quoted Mr Obama as saying. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

With the atmosphere so soured by the end of the evening, the Israelis decided that they could not trust the telephone line they had been lent for their consultations. Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, his Defence Minister, went to the Israeli Embassy to ensure that the Americans were not listening in.[

This is how our President treats a nation that, along with Great Britain, has been our most loyal ally ?

Doug is now badgering me defending his post.

Of course he's doing that with his opposition to everything. Especially Health Care Reform.

[mimi]

Sorry Tolland, I had that ready to post, but didn't hit the button.

[mimi]

Britain Expels Israel Diplomat Over Fake Passports

LONDON — In a rare move by a friendly government, Britain expelled an Israeli diplomat on Tuesday to rebuke the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for what it says was the fraudulent use of a dozen fake British passports in the assassination of a Hamas official in a Dubai hotel earlier this year.

David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, said there were “compelling reasons” suggesting that Israel was behind the misuse of the British passports and called Israel’s actions “intolerable.”

“The fact that this was done by a friendly country only adds insult to injury,” he said in remarks to the House of Commons. “The actions in this case are completely unacceptable and they must stop.”

A host of other lawmakers used even harsher language to excoriate Israel on the floor of Parliament, calling for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador, urging criminal prosecution of those involved and going so far as to say that Israel was becoming a “rogue state.” [...]

remainder:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/world ... dubai.html

[Highlands]

Um, don't we give them like billions of dollars in aid every year so that Iran doesn't nuke their asses? Maybe if they're not going to play nicely with us, we should take our ball and go home.

[Estiveo]

Um, don't we give them like billions of dollars in aid every year so that Iran doesn't nuke their asses? Maybe if they're not going to play nicely with us, we should take our ball and go home.

I think that at this point it's more about keeping Israel from using the probably advanced nuclear weapons they have against the rudimentary atomic weapons that Iran has before Iran ramps up to the full nuclear option.

I'm starting to lean towards letting God sort it out after they both cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of War, except we'd be left to mop it up, and gas would go to $10.00 or more a gallon.

[Highlands]

I think that at this point it's more about keeping Israel from using the probably advanced nuclear weapons they have against the rudimentary atomic weapons that Iran has before Iran ramps up to the full nuclear option.

I'm starting to lean towards letting God sort it out after they both cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of War, except we'd be left to mop it up, and gas would go to $10.00 or more a gallon.

The Teabaggers are always riled up about how much aid money we give to other countries. At least the other countries appreciate what we do for them. Sheesh.

[muldrake]

Um, don't we give them like billions of dollars in aid every year so that Iran doesn't nuke their asses? Maybe if they're not going to play nicely with us, we should take our ball and go home.

Yes, and then they spit on our faces to thank us. While they could not hope for a better ally than us, we could certainly hope for one hell of a better ally than they are.

[mimi]

Bolton is beating the "LET'S BOMB IRAN' drum:

WSJ:

* MAY 2, 2010

Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and others will surely follow suit.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 84670.html


{{Taking a moment of gratitude that it's Obama/Biden and not McCain/Palin}}

[TollandRCR]

Um, don't we give them like billions of dollars in aid every year so that Iran doesn't nuke their asses? Maybe if they're not going to play nicely with us, we should take our ball and go home.

Yes, and then they spit on our faces to thank us. While they could not hope for a better ally than us, we could certainly hope for one hell of a better ally than they are.

The State of Israel was created by Resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Could not the two-state solution, with Jerusalem as an international city, also be mandated by the United Nations? This would seem both practical and necessary if the sides remain as recalcitrant as they are now. It might offer the best chance of peace. I think the map below was the UN's original plan for partition; it could be used today as the basis for a new partition.

[muldrake]

The State of Israel was created by Resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Could not the two-state solution, with Jerusalem as an international city, also be mandated by the United Nations? This would seem both practical and necessary if the sides remain as recalcitrant as they are now. It might offer the best chance of peace. I think the map below was the UN's original plan for partition; it could be used today as the basis for a new partition.

The UN's Resolution would have been of little effect had the new nation not immediately won a war to establish its existence by repelling an Arab invasion. The Arabs had promised to slaughter the Israelis. They left with their tail between their legs. I seriously doubt Israel would ever consent to a peace that would leave them with so much exposed border as the original proposal. Additionally, the only body that even remotely has the legal authority to impose such a solution would be the Security Council. The United States, without a doubt, would veto any such resolution. The UN has also tried to declare that Israel has no authority to occupy territory it took in war, which seems to fly in the face of the international legal principle uti possidetis. While it is generally illegal to wage war in order to expand, territory that was acquired long ago during war is generally not subject to being reclaimed. As time passes, the claims on at least some territory taken by Israel in the wars become stronger.

These are some maps from the last serious peace negotiations, which probably more closely resemble a realistic conclusion to the conflict. I blame both sides for the failure of the negotiations, which terminated after disputes over incredibly trivial amounts of territory, perhaps because the fanatical right-wingers on the Israeli side and the fanatical terrorists on the Palestinian side realized that neither of them had a future in a peace.

[cbreitel]

Blame also lies with the corrupt, power-hungry vulture that was Yasser Arafat. Peace had its best chance when he was head of the PLO, and he scuttled the opportunity by sacrificing the interests of the Palestinian people for the sake of his own grip on power.

[TollandRCR]

I agree with both muldrake and cbreitel on the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't think, however, that that history is going to be very helpful in securing peace for the people of both nations. I am also not sure that the Oslo Accords could provide a pathway to peace. What is clear to me, however, is that what is being done today is not working. The building of those new Israeli settlements, over the objections of the U.S., is particularly troubling. If a Labor government were soon in place in Tel Aviv and the right-wingers reduced to a powerless minority, it is conceivable that something resembling the original U.N. plan for the partition would be proposed and implemented.

In some ways the map is not the most important sticking point for the Israelis. It is the Palestinian claim of a "right of return" to lands that were Palestinian before 1947. Accepting that would be very dangerous for the Israeli government. Yet Zionism was built upon a concept very similar to "right of return," going back centuries and without individual claims to specific parcels of land.

[Highlands]

I say we employ a No-State Solution. If the Palestinians and Israelis can't play nicely with each other, neither of them gets Jerusalem. We wall it off and make it a tourist destination. Charge admission so the US can try and recoup the billions of dollars we've spent trying to fix their problems.

[June bug]

I say we employ a No-State Solution. If the Palestinians and Israelis can't play nicely with each other, neither of them gets Jerusalem. We wall it off and make it a tourist destination. Charge admission so the US can try and recoup the billions of dollars we've spent trying to fix their problems.

And name it "Ecumenical Land"!