LibriumArcana.Games

The Times UK


[quote]
Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama 'dumped him for dinner'


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 newâ€

This is exactly the sort of measured response that was needed to this situation. My own reaction would have been far less measured and more along the lines of "You know, with this economic crisis we're going through we might have to pull back our funding to Israel some in order to make ends meet." And then see how quickly they backtrack.

I get really sick of both sides, Israel a little more though because they're supposed to be our allies and for some reason I keep thinking they're the more responsible of the two parties involved. I have no idea why.

I get really sick of both sides, Israel a little more though because they're supposed to be our allies and for some reason I keep thinking they're the more responsible of the two parties involved. I have no idea why.

It might to do with the lack of months of rocket attacks on Israel's part and the fact that whatever your complaints, Israel has a functional government that at least gives mouth service to the idea of a peace and compromise. It's damn easy to look responsible when you're standing next to HAMAS.

On the flip side we're asking Israel to do alot less. We want them to give up parts of their nation that they conquered military and are mostly occupied by people who consider themselves a foreign group. We want them to stop trying to send parts of their population into those lands. We want them to give the people in those lands access to water and power. Now frankly the last part is the hardest to ask. "Could you please give water and power to the people who have been shooting rockets at you for the last 6 months."

On the flip side we ask the Palestinians to disarm completely (in their situation would you be eager to do so?), to abandon large chunks of land they consider theirs (they haven't held those lands in generations now but so what? They still have a living memory of having those lands). To convert to an alien style of government (in our defense it's a better style of government then rule by bandit chiefs and terrorists) and accept a lower style of living then they want (but one that is higher then the one they currently have).

That said I tend to come down on Israel's side in these disputes but frankly these settlements? They got to stop.

frigidmagi wrote:It might to do with the lack of months of rocket attacks on Israel's part and the fact that whatever your complaints, Israel has a functional government that at least gives mouth service to the idea of a peace and compromise. It's damn easy to look responsible when you're standing next to HAMAS.

Very true.

On the flip side we're asking Israel to do alot less. We want them to give up parts of their nation that they conquered military and are mostly occupied by people who consider themselves a foreign group. We want them to stop trying to send parts of their population into those lands. We want them to give the people in those lands access to water and power. Now frankly the last part is the hardest to ask. "Could you please give water and power to the people who have been shooting rockets at you for the last 6 months."

Those first two are, in my opinion, basically "Stop antagonizing the people that want to kill you and then crying foul when they start attacking you again." Will HAMAS attack them over nothing? Quite possibly, but a rallying cry of "They took our homes 70 years ago" is a lot less rabble rousing than "They took our homes last night". As for the water and power, I don't know if it's been tried before but that is one of the first things I would do. Give the people of Palestine water, electricity, hell even food if they need it. With the understanding that if they decide to send rockets into Israel again that water and power and food are going to stop coming in.

On the flip side we ask the Palestinians to disarm completely (in their situation would you be eager to do so?), to abandon large chunks of land they consider theirs (they haven't held those lands in generations now but so what? They still have a living memory of having those lands). To convert to an alien style of government (in our defense it's a better style of government then rule by bandit chiefs and terrorists) and accept a lower style of living then they want (but one that is higher then the one they currently have).

I would say disarming completely isn't going to be happening any time soon. As for the land issue, a lot of that living memory is old. A few generations after their gone and I think a lot of that issue will be resolved as long as Israel doesn't keep building settlements. As for Government, that's another time related thing I think. Quality of life will be a tough one, nobody wants to accept lower standards than what they want.

That said I tend to come down on Israel's side in these disputes but frankly these settlements? They got to stop.

These settlements honestly make me wonder how much the Israeli government wants peace, because it antagonizes the Palestinians and they have to know that it antagonizes them. Is Israel really hurting for land that much?

Israel, frankly, needs to get reminded it's the vassal state, not the colonial capital. That, and there's the massive lobbying effort in Israel's favor, and very little helping the Palestinians. This is ON TOP of the ridiculous decision to thrust democracy upon them by Bush and Condi, which was a poor idea at the time, and resulted in the terrorists getting in charge.

Give the people of Palestine water, electricity, hell even food if they need it. With the understanding that if they decide to send rockets into Israel again that water and power and food are going to stop coming in.

What the heck do you think happens? Gaza lives (or more properly, lived) on the back of a constant stream of food, water, gas sent in from Israel. This is one of the main sticking points in the entire negotiations with Hamas.

Look, I'm unrepentantly pro-Israel in this endemic conflict, but even I admit that Israel just needs to stop with the settlements. I do not equate the Israelis and Hamas morally, but there is a higher standard that Israel, as a democratic regime and an ally of the United States, is expected to adhere to. And frankly, I think they do usually adhere to it, but recently they have not been doing so. It's our dime that we're using to support them, as we have been for many years, and it's time they got real to the idea that the Palestinians are also not going anywhere, and that the best way to stop the rocket attacks is to give them something else to do.

I'm with the president on this one.

Sources said that Mr Netanyahu failed to impress Mr Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem.

I'd love to see that Power-point presentation. *click* "Sorry we couldn't stop illegal settlements. Our bad." *click*

I do find it rather refreshing though that the executive branch is making it known that friendly relations between the US and Israel are at least somewhat predicated on negotiating and acting on good faith. Frankly I wonder if this was a test by the Netanyahu government to see how far they could push us - the announcement of further settlements during the Vice President's visit seemed intentionally provocative to the point where it can't be attributed to stupidity or administrative oversight.

Give the people of Palestine water, electricity, hell even food if they need it. With the understanding that if they decide to send rockets into Israel again that water and power and food are going to stop coming in.

"Sorry about not having bread, children. Our bad."

Those who can't possibly participate in Gaza's political system will be the ones that suffer the most from that sort of action. Hamas will do what they will do, but it doesn't seem ethical in any way to withhold food/water/medical supplies to those caught in the crossfire.

Derek Thunder wrote:Those who can't possibly participate in Gaza's political system will be the ones that suffer the most from that sort of action. Hamas will do what they will do, but it doesn't seem ethical in any way to withhold food/water/medical supplies to those caught in the crossfire.

Why does Israel have to support another country who seems hellbent on destroying them and refusing to negotiate? It's not their RESPONSIBILITY to supply them with food/water/medical supplies, it's that of the sovereign state of Palestine. Isn't it?

Why does Israel have to support another country who seems hellbent on destroying them and refusing to negotiate? It's not their RESPONSIBILITY to supply them with food/water/medical supplies, it's that of the sovereign state of Palestine. Isn't it?

They don't have to - I'm speaking more towards allowing vs. hindering international aid to reach Palestine, for which Israel controls all access points. It's not Israeli money and supplies that are being stopped by the ongoing blockade - it's the Red Cross, Red Crescent, UN, and so forth.

Those who can't possibly participate in Gaza's political system will be the ones that suffer the most from that sort of action. Hamas will do what they will do, but it doesn't seem ethical in any way to withhold food/water/medical supplies to those caught in the crossfire.

That's the way it's always been Derek. Who suffers the most from sanctions put on Iran? Or on North Korea? Or any other power? Who suffers the most when bombs start dropping or rockets are fired off?

Whenever confrontational policies are put into effect it's always the people on the bottom of the pole who suffer the most.

That's the way it's always been Derek. Who suffers the most from sanctions put on Iran? Or on North Korea? Or any other power? Who suffers the most when bombs start dropping or rockets are fired off?

Whenever confrontational policies are put into effect it's always the people on the bottom of the pole who suffer the most.

Oh, I don't disagree, and without getting into the utility of sanctions and so forth, you're quite right. However, I don't think that grants cover for a country to actively hinder international aid organizations providing relief.

Oh, I don't disagree, and without getting into the utility of sanctions and so forth, you're quite right. However, I don't think that grants cover for a country to actively hinder international aid organizations providing relief.

Even when they're being shot at?

I mean let's look at it from the Israeli government's position, you got a group of people who use this place as a base to attack and kill your citizens. You can't guarantee those supplies aren't going to the very people trying to kill you. What do you do? Knowing that your people are going to be understandably pissed if it looks like you care more about the other guys then them? What do you think our government would do in this situation?

The Israeli government believes with some justification, that it's prime responsibility is to the Israeli citizen. The average Israeli citizen tends to see eye to eye with the government on that.

I tend to think that the Palestinians need to eat and have a right to live don't get me wrong here. But then the Israelis have a right to life to and don't they have a right to live without fear?

This is what we call a crap sandwich of a situation and I'm not sure there is a good answer. We all got ideas but can they be realistically implemented and enforced?

One thing I'm pretty sure of, until HAMAS stops trying to kill people there won't be peace and they won't stop if Israel keeps building more settlements. If I was a Palestinian, I would feel like I was being herded into a smaller and smaller pen for slaughter. If I was an Israeli I would feel like I was surrounding by raving barbarians who want to kill me and enslave or butcher my relatives. Until we can calm those feelings... You're not gonna get much give.

The Cleric wrote:
Why does Israel have to support another country who seems hellbent on destroying them and refusing to negotiate? It's not their RESPONSIBILITY to supply them with food/water/medical supplies, it's that of the sovereign state of Palestine. Isn't it?

Palestine isn't an independent state in any sense of the world. It's not in control of its borders, it's economy, its land or its water supplies. Israel sends in its military and settlers anytime it chooses. Israel took control of the land by military conquest and the Palestinians have been given a limited self government.

I have no desire to start an "Israel versus Palestine" debate or have an argument of who is more or less sympathetic, but the Palestinians can't be expected to exercise the powers and responsibility of a nation state when they don't have one.

Palestine isn't an independent state in any sense of the world. It's not in control of its borders, it's economy, its land or its water supplies. Israel sends in its military and settlers anytime it chooses.

Let's be fair here though Cat, that first sentence applies to a lot of the more piss poor nations. It's true though. As for the second sentence, well you can replace Israel with Russia and suddenly we're talking about any number of nations on their rim aren't we? Or with the Unitied States and you got a quiet a list.

Cat is however right, Palestine isn't an independent state. Neither HAMAS or the PLA both of which claim to be the government of Palestine don't really exercise any control beyond that of an armed mob. They don't have control of infrastructure or resources and do not fulfill any roles we expect a government to do so. The PLA does not because it is both too poor and the majority of it's members are more interested in filling their own pockets. HAMAS does not do so because it is to poor and more interested in killing Jew.

frigidmagi wrote:
Let's be fair here though Cat, that first sentence applies to a lot of the more piss poor nations. It's true though. As for the second sentence, well you can replace Israel with Russia and suddenly we're talking about any number of nations on their rim aren't we? Or with the Unitied States and you got a quiet a list.

I am being fair. When the US or Russia, two of the most powerful militaries in the world, breach someone's borders with military force its treated internationally as an invasion. Israel's actions aren't treated in the same manner, being treated internationally as police or punitive actions into conquered territory. That isn't to say there isn't an diplomatic blowback for Israel, but its not treated as an invasion of a sovereign state.

To tackle the question more properly, Palestine is not a State in the sense that, while many nations recignize it.. Israel doesn't. It treats Palestine as part of it's land, and only allows limited, case-by-case analysis of state sovereignty in matters of law. They have only limited, occasional sovereignty over their resources.

This is why we're still talking about a Two State Solution(The One State Solution, a joint democratic state, was basically laughed out years ago). The Israelis demand that the Palestinian state be only militarized to a certain degree, before they consider recignition. Palestine, rather obviously, doesn't want to have the occupying force cripple their ability to defend themselves in a region which.. Shall we say.. Is volatile. The borders are still under debate, which is the reason why people get pissed at settlements. One popular solution in Israel is basically expanding Israel's borders.. And then dumping all the Palestinians into Jordan to be THEIR problem.

Which isn't popular in Jordan for various reasons.

Jordan isn't a very realistic option. I mean, you can hardly expect them to welcome back the very same people who tried to overthrow the legitimate government there can you?

Frankly I wonder if this was a test by the Netanyahu government to see how far they could push us - the announcement of further settlements during the Vice President's visit seemed intentionally provocative to the point where it can't be attributed to stupidity or administrative oversight.

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to the Israeli bureaucracy. I very much doubt Netanyahu was involved or even aware of the neighborhoods being built in Jerusalem. It's a completely local matter, where the Jerusalem city council squabbles with the government over building permits monthly. It'd be equivalent to Obama caring whether D.C. expanded north or east into the sea. After Bidens vist, a few more building plans were revealed. Not surprisingly, it's plans that have been in the city council for years.

A quick word on these "settlements" and I use the word loosely because thats how loosely the prior peace negotiations defined them. Many of Jerusalems neighborhoods are beyond the border, and yet no one expects them to be demolished.

None of this changes the fact Netayahu clearly has issues controlling his coalition.

Oh, I don't think it'd fly with Jordan at all. I just pointed it out as what's popular within the Israeli government: Increase their own size, relocate everyone else, foist them off on some other group. That, to me, suggests we are not anywhere near the point where Israel will even recignize Palestinian state.

If you don't mind me asking Nit, what's your source on that being the most popular solution in the Israeli government?

frigidmagi wrote:If you don't mind me asking Nit, what's your source on that being the most popular solution in the Israeli government?

Well, if I gave the impression that it was the 'most popular', I sincerely apologize. I beleive I just said it was popular. If I didn't, that's a big mea culpa. Because the popularity of this plan has gone all which ways.

When it was initially packaged as the Elon Peace Plan, it never went far. It got a heavy rebranding as 'The Israeli Plan' and 'The Right Road To Peace' complete with a million-dollar campaign in 2007 after the Lebanon war and the Hamas takeover(Thanks, magic democracy wand!), and it's since gained alot of support. See this poll result for how much popularity the majority of the plan has gotten.