-
WORD WEARY
Why the State of the Union Doesn't Matter
-
STEVE CLEMONS
Improving U.S. Mideast Policy
-
FIRST IMPRESSION
Thoughts on Southeast Asia
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Wednesday, January 19, 2011 - 11:17 AM
Share
I normally like a lot of Anthony Shadid's reporting, but one odd line leapt out of this story, which I read online in Hanoi this morning. He was discussing the turbulent political situation in Lebanon, and offered this unremarkable observation:
It is yet another episode in which the United States has watched -- seemingly helplessly -- as events in places like Tunisia, Lebanon and even Iraq unfold unexpectedly and beyond its ability to control."
Shadid is obviously right, but the observation itself is banal in at least two senses. First, even a country as powerful as the United States doesn't "control" an awful lot of events in world politics, and especially the internal maneuverings and struggles of a country like Lebanon. And the sooner that Americans dispense with the notion that we can reliably control events in far-away places, the better off we'll be.
Second, it is hardly surprising that the United States has steadily lost influence (note: not control) in the Middle East. We're hamstrung by the "special relationship" with Israel, which reduces our freedom of maneuvers, makes our rhetoric about justice and democracy and human rights look hypocritical, and angers millions of people around the Arab and Islamic world. We foolishly invaded Iraq and then bungled the job, which made us look both aggressive and incompetent. We continue to follow a failed policy toward Iran, which only seems to make Ahmadinejad stronger. And we help prop up authoritarian regimes that are deeply unpopular, favoring democracy only when the candidates we like win.
And then we wonder why we aren't able to "control" political events in Lebanon, and we're surprised that more honest brokers are acquiring greater influence? The mere fact that this trend seems surprising is itself quite eloquent testimony to the brain-dead nature of our Middle East diplomacy.
The only good news in this sorry tale is that the United States does not really have to "control" the Middle East. Our only vital strategic interest there is to ensure that oil continues to flow to world markets, and reliable access to oil only requires that the region not be controlled by a single hostile power. We don't have to control it; we just need to make sure that nobody else does. Our inability to dictate events in places like Lebanon may be inconvenient, but it's neither especially surprising nor even all that worrisome. But if you'd like the United States to have more genuine and lasting influence, then you'd better come up with an approach to the region that looks rather different than the one we've been following for as long as I can remember.
hanstung and if we weren't hamstrung by this what than?
"We're hamstrung by the "special relationship" with Israel, which reduces our freedom of maneuvers, makes our rhetoric about justice and democracy and human rights look hypocritical, and angers millions of people around the Arab and Islamic world "
I am wondering what would be more different, I think that during the oslo accords Al qaeda attacked the Uss cole, and the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, this was during the "peace accords" , so maybe they were not motivated by The support of the U.S for the peace process but by this little devil called radical Islam.
The U.S is the main contributor to the U.N which supports a whole lot of palestinians everyday with food , medical services , schools etc. The U.S is also the number one contributor to the Palestinian Authority, it pays for the salaries of many "government workers" and also contributes to the well being of palestinians. For some reason the arab world doesn't seem to care about that neither do you or your journalist friends, maybe if the world would know they would appreciate the U.S a little more .
I wonder why are they so angry? Especially with the U.S ? Because they support Israel you say, I think they are just angry period and it wouldn't matter if Israel would not exist they would still be mad at the U,S . Israel is a nice way for their dictators to let the public steam. I think that the weakileaks documents showed that the main Issue today is Iran and not Israel. Al qaeda hates america for what it stands not because of Israel, the biggest problem in the middle east today is shia and sunna rivalry.
Dr walt says" makes our rhetoric about justice and democracy and human rights look hypocritical" , how is that by supporting the only country in the area which respects human rights and is a true democracy. It makes no sense, maybe the arab dictators do make us seem a little hypocritical when it comes to human rights and democracy but you have to admit that in this hostile area Israel is a good example for democracy and human rights.
Show me one military with better results in proportion to the amount of terrorists killed and civilians. I don't even want to state what the U>S record is.
If it wasn't for that special relationship you would have nothing to write about , you should be thankful. It is about time you and the extreme left elements in the world will understand that Israel is not that important, you guys give it way too much significance.
"........but you have to admit that in this hostile area Israel is a good example for democracy and human rights."
The 2009 seige of Gaza & the on-going prison camp imposed by Israel on its residents, speaks volumes on Israel's disregard for human rights beyond its immediate borders.
I haven't heard of any palestinian who starved to death
and gaza has a boarder with Egypt, when the ruling government of an enemy entity which declares their sole purpose id the destruction of Israel is in charge what are you supposed to do? , I would like to hear a solution from you, obviously the tunnels are working and there has been enough weapons, and terrorist that came back from training camps in Iran and syria that are back in gaza, Israel needs to protect it's citizens .
Before there was shooting at the passages there was no siege, there is one address for the blame , hamas. Israel still supplies electricity and water but to expect Israel to just let the terror heads smuggle whatever they want and bring in whoever they want in order to kill as many jews as possible is against common sense for a country who wants to protect it's citizens.
Have you heard of any palestinian who were bombed to death?
Yes, Gaza has a boarder with Egypt, and Egypt does exactly as it it told by Washington and Tel Aviv. After all, who do you think paid for the steel undergound wall that was built by the US Army Copr of Enigneers?
"when the ruling government of an enemy entity which declares their sole purpose id the destruction of Israel is in charge what are you supposed to do?"
You mean the same government that:
a) removed the call for Israel's destruction from it's manifesto in 2006
b) supports a 2 state solution and has proposed a truce that Israel continues to reject?
"I would like to hear a solution from you, obviously the tunnels are working and there has been enough weapons, and terrorist that came back from training camps in Iran and syria that are back in gaza, Israel needs to protect it's citizens "
Where did you read that lovely bit of fiction Budahh?
"Before there was shooting at the passages there was no siege"
False. The siege effectively started the day after Israel withdrew from Gaza, beginning with 7,700 shells fired into Gaza over a period of 10 moths after the Israeli withdrawal.
Should we expect Hamas to just let the terror heads import whatever they want and bring in whoever they want in order to kill as many palestinian as possible Buddah?
Look how bad the "Concentration Camp of Gaza" is
We'd expect an "ethnic cleansing" as many accuse Gaza is to reduce the population (like all other ethnic cleansings in the past). But either there is no ethnic cleansing or the Israelis are doing a pretty terrible job because the population has an annual growth rate of 3.29% a year, over twice that of Israel at 1.63% a year.
Fortunately those Turks are so generous that they keep sending their "Freedom Flotillas" over to keep the population healthy. Well they seem to be doing a good job seeing as the average life span in Gaza is 73.58, though I think the Gazans should be the ones sending the aid flotillas to Turkey seeing as Turkey's life span is 72.63.
Now lets look at how many people die annually according to a 2010 estimate. In Gaza the death rate is 3.36 per 1,000/yr, the 9th lowest in the entire world. It appears Gaza has a low death rate than Israel which has a 5.45. But it looks like we might have to pressure the U.N. to end the concentration camp in the U.S. which has 8.46 people dying each year.
My point, there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Whatever you might in the news, does not match up to statistics. Economic crisis, maybe, but it has not significantly hurt the wellbeing of the people. Now because I'm sure some people still won't want to admit it , and will do the easiest thing: question my source (though I think its harder to find a more accurate one), I invite you to go to a reputable organization (i'm sure the U.N. has it) and tell me if you find a major discrepancy in the statistics.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html
>> I think that during the oslo accords Al qaeda attacked the Uss cole
The same Olso accords that Bibbi dmiited to sabotaging on tape right? Common Buddah, who are you trying to kid? Even if you were to believe that the Oslo accords were not a complete fares, they were woefully inadequate and only a temporary solution.
"The U.S is the main contributor to the U.N which supports a whole lot of palestinians everyday with food , medical services , schools etc."
Except that almost none of which makes it's way into Gaza. It was revealed recently that the US has to bribe Israeli guards to allow these goods and services into Gaza.
"The U.S is also the number one contributor to the Palestinian Authority"
A Tiny amount, especially when compared to the biggest annual aid in the world, much of which is used to buy weapons which in turn are used to maintain the occupation. That doesn't include the automatic vetos at the UN, which allows Israel to steal land and maintain he occupation.
"I wonder why are they so angry? Especially with the U.S ?"
Just ask Bin Landen. apart from the one sided suport to Israel there is the presence of US bases in the Middle east, support for Arab dictators, and of course, the murder of over a million Iraqis.
"I think they are just angry period and it wouldn't matter if Israel would not exist"
What you think is interesting Bubahh but irrelevant. We already know what they think. Bin Lalden has even proposed a truce - stay out of the ME and we;ll stop attacking you.
"I think that the weakileaks documents showed that the main Issue today is Iran and not Israel."
Actually that's not what the weakileaks documents showed at all. What it showed was that the Arab dictators fear that Iran's policy of standing up to the West is inciting the Arab populations to stand up to their own dictators, which they despise.
"Al qaeda hates america for what it stands not because of Israel, the biggest problem in the middle east today is shia and sunna rivalry."
That's not what Al Qaeda has said, so what do you base this on Bubahh?
"how is that by supporting the only country in the area which respects human rights and is a true democracy."
Which country would that be Buddah? Israel's human rights record is appealing. They massacred 1,400 Palestinians in 2009, 330 of which were children.
"Show me one military with better results in proportion to the amount of terrorists killed and civilians."
What do you base the proportional figured on Buddah?
"It is about time you and the extreme left elements in the world will understand that Israel is not that important, you guys give it way too much significance."
It not us that gives it way too much significance, it's Washington.
Neoleft you are living on a different planet read amas charter
Yes, Gaza has a boarder with Egypt, and Egypt does exactly as it it told by Washington and Tel Aviv. After all, who do you think paid for the steel undergound wall that was built by the US Army Copr of Enigneers?
"when the ruling government of an enemy entity which declares their sole purpose id the destruction of Israel is in charge what are you supposed to do?"
You mean the same government that:
a) removed the call for Israel's destruction from it's manifesto in 2006
b) supports a 2 state solution and has proposed a truce that Israel continues to reject?
"I would like to hear a solution from you, obviously the tunnels are working and there has been enough weapons, and terrorist that came back from training camps in Iran and syria that are back in gaza, Israel needs to protect it's citizens "
Where did you read that lovely bit of fiction Budahh?
"Before there was shooting at the passages there was no siege"
False. The siege effectively started the day after Israel withdrew from Gaza, beginning with 7,700 shells fired into Gaza over a period of 10 moths after the Israeli withdrawal.
Should we expect Hamas to just let the terror heads import whatever they want and bring in whoever they want in order to kill as many palestinian as possible Buddah?
I have read the Charter and Meeshal has stated it is no
longer relevant. Furthermore, Hamas removed the call for Israel's destruction from it's manifesto in 2006.
On top of all this, Hamas has said it would abide by the Arab Peace Initiative (signed by 22 Arab States) which offers to not only recognize Israel, but normalize relations with Israel.
Look how bad the "Concentration Camp of Gaza" is
The definition of ethnic cleansing is the removal of one population from a territory by another. It certainly does not imply a reduction of that population.
One need only look at a map of the OT between 1948 and today to see what ethnic cleansing looks like.
"Fortunately those Turks are so generous that they keep sending their "Freedom Flotillas" over to keep the population healthy."
You mean, the ones that Israel stops with it's piracy and massacres?
"Now lets look at how many people die annually according to a 2010 estimate. In Gaza the death rate is 3.36 per 1,000/yr, the 9th lowest in the entire world."
Gaza suffers from chronic malnutrition, which the recent Wikileaks cable revealed is precisely what Israel had hoped to achieve.
"Economic crisis, maybe, but it has not significantly hurt the wellbeing of the people."
One could have said the same thing about the residents of the Warsaw Ghetto. The lifestyle was lousy, but their well being was adequate right Hylia?
Neoleft you are living on a different planet read Hamas charter
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_charter.pdf
I don't know where you heard that the hamas accepted the 2 state solution, and if they do why do they keep on calling for the destruction of Israel everyday?
A truce ? When did they offer a truce after cast lead, gee thanks, you are really doing us a favor, we want the terror to stop not to take a break so that they can rearm and train.
we never rejected a truce, we don't attack unless we are attacked so there is no need for a truce just don't attack and there will be no need for any truce, tell your friends in the hamas that.
when you want peace come and talk to us.
Why do they keep shooting rockets at israeli civilians years after cast lead? why do they target civilians do you have an excuse for that too.
Where did i read what fiction? Did you not watch the footage on Television of what you can bring through those tunnels, israeli security services say that and they are a lot more reliable than al jazeera. it is outrageous to think that Iran would train terrorists since they don't have anything to do with terror.
If we wanted to kill palestinians we can erase gaza off the face of the earth, I know that is what the other side would do if we were to switch places, what about the 8000 rockets fired at civilians deliberately, can you explain again . Israel acts in self defense against the terrorists who use their own civilians as human shields, we have no interest in killing anyone, terrorists are people who kill civilians to achieve a political purpose and that is what your buddies do , Israel never targets civilians.
Yeah blame bibi and not the biggest terrorist to ever live arafat, where do you think that gaza gets everything from you think that food and money and gas that go in there grow on trees in gaza, no the U.S and europe pay for most of it.
A tiny amount compare to Israel, maybe but what does the U.s get in return besides palestinians dancing after 9-11 and giving out candy, Israel is a true friend.
Blame the U.s for million dead Iraqis sorry that some arabs are animals and they kill each other for no reason, shia and sunna fighting and using terror against civilians is the U.S fault, you have some nerve.
oh so you are friend s with bin ladin now too, leave the middle east and we'll play nice no thanks osama, Radical Islam is the problem and not the U.S , poisonous ideology is the problem not the oppression of the poor arabs by the U.S , look at africa, you see the atrocities that take place there and people don't blow themselves up in the name of god except for in muslim areas.
The proportion is by the numbers which the army releases and it is verified by intelligence services, the hamas people slipped and when they were trying to say how much of terrorist they are they ad,itted to the right amount of terrorists killed in cast lead.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1738/finally-a-hamas-leader-admits-that-israel-killed
go complain th the hamas for using civilians as shields.
Time to update your talking points Budahh
Yes Buddah, the Hamas Charter does indeed contain some ghastly rhetoric. Written in war, for war, citing scripture also written in war, for war, it attempts to demonize the enemy. It’s the Hamas version of the USA’s Axis of Evil statement.
It does however contain a caveat, which is just as important as any other clause in a contract/charter/statement.In the propaganda war, the caveat is of course never cited.
Article Thirty-One: “As to those who have not borne arms against you on account of religion, nor turned you out of your dwellings, Allah forbiddeth you not to deal kindly with them, and to behave justly towards them; for Allah loveth those who act justly.” (The Tried – verse 8).
The writings of Israel's "founders" — from Herzl to Jabotinsky to Ben Gurion — make repeated calls for the destruction of Palestine's non-Jewish inhabitants: "We must expel the Arabs and take their places."
As for Hamas' acceptance of a 2 state solution, you could simply Google it yourself.
Hamas accepts two-state idea, says Carter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/22/israelandthepalestinians.usa
Hamas 'implicitly accepts Israel'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5121164.stm
Hamas official says group ready for 'two-state' solution
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-04-07-hamas_x.htm
Hamas chief leaning towards two-state solution
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQQms5pe3eJHtZXdqHjCT86hI67Q
Hamas 'implicitly accepts two statesolution
http://www.euronews.net/2006/06/27/hamas-implicitly-accepts-two-state-solution/
I don't know where you heard that the hamas accepted the 2 state solution, and if they do why do they keep on calling for the destruction of Israel everyday?
“When did they offer a truce after cast lead”
Do you even read the news?
Hamas says committed to mutual truce with Israel
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BN2O820101224
“we want the terror to stop not to take a break so that they can rearm and train.”
Hamas called for an end to suicide attacks in 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/09/israel
“we never rejected a truce, we don't attack unless we are attacked”
False again. Israel broke the ceasefire in2008, choosing the say of the US presidential elections to attack.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
“Why do they keep shooting rockets at israeli civilians years after cast lead?”
Who Hamas? Israel have admitted that Hamas are not firing the rockets, but of course, Israel refuse to lift the sirge and blockade, which is of course, an act of war.
Have you forgotten that Israel stated a war in 1967 because 5% of it's shipping access was blockaded by Egypt?
“Did you not watch the footage on Television of what you can bring through those tunnels”
I was asking about Iranian trained terrorists moving back and forth through tunnels. Any evidence of that?
“israeli security services say that and they are a lot more reliable than al jazeera”
No, Israeli security services are part of Israel's Hasbara, which includes preventing reporters from entering Gaza and seeing the reality for themselves.
“If we wanted to kill palestinians we can erase gaza off the face of the earth”
Do you live in Israel Budahh? Yes you could do that, but Israel's survival in incumbent upon it maintaining a facade of being the victim in the conflict.
“...what about the 8000 rockets fired at civilians deliberately, can you explain again”
What about the 7,700 shells Israel fired into Gaza in just 10 months, beginning with their withdrawal from Gaza. Can you explain that?
“Israel acts in self defense against the terrorists who use their own civilians as human shields”
Sorry but that's just old Hasbara. Israel uses human shields all the time. Shin Bet even appealed a Supreme Court ruling banning the use of human shields.
“terrorists are people who kill civilians to achieve a political purpose and that is what your buddies do , Israel never targets civilians.”
Really?
Ever heard of Arnon Soffer, a geostrategist from the University of Haifa and head of research for the IDF’s National Defense College:
‘The pressure at the border will be awful. It’s going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill.’
The majority of those killed in Gaza and Lebanon before that were women and children.
“where do you think that gaza gets everything from”
it smuggles it through tunnels.
“A tiny amount compare to Israel, maybe but what does the U.s get in return besides palestinians dancing after 9-11 and giving out candy, Israel is a true friend.”
What about the 5 dancing Israelis? Were they an example of Israel being a true friend?
Was the statement by Bibbi, that the 911 attacks were very good for Israel, an example of Israel being a true friend?
“http://www.hudson-ny.org/1738/finally-a-hamas-leader-admits-that-israel-killed”
Sorry but that piece of right wing think tank propaganda has no credibility. Human Rights Watch and the UN have already produced the numbers and most of those killed were civilians. 330 children and 300 women. That means of the remaining 680 who were killed (men) would have to have all been Hamas, which they were not.
That article includes 250 police cadets as terrorists, which is ridiculous to say the least.
Tell you what Budahh. I will happily stipulate that Hamas and Israel are equally odious and both engage in terrorism in the pursuit of their goals.
In terms of shear competence I would have to say that Israel are more effective terrorists than Hamas, but certainly rhetorically and legally equal in regards to their use of illegal tactics.
Is that better?
HAMAS STILL WANTS TO DESTROY ISRAEL--PERIOD
Since Israel's complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Hamas and other terrorist groups operating out of the Hamas-controlled areas have fired thousands of rockets into Israel. Why does Hamas continue to rocket Jewish civilians within Israel?
Hamas' targeting of Jewish civilians is part and parcel of its mission — as set out in its governing Covenant or Charter — to "fight the Jews and kill them" and to replace Israel with an Islamic state. According to the Charter, any type of peace negotiation and diplomatic end to the conflict "stand in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."
Moreover, HAMAS leaders still call for teh destruction of Israel, though more in addreesses to Arab-speaking audiences than to the Western press. They know how gullible people like NeoNut are, who hear only what agrees with their worldview. So, say something a bit more moderate in English, but then cry "Death to the Jews" (NOTE: NOT ZIONISTS!) in Arabic.
The Charter, and the intent to kill, remains the HAMAS raison d'etre.
The Charter Seems to be Still in Effect ;>)
Mahmoud al Zahar, 2010:
"We have liberated Gaza, but have we recognized Israel? Have we given up our lands occupied in 1948? We demand the liberation of the West Bank, and the establishment of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital – but without recognizing [Israel]. This is the key – without recognizing the Israeli enemy on a single inch of land...This is our plan for this stage – to liberate the West Bank and Gaza, without recognizing Israel's right to a single inch of land, and without giving up the Right of Return for a single Palestinian refugee.Our plan for this stage is to liberate any inch of Palestinian land, and to establish a state on it. Our ultimate plan is [to have] Palestine in its entirety. I say this loud and clear so that nobody will accuse me of employing political tactics. We will not recognize the Israeli enemy. ..we will not give up the platform of resistance, and the plan to liberate Palestine in its entirety. This is unequivocal..."
Poor Neo Still Thinks There Was A Massacre in Gaza
Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hamad admitted in Nov 2010 that Hamas and affiliated militias lost 600-700 fighters in the Israeli "Cast Lead" military operation. This undermines the central accusation of the Goldstone Report that the Israeli operation was "premised on a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed ... [at] the civilian population." Of course, Hamad's remarks have been largely ignored by major news organizations, like the New York Times and the BBC, because that detracts from the narrative of Palestinian victimhood so carefully cultivated by them.
Hamad's comments were made in an interview published in the London Arabic daily Al Hayat on Nov. 1, 2010 and reported by Agence France Presse (AFP), the Jerusalem Post and others. According to AFP, he stated:
"They say the people suffered from this war, but is Hamas not part of the people? On the first day of the war Israel targeted police stations and 250 martyrs were killed, from Hamas and other factions. In addition to them, between 200 and 300 fighters from the Al-Qassam Brigades (Hamas's armed wing) and another 150 security forces were martyred." (AFP, Nov. 1, 2010)
Hamad's figures closely match the Israeli estimate of 709 combatant fatalities and indicate that combatants comprised around half of the Palestinian fatalities in the time period of Dec. 27, 2008 through Jan. 18, 2009, far more than the 17 percent claimed by Palestinian groups. The increased ratio of combatants to non-combatants is inconsistent with Goldstone's most serious charge that Israeli forces systematically targeted civilians.
If five out of every six fatalities were non-combatants, as claimed by Palestinian sources, this would offer strong evidence of a systematic pattern of indiscriminate force and lend support to the even more serious allegation that Israeli forces intentionally targeted civilians. However, if around half or more of the fatalities were members of armed groups, the argument is much less compelling.
Hamad's admission gives greater credence to the assertion of British Colonel Richard Kemp that the Israelis acted with greater restraint than other military forces engaged in similar circumstances. The Israeli forces encountered an environment in which opposing forces were intermingled with civilian populations; distinguishing combatants from non-combatants was difficult. This difficulty was compounded by the intentional blending of civilians and combatants by Hamas. During the war, the New York Times reported that the Hamas leadership issued instructions for its fighters to shed their uniforms in order to blend in to the civilian population.
Avoiding civilian casualties is challenge for any military force under such circumstances and a balance is always struck. For example, a report by the BBC on May 15, 1999 highlights the realities of fighting irregular forces insinuated among civilians. After a NATO bombing attack on a Serbian village claimed the lives of nearly 100 civilians, NATO issued a statement that the village was a "legitimate military target" and that it had identified Serb forces dug into positions there. Nato said it "deeply regretted any accidental civilian casualties that were caused by the attack."
The civilian casualty counts in Iraq and Afghanistan offer even grimmer testimony to this reality. The UN Human Rights Council has singled out Israel for opprobation and the alleged ratio of non-combatant to combatant casualties provided a crucial pretext. Funny how no other nation on Earth is held to a standard even close to the one required of Israel. Smells like...I dunno...maybe...antisemitism!!??
HAMAS CHARTER STILL IN EFFECT, NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY
In Gaza standing before 100,000 people, Ismail Haniyeh recently declared the objective of the Hamas movement. Neo's supposedly moderate prime minister of the moderate faction of the Palestinian religious movement publicly announced the peace solution for which his government is aiming:
The ultimate solution is not the total liberation of the Gaza Strip or a Palestinian state. It is the liberation of all of Palestine.
Haniyeh did not say so outright, but his words are clear. HAMAS is demanding Ramle and Lod, Haifa and Jaffa, Abu Kabir and Sheikh Munis. It is also demanding the land on which Israel stands, not some Palestinian entity separtate from israel. The land, the entire land. Greater Palestine.
In recent years, quite a number of experts, like NeoNut here, have promised us that HAMAS does not really mean it. HAMAS is only playing tough, but its intentions are lofty: cease-fire, Green Line, coexistence. Live and let live. But no message conveyed by any senior HAMAS member to any diplomat behind closed doors is equal in status to the message conveyed by Haniyeh to the masses. What counts is only the direct and open statement made by the Palestinian leader to his people. Palestine, all of Palestine. Every piece of Israeli land on which any Israeli citizen lives. His home, your home, our home. The land beneath our feet. That is not my idea of peace. Perhaps NeoNut would like to give his home to the Palestinians, or the Native Americans, but not me. If it comes down to me or him, I choose me! Who wouldn't?
Even if they wanted to THEANTICLAUS, the couldn't
"Since Israel's complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, Hamas and other terrorist groups operating out of the Hamas-controlled areas have fired thousands of rockets into Israel. Why does Hamas continue to rocket Jewish civilians within Israel?"
For a start, Israel fired as many shells into Gaza as all the rockets Hamas have fired.
Secondly, as Akiva Eldar has documented, Israel proceeded to strangle Gaza. Do you remember how Israel declared the blockade from Egypt an act of war?
"Hamas' targeting of Jewish civilians is part and parcel of its mission — as set out in its governing Covenant or Charter"
It must be Israel;s too since the IDF kill many more women and children than Hamas do.
"Moreover, HAMAS leaders still call for the destruction of Israel, though more in addreesses to Arab-speaking audiences than to the Western press."
They have also called for a 2 state settlement.
You can't have it both ways.
Is 1,400 not a massacre ANTICLAUS
of the 600 Hamas killed in Cast Lead, half were police cadets, not terrorists. Hamas isn;t just a terrorist group, it is also the government in Gaza and employs public servants.
That leaved 330 children, 300 women and 250 public servants killed by Israel.
I do love how the story from that right wing think tank doesn't even link to the so called reports it claims to exist in the London Arabic daily Al Hayat, Agence France Presse (AFP) or the Jerusalem Post.
Anticlaus verifies the 2 state solution endoresement from Hamas
Thanks THEANTICLAUS,
Yor quote just confirms that Hamas does indeed support a 2 state solution.
The liberation of the West Bank, and the establishment of a state in the West Bank and Gaza, with Jerusalem as its capital is indeed part of teh 2 state solution.
There is no law that requires any state to recognize another.
The hasbara trainers should tell their people never to use cia.gov links that disprove what they are saying.
Economy - overview:
High population density, limited land and sea access, continuing isolation, and strict internal and external security controls have degraded economic conditions in the Gaza Strip - the smaller of the two areas in the Palestinian Territories. Israeli-imposed crossings closures, which became more restrictive after HAMAS violently took over the territory in June 2007, and fighting between HAMAS and Israel during December 2008-January 2009, resulted in the near collapse of most of the private sector, extremely high unemployment, and high poverty rates. Shortages of goods are met through large-scale humanitarian assistance - led by UNRWA - and the HAMAS-regulated black market tunnel trade that flourishes under the Gaza Strip's border with Egypt. However, chnages to the blockade in 2010 included moving from a white list - in which only approved items were allowed into Gaza through the crossings - to a black list, where all but non-approved items were allowed into Gaza through the crossings. Israeli authorities have recently signaled that exports from the territory might be possible in the future, but currently regular exports from Gaza are not permitted.
GDP (purchasing power parity):
see entry for West Bank
GDP - real growth rate:
see entry for West Bank
GDP - per capita (PPP):
see entry for West Bank
GDP - composition by sector:
see entry for West Bank
Labor force:
339,000 (2009)
country comparison to the world: 160
Labor force - by occupation:
agriculture: 12%
industry: 5%
services: 83% (June 2008)
Unemployment rate:
40% (2010 est.)
country comparison to the world: 187
40% (2009 est.)
Population below poverty line:
70% (2009 est.)
Neoleft is Right...You Cannot Have it Both Ways
Israel wants two states, one Arab (which like all other Arab states except Lebanon will have Islam as its official religion) and one Jewish, called Israel (with rights for minorities enshrined in its laws). Unfortunately, HAMAS and the Palestinian Authority don't agree with you Neo. They insist on an Arab, Muslim-dominated state called Palestine AND another Muslim-dominated state in waht used to be Israel. it's called the Conquest of Stages, something the PA and HAMAS still speak of openly. They wish to set up a state as a precursor to the conquest of ALL the Mandatory Palestinian Territory later. Of course, they don't say what they want to do with Jordan, which accounted for 2/3 of Mandatory Palestine under the British. Thanks for this fine point Neo, old boy!
No, It Does Not Make for a Massacre
Israel is regularly scrutinized under a microscope that seems reserved for it alone. Critics ignore how other countries, including Western democracies, have reacted to violent disturbances that are incomparably less threatening to them than those faced by Israel.
The UN itself provides at least one apt example: in 1993 UN peacekeeper forces in Somalia used helicopter gunships to mow down hostile civilians and militiamen. On September 9 for example, in one brief engagement, US Cobra helicopters defended a US bulldozer crew by firing anti-tank missiles and 20-mm cannon on a crowd of attacking Somali civilians and militiamen. The UN justified the killing of almost 100 Somalis by noting that, “Everyone on the ground in the vicinity was a combatant, because they meant to do us harm.” US soldiers referred to a “free fire zone” and complained that Somalis “call us killers of women and children when we shoot the very same people who are shooting at us and we kill some of the people that they are using for cover.”
Other examples that provide valuable perspective include the United States invasion of Panama, Jordan’s reaction to a PLO uprising, and Saudi Arabia’s reaction to riots by Iranian pilgrims in Mecca. In each case these countries acted with far less regard for the lives of their adversaries than Israel has in the present crisis.
Here's another useful comparison: US and UN in Somalia vs. Israeli use of force against the Palestinians:
There can be no doubt that Israel has been far more restrained in dealing with Palestinian attacks than the US and UN were in dealing with comparable Somalian attacks. Clearly, some of the battles in Somalia were far more intense than any in the recent fighting between Israelis and Palestinians. But this is largely because Israel has acted with great forbearance. Moreover, many of the battles in Somalia were quite similar to battles between Israelis and Palestinians.
The September 1993 battle, in particular is worth emphasizing, because it was a relatively small encounter, involving an armed band who were joined by civilians in attacking UN soldiers. The UN forces, including US Cobra helicopters, considered the area of the attack a “free fire zone” and shot at every Somali in the vicinity, whether armed or not. The Cobra’s 20-mm cannon and anti-tank missiles killed nearly 100 Somalis, many of them women and children. The words of UN Military spokesman Major David Stockwell bear repeating:
"Everyone on the ground in the vicinity was a combatant, because they meant to do us harm. (as quoted in the Manchester Guardian Weekly, September 19, 1993)."
The Somali death toll in this single small battle with UN forces equaled the entire Palestinian death toll in the first three weeks of the disturbances, once again demonstrating the great restraint exhibited by Israel.
It is also instructive to compare the reactions of the US and Israel to having soldiers – some of them wounded – trapped by an extremely hostile armed mob. When US soldiers were trapped by much larger Somali forces in the October battle mentioned above, the US rescued them at the cost of more than 500 Somali lives. When Israeli soldiers were under siege at Joseph's Tomb in Nablus, with Cpl. Yosef Madhat seriously wounded by gunfire, an Israeli request to Palestinian forces to allow his evacuation was refused. Senior IDF commanders ignored pleas from the trapped soldiers that the officer was dying, and did not employ nearby armored forces to effect a rescue, stating later that they wanted to avoid escalation and the attendant bad publicity:
"If we had sent in tanks and heavy weapons to take out a wounded soldier, it would not only have caused an escalation in events, but imagine how it would look to the rest of the world." (Jerusalem Post, October 3, 2000)
Instead, Israel protected Palestinian lives by not trying to extricate the wounded officer, who, after four hours, bled to death.
While the US defended the huge Somali death toll that resulted from the rescue of its trapped soldiers as not exceeding “what was necessary to counter this escalating fire and ... consistent with the right of self-defense under international law...”, Israel once again exercised far more restraint, but has nonetheless been charged with excessive use of force.
Moreover, the number of casualties in a conflict has absolutely NOTHING to do with which combatant is in the right or wrong. By your thinking (I cannot use the word "logic" with you), the British were war criminals for killing tens of thousands of German citizens in the bombing of Dresden in WWII. I suppose you also consider the US to be war criminals for killing or wounding over 100,000 people in the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, while NO US CIVILIAN LOSSES took place during those attacks? Numbers mean nothing in warfare as to the legality of the attack. Your arguments are specious.
Does NeoLefty Condemn These Human Rights Violations?
Muslim World: Iran’s execution binge
By JONATHAN SPYER
21/01/2011
Since the brutal repression of nationwide dissent following the 2009 elections, authorities are now increasing their crackdown on Kurds.
In the early morning hours of Saturday, January 15 in the isolated and overcrowded Urumiya prison in western Iran, the authorities hanged one of their opponents.
Hossein Khazri, an alleged activist with the Party for Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), was 29. He had been in custody since early 2009. His crime, of which he was convicted on July 11, 2009, was that of being an “enemy of God” in the eyes of the Islamic Republic.
Khazri’s specific activities against the deity worshiped by the rulers of Iran appear to have consisted of political agitation for democracy and federalism in the country of his birth.
In the course of his incarceration, in prisons administered by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps and the Intelligence Ministry, Khazri had been severely tortured, according to human rights organizations. His hanging was the latest in a wave of executions of Kurdish activists and other opponents of the regime carried out in recent weeks. Fourteen other Kurdish activists are currently on death row, condemned for their political activities.
The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran this week described the authorities as on an “execution binge,” orchestrated by the intelligence and security agencies.
The hanging of Khazri brings the number of people executed by Iran since the beginning of the year to 47.
A spokesman for ICHRI said that the “execution of Kurdish activists, without fair trials and following torture, increasingly appears as a systematic, politically motivated process.” The roundups and executions of Kurdish activists are part of an ongoing, brutal and little-reported war waged by the Revolutionary Guards against a separatist insurgency in the predominantly Kurdish areas of western Iran. Urumiya jail, which was built to house 150, is currently teeming with 300 inmates, as a result of recent crackdowns on independent political activity.
PJAK HAS been fighting the Iranian authorities since 2004. It defines its fight not in ethnic nationalist terms.
Rather, it claims to be fighting for “federalism and secular democracy” in Iran.
Based in the Qandil mountain range on the Iraqi border, the movement engages in periodic raids into Iran. Since February 2009, it has been designated a terrorist organization by the US. PJAK is an offshoot of the Turkish-Kurdish PKK, and belongs to the same umbrella organization.
It lacks the deep roots among the Kurds of Iran which the PKK possesses among the Turkish Kurds, however.
Unverified media reports have suggested that despite the terrorist designation, the group has received US support, as part of a larger effort to foment unrest and instability in Iran. There have also been rumors of Israeli contacts with the organization. These supposed Western links feature prominently in the propaganda of the Iranian authorities against PJAK.
But whatever the particular provenance of PJAK, it is clear that the people in whose name it wishes to speak, the Kurds of Iran, currently endure something much less than a free life. The movement’s potential for growth is thus considerable.
The repression of it by the regime is correspondingly harsh.
THE IRANIAN system is dominated by ethnic Persians, but the Islamic Republic does not define itself officially according to ethnic identity. Rather, it rules in the name of religion. As such, the regime constitutionally recognizes the Kurdish language. In practice, however, discrimination against Kurds and other minority ethnic and religious communities is widespread and of long standing.
Around 5 million Kurds live in Iran, concentrated in the provinces of West Azerbaijan, Ilam and Kurdistan. Separatist sentiment is particularly strong among Sunni Muslim Kurds, who constitute just over half the total. In the earliest days of the regime, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini declared a jihad against Kurdish separatism, and 10,000 Kurds were killed as the Revolutionary Guards fought to establish regime control in these areas.
After the unrest following the rigged presidential elections of July 2009, the Islamist authorities’ repression in Kurdish areas of the country has once more sharply increased. Last May, the authorities began a crackdown as the anniversary of the elections approached. Four Kurdish activists, one a woman, were convicted of membership in PJAK and executed following severe torture.
None was given access to lawyers. PJAK denied any links with the four. All were convicted, like Hossein Khazri, of the crime of war against God.
The incidents led to widespread demonstrations and further bloody suppression.
And this is where things remain. The period since the successful repression of the countrywide dissent that followed the elections of July 2009 has seen the consolidation of an Islamist counterreaction within the regime.
The power of the intelligence and security apparatuses has grown. This is reflecting itself in the brutal repression of dissent taking place in the Kurdishspeaking areas along the border with Iraq. Khazri was the latest victim of this repression. He was almost certainly not the last.
Indeed pathetic. Another guy just posted them on a youTube video on how Gaza is flourishing under Israel's siege!
Hello Prof Walt,
Though I know geographically, Afpak is beyond the borders of the Middle East & thus not the suject of your post, I am curious what "vital strategic interest" might be at stake in that area of on-going strife.
Since a war to contain terrorists networks along the border between Afghanistan & Pakistan seems to be like a dog chasing its tail(my opinion), can we assume that United Sates is there for more than the usual reasons..i.e. inertia, the out-sized influence of the military, the natural impulse to avoid 'failure'.....etc....? Such interests might include the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and related materials.
I would be interested in your thoughts.
All the Best,
Will
Without going into Prof. Walt's specific comments on problems with our foreign policy, I think he is correct to spotlight the reporter's comment about not being able to "control" events. This kind of thinking, i.e., that we SHOULD be able to control events everywhere, is long-standing and pernicious, leading to the assumption that we always have to "do" something. Sometimes things happen and the assumption that we could stop them from happening has long poisoned our politics; for example, the idea that we "lost" China in the 40s led to the McCarthy period and an increasing militarization of the Cold War.
We are seeing something of this with respect to China, ie, that somehow we could or should stop their rise.
I beg to differ Professor Walt
With regards to Lebanon and Iraq, the US can hardly claim the events were unexpected.
They may well have reached a point where they are beyond the US' ability to control, but in both cases, it was and is US intervention and meddling which has led to the present day situations.
The recent events in Lebanon are clearly s result of the US backing Hezbollah into a corner and hoping that Hezbollah make a false move. It turns out that they haven't and have kept their cool, a scenario that the US did not count on.
Professor Walt, you write that with regards to the oil producing states:
"We don't have to control it; we just need to make sure that nobody else does. "
This strikes me as the root of the problem. I heard Neal Ferguson give an explanation about how Empire can often creep up on a state even when not intended.
He used the example of China, who might buy the rights to a mineral mine somewhere in Africa. It decides it needs to ensure the supply is secured, so they position military resources there to protect the mine. Then they build an infrastructure that allows the mine to operate more efficiently, which in turn requires additional protection. It then bribes the local government to allow this to take place and so on.
I think ensuring nobody else controls the oil is just a dangerous. Even if Bin Laden were to take over the Saudi Oil fields, what use is the oil unless they sell it. Bin Laden himself has said, they cannot drink the stuff.
when you say "Shadid is obviously right, but the observation [limited US control inside Lebanon] itself is banal in at least two senses." it may be banal to you but is not to those who run our foreign policy.
Wasn't it Rove who told Susskind that (to paraphrase) 'we are an empire now and we create our own reality'. Basically asserting that our will becomes reality. This view was epidemic among the neocons. And at some level, those humanitarian warriors Clinton brought to State also seem to have an exaggerated sense of how much influence we have in the ME. I found Shadid's piece quite refreshing and even made me think that the NY Times might once again become the paper of record.
The difference you talk about is a profound as the difference between knowing something and knowing that you know something, in an epistemological way. We as undergrads were able to shred PhD level arguments on theories of knowledge. Or, put yet another way, any jack-ass can kick over a barn, though they can't build one.
This desire to control is central to the exploitative and destructive nature of our economic system. The need to control leads inevitably to the need to expend resources to effect that control which further leads to the need for more control on so on.
At some point you have to break the cycle or you will destroy whatever power you had in the first place. This is what is happening to the US. Egged on by profiteers, the argument is made over and over: we can't withdraw or the world will descend into chaos and anarchy. Once you've made the decision that in order to preserve what you have, you must expend everything you have, you're on a downward trajectory with no hope of escape.
We have the escape the self imposed limitations on our own worldview. Otherwise, the decline cannot be stopped. Solutions to problems become the problems that limit the utility of our solutions. We confine ourselves to simply repeating the mistakes of the past.
I recognize that from a realist point of view, that doesn't terribly realistic but how else do we escape the circle? It will all fall apart anyway and we will have only dug ourselves into a deeper hole.
There are many resons to believe that the human animal is still more animal than rational and knowing. We are so successful that our success eventually creates pressures that cause the population to collapse. When it's about exploding rabbit populations in Australia, we seem to see it very clearly. Yet still we are unable to address identical behaviour in ourselves.
Let's just consider for a moment what would happened if we did withdraw all efforts to control and dominate the Middle East. Further consider that our withdrawal does indeed lead to war and instability and suddenly the Gulf oil supplies are cur off. Would that be a disaster any worse than the one we seem to be headed for?
I think it is plausible that after such a withdrawal, oil prices would explode and we would face a decade of very painful readjustment, we would be much better off. Think about it, if oil suddenly hit $250 a barrel, who would be hurt most? Would it be us? Or would it be China? I think it would be China and by a very large margin.
Why?
We have an abundance of resources and are unlikely to be unable to feed ourselves. China's economy would ground to a halt. We would adjust our energy use patterns and very quickly, North America would find itself with a surplus of domestic oil. China'a exports to the US would become not only impossibly expensive to produce, but even more expensive to transport. Ever see fruit from China at your local grocery store? How is that even feasible? How does the expenditure of resources necessary to bring a Chinese apple to the US make any sense in an environmental sense? It doesn't.
But now take it one step furher. China is basically kicking the crap out of the US economy because of an enormous supply of cheap labour. But there is another reason they're doing so well vis a vis the US.
Cheap oil.
Guess who subsidizes that cheap oil with more than half the world's military spending? Can you see my point?
We are subsidizing the rise of China at a back breaking cost. We live on an underpopulated and resource rich continent. We have so much access to inexpensive resources that in the medium to long term, we will be far better off than the average Chinese could ever hope to be. No nation on Earth can seriously threaten the land mass of the US and no nation ever will. It's an imposibility.
When all is said, we have to get rid of our corporatist Israel focused mindset. We will all be the winners.
Israel can decide if it wants to live in Peace with its neighbours or not. I suspect that faced with the naked reality of their circumstances, we could have the problem solved very quickly. Israel will not survive in the belly of a great, angry Eurasian beast on sand and rock.
Does anyone think that 5 million Jewish Israelis living side by side with several hundred million Arabs would be any less successful than 5 million Jews living side by side with several hundred million Americans?
It is only unrealistic because we are letting crimminals, thieves and liars define the questions, thereby defining the answers.
Some of your arguments have merit...
...especially about the rapacious nature of humans overloading our planet--1.5 billion people a century ago and nearly 7 billion now! Also, we need to get off the oil teat. However, your comments about Jews surviving in Arab lands is not based on good facts. Five million plus Jews live in the USA and are full citizens here. They never were nor ever will be full citizens in Muslim lands...plain and simple. Non-Muslims are dhimmis, without full rights and subject to greater or lesser amounts of discrimiantion over time. The problem is Arab Muslim intolerance, not some so-called occupation or purported Israeli aggression. Keep in mind there is only an "occupation" today because of multiple Arab invasions of Israel, starting at its birth. If you believe peace will break out and everyone will join hands and sing cumbayah should Israel withdraw from the territories in question, then ask yourself why there was no peace prior to 1967.
As if this were not difficult as it is, there is a new problem coming up: Natural gas has been found in the Mediterranean Sea, off Israels coast but somewhat to the North, so a new dispute between Israel and Lebanon is bound to emerge. And these countries formally still are at war.
The gas has been found at large depth, the sea is about 5,000 meters deep and the gas well is about 1,700 meters below the bottom of the sea.
IT MAY BE A SOURCE FOR COOPERATION, NOT CONFRONTATION
Egypt and Jordan have already formed international boundaries with Israel in teh Red Sea to allocate resources found there. Cyprus and Israel are currently negotiating the demarcation line. Under international law, this line is typically 200 miles from the coast of a sovereign nation. When a neighboring country is less than 400 miles across the sea, that line must be set somewhere in the middle, by negotiation. In the case of Cyprus and Israel, who are separated by apporximately 260 miles of sea, that will mean control of about 130 miles of seabed for commercial exploitation for both of them. Unfortunately, HAMAS, which controls Gaza, has not been cooperative. Egypt unilaterally drew its commercial boundary with that territory, adn Israel is in the process of doing the same, taking into account customary procedures for setting that boundary, which are based on land/sea boundary features such as bays, peninsulas, etc. As Lebanon's government is in disarray, and may very well descend once more into civil war due to Hizballah actions, Israel will likely have to take the same measures along the Lebanese border as they and the Egyptians did in Gaza. Too bad, cooperation would have made things easier and also benefitted Lebanon financially.
Israel is itching for another war with Hezbollah
But the region is about to undergo a lot of change. A new government will soon emerge in Egypt and Jordan, none of which will be pro Western.
Hams can hardly be asked to cooperate when they are not even allowed to control their own waters, air or land.
Israel won't want to share anything with Lebanon either, though a new government will arise there soon enough.
Boy, you really like to hear youself pontificate, dontcha? So, you predict Jordan and Egypt will soon fall. Exactly when oh wise oracle? A year, two years, next week? As for Lebanon, there will be no new government. Hizb Allah will simply complete the coup it already launched agaisnt the democrativ forces of Lebanon. It will solidify power by continuing to kill any political opposition. Only fools would revel in that outcome. Say goodbye to the remaining Christians in teh country. Also, the Druze will be attacked in the months to come as they will also be forced to cow tow to the new order arranged by Iran. As for your assertion about Israel not sharing any offshore resources with Israel, your bias again shows. Israel has made overtures to settle claims, but it is Lebanon that refuses to negotiate. They will not deal with what they describe as the "Zionist Entity." Clearly, the radical Muslims led by hizb Allah are already in charge in Lebanon.
The sea is about 1,700 meters deep, and the gas well is situated some 5,000 - 6,000 meters below the bottom of the sea.
. . on the core issue and not all the peripheral arguments.
Israel, by any objective standard, is a millstone around the neck of America's Mideast policy. Similar in many ways to the Taiwan millstone. In both cases, we're supporting "governments" that harm our interests, for which we get -- virtually zip.
Plunking the israeli state, against the will of the inhabitants, into the very place where the European Crusaders set up their ultimately doomed kingdoms was and is obviously an act of overweening arrogance and stupidity.
Just as with Taiwan, where we sell arms to a faux nation that we have already agreed is an integral part of China. Oh, I forgot, Taiwan will suffer the terrible fate of Hong Kong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8533496.stm
Harried from multiple directions, eventually the Romans abandoned Britain. So how long before we realize that our "commitments" to these two pointless entities are poison pills?
The arrogance and lawlessness of Israel is a secondary consideration, and arguments about that tend to obscure the main facts, as stated above.
The hypocrisy that you speak of has been going on for close to 100 years. It all started with President Wilson and his concept of self determination that was supposed to apply to all people all over the world. To his credit president Wilson appointed the King-Crane commission that concluded in very clear terms that to support the right of Jewish colonialization of Palestine would be wrong and unjust. Yet the US Congress proceeded to support the Balfour declaration and later , to deny Faisal and the Arabs their rights and ultimately to help establish the state of Israel as if the Wilsonian principle of self determination is tp apply to all except the Arabs.
Balfour was vaguely antisemetic as were most educated non-jewish Europeans of the time. Their attitude towards Jews may be summed up in the phrase ‘the Jewish problem’ which implied extreme irritation rather than hate. The Balfour declaration was primarily an attempt to dispose of this problem by shunting it out of sight and out of mind; it was an imperialist attitude. Imperialism should have been allowed to die quietly after WWII but unfortunately the US decided otherwise and we live with the consequential chaos of that decision.
The US has always been a friend to those who oppose colonialism, but Israel is not a colonial adventure. It is the realization of the legitimate nationalistic movement of the Jewish people who sought for nearly two thousand years to reestablish their own sovereignty. That is Zionism.
As for the Arab national rights, they were recognized in the League of Nations resolutions and in the Balfour Declaration. Also, the 1947 UN Partition Plan recognized Arab national rights. Too bad the Arabs refused to accept those terms because they felt it more important to deny Jews their rights rather to obtain their own national rights in a state next to israel. The Arabs made the same mistake in 1967 when they refused the generous offer Israel made to withdraw from all territories captured in that defensive war except for Jerusalem, which they did not want to see divided again. Instead, the Arab League in Khartoum gave their famous "Three Nos" response to Israel's overtures for peace--"no negotiation, no recognition and no peace with Israel!"
Stop blaming the US, Israel or anybody else for your own blind hatred and intransigence. By accepting responsibility for the past you may be able to move on and build a better future.
Steve Walt wrote:
"Our only vital strategic interest there is to ensure that oil continues to flow to world markets...."
Right. (Not to mention that by our continued meddling over there the price of the oil that we *are* getting has been tremendously increased, and we are being attacked by terrorists, and....)
So, anyway, given that oil flow is our only vital strategic interest, would people (like Walt for instance, I think) please please please stop calling—ceaselessly, illogically, and useless;u—for us to continue meddling only to "put pressure" on Israel to resolve its problems with its neighbors?
It hasn't worked, it never will work, and yet it's deceptive innocuousness keeps it going. So as long as you have many people calling for it, all you are doing is extending the period and probably the severity of the ill effects we suffer thereby.
If we have no vital strategic interest in the I/P conflict—and we probably don't have much if any of *any* kind of real interest there, much less no vital one—then the real solution is to get the hell out, period. No support for either side other than the humanitarian, period.
While it isn't likely to make any immediate change, "Come home America" is in the long run far more likely to resonate with the American people than "let's just keep meddling but in a different way." And then of course it's also actually possible to succeed in getting us out of that mess, unlike the proven disaster of "let's just keep meddling in some different way."
How many "different ways" can be tried, after all, before people start to admit there is no way? Or that we just simply are incapable of doing things really different?
Anyone seen Obama's latest baloney on this? Two new "task forces" tasked to come up with "different ways": One headed by Sandy Berger, the other by Martin Indyk. Both reporting to ... Dennis Ross.
Yeah, right. Just can't wait for the next "different way." Probably involve transferring the Pentagon and Fort Knox to Tel Aviv. Maybe the entire population of Texas onto the West Bank too. After all anything less might not make Israel feel "secure" enough, and even then....
Dear Prof Walt:
I am a fan of yours, BUT I cannot help why you hedge so often with fact qualifiers like "looks like", "seems, etc." For example, in this essay:
"We're hamstrung by the "special relationship" with Israel, which reduces our freedom of maneuvers, makes our rhetoric about justice and democracy and human rights look hypocritical, and angers millions of people around the Arab and Islamic world. We foolishly invaded Iraq and then bungled the job, which made us look both aggressive and incompetent. We continue to follow a failed policy toward Iran, which only seems to make Ahmadinejad stronger.
look hypocritical? The facts as you state ARE hypocritical. "look both aggressive and incompetent? Have you no opinion yourself of the reality of the agression and incompetence?
only seems to make Ahmadinejad stronger? You get the idea. IMHO, you take the punch out of your expression when you are so timid with your own opinions.
A good way to get some leverage back would be to allow for
the drilling of oil and natural gas in all of the continental U.S , a lot of the prices in the market are based on speculation, even if the U.S would announce that it is drilling for oil the prices would drop significantly,since the U.S imports so much of the oil in the world.
The drop of prices would give the U.S a lot more leverage and power, it would weaken russia, venezuela , Iran and our gulf buddies who's economies are based on oil sales, the economy would improve significantly, our trade deficit would decrease and it will create a whole lot of jobs, drilling in the third world is ok , but not in the U.S . that is hypocritical lets let the niger delta , the rain forest and the middle east ruin their environment "so claim the green people" , but it isn't ok to drill in the U.s because it would harm our environment.
Drilling in the U.S is a better way to keep the environment because we have the best technology to do it right and if anything goes wrong you know that we will clean it up, unlike some other places.
It is a win win win situation, we will have more of our money stay here, we would create jobs and save the economy and we would get more leverage over other oil exporting countries.
Like the Gulf of Mexico Buddah?
"Drilling in the U.S is a better way to keep the environment because we have the best technology to do it right and if anything goes wrong you know that we will clean it up, unlike some other places."
There's a 1 inch layer of oil at the bottom of the ocean covering hundreds of square miles. Hundreds of resident s are sick. The tap water is toxic, fish are washing up dead by the thousands and the beaches are laden with tar.
Yeah, we showed the word how it's done alright.
Hey the oil has to come from somewhere, you drive don't you?
So unless you have a better idea that is what we need to do, and yes the U.S is cleaning it up, besides that the reason they were drilling so far away from shore and so deep is because they were not permitted to go near the mainland where it is a lot easier to get the oil and it is a lot less deep in the ocean so if anything would have happened it would've been easier to clean up.
i know you want to keep your terrorists friends rich but hey, america needs to get some energy independence, also how many spills happened in the past 10 years and how many rigs are there around the gulf of mexico?
There are an estimated 20 billion barrels that are waiting to be drilled, think about how much money that would save the economy, it would be the best stimulus anyone can give the U,S
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
January/February 2011
-
Cover Story
-
Special Report
-
Feature
(56)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE