Israel Should Not Capitulate

[ido_]

Umm... I thought Egypt was the birth place of the Jewish people?

Read your bible again.

 

[Picaro]

Whining about who is at fault is why the process never gets anywhere.

It helps point out who the real problem is, and the problem isn't Israel, and never has been.

What matters is simply using what power you have to influence the best outcome. The U.S. has a unique ability to influence Israel thanks to its military aid. Thus, strong arming Israel into doing something sensible like getting rid of settlements is something that can actually be accomplished.

Why should Israel be strong-armed into giving up legitimate settlements? No concessions ever made by Israel in the last 60 odd years has made a bit difference in the policies of the Arab League, the various faux 'Palestinian' positions, or even the Europeans' positions, so what exactly would that accomplish, other than denying that Jews have no right to settle in their old pre-1948 villages and farms?

Ideally we could do the same for the Palestinians, but the U.S. lacks the influence. While it is probably unfair in some cosmic sense that Palestine can get away with worse behavior, that is no excuse for continuing to allow Israel to do stupid things.

Israel is free country, for one; we're not 'allowing' them to do anything. This implies that they are owned by the U.S. and they have to do what we say or else. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about here.

In any case, name something 'stupid' Israel has done, I mean besides not just wiping out their enemies in true and accepted ME practice in 1947-48? Building settlements is not 'stupid', it's good policy.

 

[lizzie]

IMO, Israel should not capitulate to the current unreasonable demands being placed on it. Such a move would set a bad precedent and embolden the Palestinians to become even more intransigent in the belief that the U.S. would ultimately break Israel.

I agree with you completely.

Furthermore, I suspect that there is a limit to how far the Administration can push Israel before Congress constrains it.

I will be surprised if Congress has the cahones to do this.

 

[rogerredy]

Whining about who is at fault is why the process never gets anywhere. What matters is simply using what power you have to influence the best outcome. The U.S. has a unique ability to influence Israel thanks to its military aid. Thus, strong arming Israel into doing something sensible like getting rid of settlements is something that can actually be accomplished. Ideally we could do the same for the Palestinians, but the U.S. lacks the influence. While it is probably unfair in some cosmic sense that Palestine can get away with worse behavior, that is no excuse for continuing to allow Israel to do stupid things.

After Israel left lebanon, there was no peace.

After Israel left gaza, there was no peace.

Please explain why you believe that this is a land dispute...

 

[Apocalypse]

After Israel left lebanon, there was no peace.

After Israel left gaza, there was no peace.

Please explain why you believe that this is a land dispute...

In 1948 there was no peace.

 

[Picaro]

In 1935 there was no peace. There was no Israel. There were no 'refugees'.

In 1929 there was no peace. There was no Israel. There were no 'refugees'.

In 1922 there was no peace. There was no Israel. There were no 'refugees'.

 

[corwin]

How pity is it that history has to repeat itself. Chamberlain shook hands with the modern evil. If you don't recognize terror as the most probable cause for the inevitable end at least don't blame global warming. Fanatics, fundamentalism, hatred and death, nothing seems to penetrate the liberal western shield of self righteousness. Building schools and houses will get you on the fire hook but blowing up civilians and lashing out with missiles and hey you roll on to the red carpet. But this time around don't expect any lambarry.

 

[donsutherland1]

With respect to the issue of Congressional support for Israel cited earlier in this thread, The Jerusalem Post reported:

Three-quarters of the United States Senate have signed over the past three days a bipartisan letter to the Obama Administration stressing the importance of US-Israel relations, published on Tuesday.

Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) were the leading signatories. The letter, on which they were joined by 76 of their colleagues, is similar to the US House of Representatives letter sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the weekend. The House letter was signed by 333 members, more than three-quarters of that body.

 

[meirm]

Assuming the latest news accounts are accurate, I believe President Obama's current efforts to press Israel are badly misguided for a number of reasons:

1. They ignore the reality that it has been the Palestinians not Israel who have been boycotting negotiations. The Palestinians have been demanding an entrance price to indirect talks. Israel has repeatedly expressed its willingness and desire to immediately engage in unconditional direct negotiations.

2. Israel has demonstrated through credible actions its desire for peace. It accepted President Clinton's bridging proposal of December 2000. In late 2008, Prime Minister Olmert offered even more generous terms than President Clinton's proposal. In both instances, the Palestinians failed to seize the opportunity for peace. In the two cases where Arab states were serious about peace, Israel reached agreement.

3. Israel has repeatedly made good faith unilateral concessions. Those concessions have been pocketed by the Palestinians. They did not produce greater flexibility on the part of the Palestinians. In the case of the Gaza Strip and also Lebanon, the result was violence against Israel's people.

4. Indirect talks have not produced much progress. The successful negotiations between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan were direct talks.

5. Israel is held responsible for a badly timed announcement by the Interior Minister. The Palestinians were not criticized for naming a public square in Ramallah after a terrorist who was responsible for a loss of Israeli lives.

6. Breaking an ally demonstrates a lack of reliability. Should Israel be forced to capitulate to U.S. demands, that will send a clear message to other U.S. allies that the alliance is based strictly on U.S. desires , not mutual interests, and can turn on a whim. It will demonstrate before the world that U.S. commitments are not reliable. That development would raise legitimate concerns down the road, both with economic and political partners. For example, given persistent U.S. trade deficits, countries running trade surpluses with the U.S. might well have reasons to expect that the U.S. will act in a protectionist fashion even if such trade imbalances are the result of comparative advantages not unfair trade practices. Given long-term fiscal imbalances, nations currently financing U.S. debt could have genuine reason to worry about a partial U.S. default via significant currency devaluation.

IMO, Israel should not capitulate to the current unreasonable demands being placed on it. Such a move would set a bad precedent and embolden the Palestinians to become even more intransigent in the belief that the U.S. would ultimately break Israel. Furthermore, I suspect that there is a limit to how far the Administration can push Israel before Congress constrains it.

So so so so true! I could not say it any better!