That's not going to happen for obvious reasons. He's an elected leader of a country that is for the most part Israel friendly. He has to uphold the will of the general public, lest face problems implementing his broader agenda.
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Kaos
Full Member
Then peace via diplomacy is futile, and people wonder why Palestinians resort to violent means.
Is Israel really a serious issue for the US public? I mean I'd figure that they'd be more concerned about their own pressing domestic issues. I always figured Obama had his hands forced by the lobbyists more so than the public in respect to the 'peace process'. You think for example the US public would be outraged at the US not vetoing a resolution which supports Palestinian statehood? I mean its not like refusing to veto a resolution praising Hamas or something.
Is Israel really a serious issue for the US public? I mean I'd figure that they'd be more concerned about their own pressing domestic issues. I always figured Obama had his hands forced by the lobbyists more so than the public in respect to the 'peace process'. You think for example the US public would be outraged at the US not vetoing a resolution which supports Palestinian statehood? I mean its not like refusing to veto a resolution praising Hamas or something.
Then peace via diplomacy is futile, and people wonder why Palestinians resort to violent means.
Is Israel really a serious issue for the US public? I mean I'd figure that they'd be more concerned about their own pressing domestic issues. I always figured Obama had his hands forced by the lobbyists more so than the public in respect to the 'peace process'. You think for example the US public would be outraged at the US not vetoing a resolution which supports Palestinian statehood? I mean its not like refusing to veto a resolution praising Hamas or something.
It isn't really a big issue unless there's a crisis (such as the current one) and the President doesn't provide a degree of moral support in favor of Israel, which is usually tantamount to taking a stand against non state actor terrorism such as Hamas. Believe it or not there are broader equities on Obama's agenda to where he wouldn't want to rock the boat on something he knows the public are more or less behind.
Kaos
Full Member
Its frustrating really, I'm slightly exaggerating but the US could probably end this tomorrow. All they'd have to is demand the cessation of settlements, insist the Israelis accept the pre-67 borders, a certain degree of RtR..otherwise threaten to withdraw their military, economic and diplomatic support, all of which Israel can't afford to severe.
Its frustrating really, I'm slightly exaggerating but the US could probably end this tomorrow. All they'd have to is demand the cessation of settlements, insist the Israelis accept the pre-67 borders, a certain degree of RtR..otherwise threaten to withdraw their military, economic and diplomatic support, all of which Israel can't afford to severe.
Yes, I'm sure American politicians would perfectly happy to risk their careers in order to capitulate to Hamas' political demands.
Kaos
Full Member
Yes, I'm sure American politicians would perfectly happy to risk their careers in order to capitulate to Hamas' political demands.
Those are the demands of the UN - agreed to by most of the world's nation - including most EU nations. Not Hamas.
Those are the demands of the UN - agreed to by most of the world's nation - including most EU nations. Not Hamas.
That would mean something if there was an enforceable world government. In this world, the powerful call the shots.
Drainy
Full Member
Its frustrating really, I'm slightly exaggerating but the US could probably end this tomorrow.
As soon as the US stopped propping up apartheid in South Africa pretty much the whole thing collapsed. It's likely that the same would happen here.
As Raoul says, supporting Israel is the only viable thing to do in US politics at the moment. No sign of that changing really.
That would mean something if there was an enforceable world government. In this world, the powerful call the shots.
Of course. He has a point though.
Kaos
Full Member
It was a more or less a unanimous consensus actually, only a handful of nations were against it and it was the US vetoing it which was its death knell.
Of course. He has a point though.
So do I. The power in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict lies with the Israelis, backed by the U.S.
MikeUpNorth
Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 20,041
The time isn't right for the US with everything else that's going on in the Middle East at the moment, the recent wars and building confrontation with Iran.
So do I. The power in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict lies with the Israelis, backed by the U.S.
Ok. You're describing what is, which ain't too much of a challenge.
Others are wondering what should be.
Kaos
Full Member
So do I. The power in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict lies with the Israelis, backed by the U.S.
I'd argue it was the other way round. Israel enjoys its superiority because of its uncompromisable military, economic and diplomatic support it receives from the US. Take that way, and they're in trouble.
Leave Israel to their devices and they won't make an effort for peace, and why would they? The current status quo suits the Israeli government (and Hamas) quite nicely - war means a justification to carry on building settlements, to refrain from declaring borders, and to delay granting Palestinians statehood. Only ones who can force them to take peace seriously is the US.
Ok. You're describing what is, which ain't too much of a challenge.
Others are wondering what should be.
Yes I know. My point is that those who are cheerleading for one side of the other are missing the point that there isn't likely to be any change soon because one side has all the power, which underscores the futility of attacking it.
I'd argue it was the other way round. Israel enjoys its superiority because of its uncompromisable military, economic and diplomatic support it receives from the US. Take that way, and they're in trouble.
Leave Israel to their devices and they won't make an effort for peace, and why would they? The current status quo suits the Israeli government (and Hamas) quite nicely - war means a justification to carry on building settlements, to refrain from declaring borders, and to delay granting Palestinians statehood. Only ones who can force them to take peace seriously is the US.
Well yes, if you were to disarm Israel and take away their US backing, they would get overrun in short time. That's not very realistic though is it. A bit less fanaticism and more realism would be nice.
Kaos
Full Member
The time isn't right for the US with everything else that's going on in the Middle East at the moment, the recent wars and building confrontation with Iran.
On the contrary this would provide a perfect opportunity for them to heal the wounds of the Iraq war and would probably gain immense support from the Arab world, and even from within Iran.
Kaos
Full Member
Well yes, if you were to disarm Israel and take away their US backing, they would get overrun in short time. That's not very realistic though is it. A bit less fanaticism and more realism would be nice.
You're clutching on to hyperbole. No one is suggesting the US strip Israel to its barebones and watch it get overrun, that's not even remotely necessary. Something as simple as threatening to withdraw Israel's annual funding would be very convincing I'm sure. And besides Israel can take care of itself perfectly well (it did so if previous Arab-Israeli wars are anything to go by), the US refusing to veto resolutions in its favour for example isn't going to lead to Israel's demise.
On the contrary this would provide a perfect opportunity for them to heal the wounds of the Iraq war and would probably gain immense support from the Arab world, and even from within Iran.
The U.S. has to appeal to the interests of the American people - not the Arab street.
Kaos
Full Member
The U.S. has to appeal to the interests of the American people - not the Arab street.
And its current one-sided stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is beneficial to the average American Joe I take it?
MikeUpNorth
Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 20,041
On the contrary this would provide a perfect opportunity for them to heal the wounds of the Iraq war and would probably gain immense support from the Arab world, and even from within Iran.
Israel and the US are privately nervous about what all the uprisings and changes in government in the Middle East will lead to, and are going to want things to settle down before they start adding more upheaval into the mix.
You're clutching on to hyperbole. No one is suggesting the US strip Israel to its barebones and watch it get overrun, that's not even remotely necessary. Something as simple as threatening to withdraw Israel's annual funding would be very convincing I'm sure. And besides Israel can take care of itself perfectly well (it did so if previous Arab-Israeli wars are anything to go by), the US refusing to veto resolutions in its favour for example isn't going to lead to Israel's demise.
You're missing the point. As long as there is wide support among the American electorate, the Government will continue to support Israel. Politicians need to get elected. If there comes a day when politicians sense the public wouldn't react unfavorably to liberalizing support for the Palestinian cause, then they might seek to do so. Right now however, the US has plenty of Christians and Jews among its electorate, which suggests continued support for Israeli security. Its really that simple.
Kaos
Full Member
Israel and the US are privately nervous about what all the uprisings and changes in government in the Middle East will lead to, and are going to want things to settle down before they start adding more upheaval into the mix.
That's a fair enough assessment.
One could also suggest that the recent events in the Middle East might have been partly due irresponsible US policy in the region. That could serve as a cue to them swallowing their pride and changing it up a bit. Supporting authoritarian monarchs while pledging blind support to Israel hasn't exactly inspired enthrallment amongst the Middle Eastern masses.
And its current one-sided stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is beneficial to the average American Joe I take it?
Its a sub state norm that comes from the US's more or less Christian history and culture. Even though its largely secular now, there are still plenty of Christians and Jews who are pro-Israel for religious and cultural reasons.
You're missing the point. As long as there is wide support among the American electorate, the Government will continue to support Israel. Politicians need to get elected. If there comes a day when politicians sense the public wouldn't react unfavorably to liberalizing support for the Palestinian cause, then they might seek to do so. Right now however, the US has plenty of Christians and Jews among its electorate, which suggests continued support for Israeli security. Its really that simple.
You're describing what is. Others are saying what should be. See the difference?
You're describing what is. Others are saying what should be. See the difference?
Yes, I am describing what is, as a foundation for suggesting those who are saying what should be are delusional.
Kaos
Full Member
You're missing the point. As long as there is wide support among the American electorate, the Government will continue to support Israel. Politicians need to get elected. If there comes a day when politicians sense the public wouldn't react unfavorably to liberalizing support for the Palestinian cause, then they might seek to do so. Right now however, the US has plenty of Christians and Jews among its electorate, which suggests continued support for Israeli security. Its really that simple.
So assuming the magnitude of that norm as is accurate as you depict it, would you agree that its partly to blame for peace stalemate in Israel, as well as explaining the Palestinians resorting to violent means?
africanspur
Full Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2010
- Messages
- 9,846
- Supports
- Tottenham Hotspur
Check his bullish approach to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, leading to Abbas complaining that he made him climb a tree he couldn't get down from (re freezing settlements).
His bullish approach....has consisted of making about as much progress on this particular issue as just about every other US president, while sprinkling in a few 'our military relationship with Israel is unshakeable', and making incredible diplomatic manoeuvres to prevent the Palestinians doing anything at the UN.
As well as his 'revolutionary' move to declare that Israel needs to move back within the 1967 borders, give up East Jerusalem and stop making a future 2 state solution impossible by building settlements in strategic locations that makes a viable Palestinian state almost impossible to envision. A view shared by the majority of the planet.
Ultimately, his policy in the past 4 years was pretty much the same as the US policy has always been and his policy in the next 4 years will be pretty much the same.
And, as Bibi himself articulates so well here (and effectively what Raoul has just been saying), the US can be moved and silenced and we find ourselves in the strange situation where a superpower can have its policies affected by one of its many recipients of aid. Bibi can do whatever he likes and whether it is Obama, Romney or Joe plumber in the white house, it doesn't make a great deal of difference to him.
So assuming the magnitude of that norm as is accurate as you depict it, would you agree that its partly to blame for peace stalemate in Israel, as well as explaining the Palestinians resorting to violent means?
It depends what side of the fence you're on. From the Israeli perpective, it helps galvanize their national security. Conversely, its not surprising that militant Palestinians factions have taken up arms - although its unwise given that Israel has all of the power and could easily launch a ground campaign to occupy Gaza indefinitely, which would make Hamas' half thought out rocket lobbing campaign seem like a bad idea.
ha_rooney
Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2008
- Messages
- 39,210
Apparently buildings where journalists are working have been targeted by Israeli drones and there have been casualties. I'm sure Israel will tweet their apology and blame Hamas for that.
Kaos
Full Member
It depends what side of the fence you're on. From the Israeli perpective, it helps galvanize their national security. Conversely, its not surprising that militant Palestinians factions have taken up arms - although its unwise given that Israel has all of the power and could easily launch a ground campaign to occupy Gaza indefinitely, which would make Hamas' half thought out rocket lobbing campaign seem like a bad idea.
Attritionally its sounds like a bad idea, but campaigns like this are good business for the likes of Hamas, especially when they use the deaths of innocent women and children by the hands of Israel as an effective recruitment tool. Something which the Israelis have failed to realise.
Attritionally its sounds like a bad idea, but campaigns like this are good business for the likes of Hamas, especially when they use the deaths of innocent women and children by the hands of Israel as an effective recruitment tool. Something which the Israelis have failed to realise.
Its good business until Israel launch an indefinite, full on ground campaign into Gaza at which point the cost benefit wont seem so rosey.
Red Dreams
Full Member
when there is an Isreali leader who actually cares about the plight of the Palestinian people, there will be hope.
He will risk his life. But only then can the peace be reached. It must come from both sides. The American President can only facilitate it.
He will risk his life. But only then can the peace be reached. It must come from both sides. The American President can only facilitate it.
JakeC
Last Man Standing 2 champion 2020/21
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 29,955
Israeli Government are worse then any other party in this, if Fatah were re-elected, and not hamas, Palestine would have no blame.
Israhell as they're known in the Socialist circle
Israhell as they're known in the Socialist circle
Neutral
BTV
Some Numbers
-Israel's army says it has targeted more than 900 sites
-500 rockets fired from Gaza have hit Israel.
-257 missiles had been intercepted by its Iron Dome defence system
-40 Palestinians killed(half are militants half are civilians), 150-200 injured
-3 Israeli deaths(all civilian) 25-40 injured
Interior Minister Eli Yishai to Israel's Haaretz newspaper: the goal of the Pillar of Defence operation was "to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for 40 years".
-Israel's army says it has targeted more than 900 sites
-500 rockets fired from Gaza have hit Israel.
-257 missiles had been intercepted by its Iron Dome defence system
-40 Palestinians killed(half are militants half are civilians), 150-200 injured
-3 Israeli deaths(all civilian) 25-40 injured
Interior Minister Eli Yishai to Israel's Haaretz newspaper: the goal of the Pillar of Defence operation was "to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for 40 years".
Neutral
BTV
@rupertmurdoch
Rupert Murdoch
Why Is Jewish owned press so consistently anti- Israel in every crisis?
Short of plastering front pages with Israeli flags, I'm not sure what the press need to do to be not called anti-Israel.
Israel has the better and more effectively weaponry, so they're wrecking more havoc, the media is obviously going to cover that, because it results in more stories. I've seen plenty of footage of the Israeli side, and the aftermath of attacks on their residents...
Do people want Hamas to be more effective, cause more casualties? Have the press cover that and then claim neutrality?
Plenty of Israeli govt spokespeople on tv giving their side of things, explaining why they've gone down the path they have, and what they stated goals are(reports saying up to 90% of mid range rockets and rocket sites have been destroyed - but hundreds of short range rockets remain).
All the media are actually quite often referencing that IDF twitter feed - and I think the video of the female Israeli soldier having a meltdown has been shown close to a 100 times now.
Do people want the media to be like Fox News and actually endorse the operation? Not their job...they do the reporting, and ppl can decide, what is legitimate/illegal/overkill
holyland red
"Holier-than-thou fundamentalist"
Nice diversion. Remind me what the world thinks about settlements and a Palestinian state? US, UN EU and Russian included.
The general concensus internationally is that two nation states should exist in peace next to each other.
holyland red
"Holier-than-thou fundamentalist"
Giving a speech and following up with actions are two different things. I am not excusing the Palestinians by any means. Its takes two to make the peace.
Hamas follows words with deeds better, I'll give you that.
holyland red
"Holier-than-thou fundamentalist"
Then peace via diplomacy is futile, and people wonder why Palestinians resort to violent means.
Diplomacy is futile when a peace process that is based on bilateral agreements turns out to a contest where one side pulls out to unilaterally force measures on the other through the UN general assembly.
The annual UN debacles and the constant rocket launching to residential areas confirm that the phase plan has never died.
Traub
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,306
Israeli Government are worse then any other party in this, if Fatah were re-elected, and not hamas, Palestine would have no blame.
Israhell as they're known in the Socialist circle
I'm still waiting for your answer on a simple question - do Israel not deserve any of the land? Do you think they should give the entire Israel to the Palestinians?
Share: