Meanwhile in Palestine

[Malcador]

I don't think anybody cares enough about Palestine to sanction Israel.

Global public opinion is still unfavorable against Middle Eastern nations and I don't think that's going to change soon.

 

Hm, I dunno I could see that as a vote winner for some, a lot of them made a big to-do over them supporting their recognition from the UN recently (although I suppose that was easy and free PR given what that got them). But yeah, you're right though. Funny analogy with the police but really other states don't care as long as you're not killing too many of others (even then it can just be an excuse to stomp you for some other reason)

Edited January 6, 2013 by Malcador

[Orogun01]

 

Well, I don't really think the tables are going to turn. What I meant is that I don't think the shift to the extreme- right in Israeli politics is a temporary fluke. Having Israel surrounded by democracies will only serve to build up pressure from outside, which will only further radicalise Israeli politics again.

It's the beginning of a problem, radical politics leads to radical ideas, propaganda and eventually violent action. I'm just hoping this doesn't end up like Rwanda in Gaza.

Really, Israel is of no use as an ally to any Western country (note: I'm not suggesting that the US should make any other allies in the region). On the other hand, it is hardly really an ally in any practical sense either. It benefits from American research programmes and the US have a radar station there, and that's it. The prime allies of the US in the region are Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Israel is more like a black hole sucking in billions of taxpayer money in military aid. To me this is entirely inexplicable. American politicians talk about cutting the budget and are keen to cut domestic healthcare, education and infrastructure spending, but recklessly pour billions of dollars so that a tiny, insignificant (for the common American) state in the Middle East can have a "military edge" over rebels from the native peoples.

The US has long list of allies who have been more of a detriment, e.g: every war done in the name of supporting a small nation in the hopes to stop the spread of communism.

On the other hand all the Jewish conspiracy theories could be right.

EDIT: I was just going to add that Israel would have been a very valuable ally during the Cold War days, but the allegations of how the intelligence one of their spies Jonathan Pollard (still in prison in the US) stole was sold to the Soviet Union, maybe they were more of a liability... Gee, I wonder how much of the technology that the US shares with Israel today they sell to China.

I also find it strange that they have lasted this long as an ally considering that there isn't any particular reason to maintain good relations with Israel, aside from securing votes from Jewish communities.

[JFSOCC]

I don't think anybody cares enough about Palestine to sanction Israel.

Global public opinion is still unfavorable against Middle Eastern nations and I don't think that's going to change soon.

Here in the Netherlands, the Israeli embassy and the US embassy are both about 500 meters from our parliamentary building, and as far as I know, by far most embassies are the the embassy park, about 3 miles further out.

 

I think that illustrates our international relations nicely.

[Rostere]

Well, I don't really think the tables are going to turn. What I meant is that I don't think the shift to the extreme- right in Israeli politics is a temporary fluke. Having Israel surrounded by democracies will only serve to build up pressure from outside, which will only further radicalise Israeli politics again.

It's the beginning of a problem, radical politics leads to radical ideas, propaganda and eventually violent action. I'm just hoping this doesn't end up like Rwanda in Gaza.

Exactly. We're not there yet but the current developments are worrisome. Who knows what the situation will look like in two years? Remember, when Hitler was elected, people didn't all immediately realize what he would do. If people would have, history would not have been the same. I'm not suggesting Hitler is currently being elected in Israel, I'm only worried what could happen in the future. It's only easy in hindsight to see who was worth people's trust and who wasn't. If we don't want to mention Hitler, we could talk about how gullible Roosevelt was about Stalin, and so on and so forth...

EDIT: I was just going to add that Israel would have been a very valuable ally during the Cold War days, but the allegations of how the intelligence one of their spies Jonathan Pollard (still in prison in the US) stole was sold to the Soviet Union, maybe they were more of a liability... Gee, I wonder how much of the technology that the US shares with Israel today they sell to China.

I also find it strange that they have lasted this long as an ally considering that there isn't any particular reason to maintain good relations with Israel, aside from securing votes from Jewish communities.

As long a a small, very vocal group wants it to be so, and the rest don't care, I guess nothing will change...

[Orogun01]

Exactly. We're not there yet but the current developments are worrisome. Who knows what the situation will look like in two years? Remember, when Hitler was elected, people didn't all immediately realize what he would do. If people would have, history would not have been the same. I'm not suggesting Hitler is currently being elected in Israel, I'm only worried what could happen in the future. It's only easy in hindsight to see who was worth people's trust and who wasn't. If we don't want to mention Hitler, we could talk about how gullible Roosevelt was about Stalin, and so on and so forth...

In Roosevelt's defense, Stalin was a man of his word and kept his promise of helping the allied with the Pacific theater.

 

Regarding the situation in Israel; I'm considering which news outlets might report with accuracy with respect to what's happening over there. Not to sound the conspiracy loon but a large part of the media is owned by Jews and they might prioritize their interest. I imagine that pending the result of the election there will be some public "justice" against Palestinians living on Israel; which might not get reported for the reason aforementioned.

[JFSOCC]

So Israel is planning on building a wall at the Syrian border. Why not give that strip of land to the Palestinians so they can connect their territories? If you're going to close the borders anyway, might as well give it to those who can use it instead.

I know, wishful thinking.

[BruceVC]

I watched an interesting discussion on CNN during State of the Union where it explained that Obama will be nominating Chuck Nagel as the next USA Secretary of Defense.

 

http://www.theblaze....tary-next-week/

 

Anyway most of the Republicans are vociferously opposed to Nagel being nominated for a variety of reasons, the main one being that apparently he is anti-Israel. The Republican senator Lindsey Graham said in the same interview that "Nagel has been hostile to a good friend to the USA, Israel"

 

It got me thinking, what has Israel actually done for the USA that makes it such a good friend for some? I am not being facetious and I am genuinely interested. I can understand the UK and USA friendship due to the past 2 World Wars and others conflicts but I don't quite get the USA\Israel friendship, apart from the money from the Jewish lobbyists ?

Edited January 7, 2013 by BruceVC

[Zoraptor]

The main reason is that the Jewish lobby in the US is very powerful, probably the most powerful by size. There's a lot of donations to be had, and several important electoral states, notably Florida, have significant Jewish minorities. Historically, Israel was also a bulwark against soviet friendly arab states like Syria and Egypt.

 

Practically the US gets next to nothing from their alliance with Israel now. There'd be far too much blow back for their military use, they're a PR nightmare and likely to get worse and they cost a lot of money in support.

 

Will be interesting to see if Obama tries to be tougher now that he doesn't need to worry about reelection, though I wouldn't hold my breath personally.

[Rostere]

Regarding the situation in Israel; I'm considering which news outlets might report with accuracy with respect to what's happening over there. Not to sound the conspiracy loon but a large part of the media is owned by Jews and they might prioritize their interest. I imagine that pending the result of the election there will be some public "justice" against Palestinians living on Israel; which might not get reported for the reason aforementioned.

 

For news on the Middle East, I primarily read Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/, an Israeli newspaper, sadly you must pay if you want to read their articles without limits) and Al Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/, a set of Qatari- owned TV channels with a large amount of online content).

 

I can see how people would be sceptical about the credibility of Al Jazeera since the channel is based in Qatar, but they're very keen on democracy and human rights issues - although I bet they are not likely to write about the living conditions of guest workers in Qatar . We are often quick to give social media the credit for the Arab Spring, but over there Al Jazeera is seen as equally important. It's worth noting that they have a entirely separate Arab channel, though - apparently famous for being the first Arab channel to feature Israelis speaking Hebrew in live comments and debates in programmes about Israel. Al Jazeera has lots of diverse news from around the globe, often focusing on lesser- known armed conflicts, human rights, and developing countries. They often have their own people in place "where the action is" which got them into trouble during the Iraq war, and I would dare say it's THE news source for the above mentioned focus issues. Some examples of journalism from Al Jazeera:

 

Teacher fighting to get young girls to go to school in Pakistan

Is Ukraine becoming democratic or is it in the grip of corrupt Russian oligarchs?

Mongolian rappers combine Mongolian tradition and rap music

 

The main reason is that the Jewish lobby in the US is very powerful, probably the most powerful by size. There's a lot of donations to be had, and several important electoral states, notably Florida, have significant Jewish minorities. Historically, Israel was also a bulwark against soviet friendly arab states like Syria and Egypt.

 

Exactly. The US nationwide Jewish population is about 2%, but it is insignificant in several states and more in important (for an election) in others.

 

To be honest, I don't think the so called "pro-Israel" lobby is THAT powerful economically, when you compare to various industry lobbies. On the other hand, they have no counterpart in the US. If a newspaper publishes an article which deals too much about Palestinians or too much about Israeli settlers or any of the issues Israel is facing, they would get 1000 angry phone calls and letters from the "pro-Israel" lobby, telling them to take down the article, telling them they are quitting their subscriptions, and so on. The same is true about politicians. Campaign money might also play in there, but I think the "vocality" (help me out here) is the main factor. Politicians have something to win from making wild promises about how many weapons they will send to Israel, but nothing to lose. It's only human to give in to (perceived) peer pressure.

 

I think we're about to see a change here. Like I've said earlier, Israeli politics are getting more and more tilted towards the extreme (nationalist and religious) right. What will, if things continue, soon (sadly) be mainstream Israeli opinion does not at all reflect what secular diaspora Jews think. These people, who are supporting the "pro-Israeli" lobbies, are treated by extremists like "race traitors" for not living in Israel, or like heretics for religious reasons by some Ultra-Orthodox Israeli Jews when they travel there (see my earlier link to a woman who got arrested for praying in the wrong way). I was very surprised at the antipathy Americans and American Jews could get on comments on right-wing Israeli newspaper sites. Eventually there will be a divide, and American Jews will realize that supporting Israel and supporting an ultra-nationalist Israeli leadership is not the same thing. http://jstreet.org/ is a lobby group which supports Israel but takes distance from recent Israeli political developments.

 

I watched an interesting discussion on CNN during State of the Union where it explained that Obama will be nominating Chuck Nagel as the next USA Secretary of Defense.

 

http://www.theblaze....tary-next-week/

 

Anyway most of the Republicans are vociferously opposed to Nagel being nominated for a variety of reasons, the main one being that apparently he is anti-Israel. The Republican senator Lindsey Graham said in the same interview that "Nagel has been hostile to a good friend to the USA, Israel"

 

What's funny is that the criticized quotes from Hagel are "I'm not an Israeli senator" and "The pro-Israel lobby is powerful". Apparently, for this he's been called an anti-Semite. "I'm not an Israeli senator". Come on. I reserve the word anti-Semite for serious accusations against people who sympathize with hate speech about Semites, not people who serve their own country before Israel. Even IF Hagel had been anti-Israel, he wouldn't necessarily have been an anti-Semite. He would only be an anti-Semite if he was a closet Nazi or something like that, which I find highly unlikely.

[Orogun01]

Thanks for the tip, I was skeptical about trying Aljazeera but I will take your word for it.

I guess all that remains is to wait for the situation to develop and try to sort fact from fiction, hopefully this will all dissolve peacefully.

 

On the other hand it is supposed to be the year that the world ends and the apocalypse is supposed to begin on Megiddo.

[BruceVC]

 

What's funny is that the criticized quotes from Hagel are "I'm not an Israeli senator" and "The pro-Israel lobby is powerful". Apparently, for this he's been called an anti-Semite. "I'm not an Israeli senator". Come on. I reserve the word anti-Semite for serious accusations against people who sympathize with hate speech about Semites, not people who serve their own country before Israel. Even IF Hagel had been anti-Israel, he wouldn't necessarily have been an anti-Semite. He would only be an anti-Semite if he was a closet Nazi or something like that, which I find highly unlikely.

 

I agree, what is wrong with him saying he is an American senator and his first concern is the USA and not Israel? Also I think that many lobby groups have too much influence in the USA political arena . How does this make him anti-Semitic?

 

Anyway I see that Obama has nominated Chuck Nagel. Interesting development, I assume the Republicans will filibuster the decision?

[Malcador]

Would expect that over a SoS not the SoD, but oh well. At best, one can hope for Israel to be on a leash and not get any more violent than, say, last year.

[JFSOCC]

Thanks for the tip, I was skeptical about trying Aljazeera but I will take your word for it.

I second Aljazeera as a good news agency, although they do have blind spots.

[BruceVC]

Thanks for the tip, I was skeptical about trying Aljazeera but I will take your word for it.

I second Aljazeera as a good news agency, although they do have blind spots.

 

It really is, it as objective as CNN or Sky and I believe those provide good news coverage. In fact sometimes it has access to people and places that our normal Western news networks don't have so you can even see more insightful reporting. I watch it in South Africa and when I travel to the Middle East. There are a few versions but obviously I only watch the English\Western one.

[Zoraptor]

In some cases there's a very large difference between Al-J arabic and Al-J english as they cater to very different audiences with very different tastes and expectations. They're about as biased as CNN (or RT, for that matter), it's just that they tend to view certain things with a reverse bias from most western stuff. CNN/ BBC etc = The West is Awesome! RT = Russia is Awesome, Al-J = Qatar is Awesome! For Al-J specifically there is a wildly divergent attitude between how they cover their good friends and cosectarianists the Khalifas in Bahrain as opposed to Syria where they're arming and recruiting the rebels, so while one is and has been wall to wall coverage the other rates barely a mention.

[Volourn]

The hatred for Isreal while there is acceptance of Hamas murdering Palestinians is hilarious.

 

"Not to sound the conspiracy loon but a large part of the media is owned by Jews and they might prioritize their interest."

 

L0L

[Agiel]

Will be interesting to see if Obama tries to be tougher now that he doesn't need to worry about reelection, though I wouldn't hold my breath personally.

That's right: You shouldn't.

 

Even if Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election, he does still have to worry about trying to get his party to have the upper hand against the Republicans. And with a Republican majority in the House and the Democrats having a very tenuous hold on the Senate, we could be looking at a Washington as red as I like my steaks ("rare, but not cold") if Obama doesn't play his cards right.

 

If we were to extrapolate the current political climate to four years from now, which party ends up in the White House is anyone's guess, so unfortunately it's not in Obama's best interests to rock the boat on the issue of Palestine.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Agiel

[Orogun01]

That's right: You shouldn't.

 

Even if Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election, he does still have to worry about trying to get his party to have the upper hand against the Republicans. And with a Republican majority in the House and the Democrats having a very tenuous hold on the Senate, we could be looking at a Washington as red as I like my steaks ("rare, but not cold") if Obama doesn't play his cards right, If we were to extrapolate the current political climate to four years from now, which party ends up in the White House is anyone's guess, so unfortunately it's not in Obama's best interests to rock the boat on the issue of Palestine.

It's too early to speculate on the next presidential campaign, specially without knowing the candidates.

Also, I doubt Palestine will take precedence over domestic issues in the coming election.

[Rostere]

We've talked a lot about the Israeli (extreme) right-wing, so here's what the leftist Tzipi Livni has to say about Israel's current situation and the "demographic issue": http://abcnews.go.co...es-end-18194072

 

Israeli Jews outnumber the various minorities, but if Israel were to annex the occupied territories and give voting rights to Palestinians, they would soon be outnumbered by the indigenous population. In Israel, this is referred to as the "demographic problem".

 

On another note, I've recently gained interest in a new Oscar- nominated Israeli documentary called "The Gatekeepers". It's a series of interviews with six former leaders of the Shin Bet (roughly the equivalent of the FBI in Israel). They talk about what they did during their time in office, problems and dilemmas, and about Israel's future, and sadly they also all believe the future seems darker than ever. Here's an American review of the film, and here's some comments from a (slightly, so to say...) nationalist Israeli news source which describes the film as "self- hating", a "Palestinian propaganda film" on so on.

 

Trailer on YouTube:

 

 

The hatred for Isreal while there is acceptance of Hamas murdering Palestinians is hilarious.

 

Oh, come on... Name one thing I've written which shows hatred for Israel.

 

I'm a staunch critic of Hamas. I'd like to discuss Hamas more but since we don't get a lot of news about what various Hamas leaders have said, the political climate of Gaza et.c. there's not much to discuss.

 

Also, compared to Israel and also Fatah in the West Bank, Hamas is a much smaller player in the larger conflict.

[Volourn]

"Oh, come on... Name one thing I've written which shows hatred for Israel."

 

That's great. What's also great is I never claimed you were one. Did i?

 

Hamas is a big player in the conflict. To pretend otherwise is to be silly. They are officially elected gov't. It is their rockets that give Isreal the 'excuse' they ened for the things Isreal does. They have a habvit of mass murdering Palestinians. So yeah, theya re a big player. Fatah is so 'big' they lost an eelction to Hamas. L0LZ

[Agiel]

I suppose it's no coincidence that I've been reading Operation Shylock by the venerable Philip Roth lately. Highly recommend it. Hardest I've laughed reading a book since Confederacy of Dunces.

[Rostere]

"Oh, come on... Name one thing I've written which shows hatred for Israel."

 

That's great. What's also great is I never claimed you were one. Did i?

 

OK

 

Hamas is a big player in the conflict. To pretend otherwise is to be silly. They are officially elected gov't. Fatah is so 'big' they lost an eelction to Hamas. L0LZ

 

Of course. But let me list the most important actors in this conflict for you:

1. The Israeli government
2. The US government
3. Fatah
4. Hamas

If you were able to lump them all together, the governments of nearby predominantly Arab countries in the Middle East would share the second spot with the US.

 

So, in short, both Hamas and Fatah are relatively powerless since they barely have own sources of income, et.c.. Hamas are also less important because the are only a real force on the ground in Gaza, which is essentially just a large refugee camp. Even when their leaders are assassinated and they make their worst threats they can barely make a scratch on Israel.

 

Regarding the last statement, you can take a look at the statistics yourself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Fatalities_1948.E2.80.93present

 

It is their rockets that give Isreal the 'excuse' they ened for the things Isreal does.

 

Indeed.

 

They have a habvit of mass murdering Palestinians.

 

Please elaborate...

[JFSOCC]

Of course. But let me list the most important actors in this conflict for you:

• The Israeli government
• The US government
• Fatah
• Hamas

 

 

 

Don't think for a second that the other surrounding nations aren't using Palestine as a playball in their politics. they too could have done more to help solve the local conflict. However, neither Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Syria nor Egypt have given significant options for accepting Palestinians. In fact in Lebanon they have a fairly sordid history in dealing with Palestinian refugees. So yeah, there's more players, and all of them seem stuck in popular politics and non of them (including Fatah, Hamas and Israel) are doing enough. Edited January 22, 2013 by JFSOCC

[Zoraptor]

They certainly do use them as political footballs and distractions from their own internal problems but it's difficult to assign too much blame to them, if they were added to the list even collectively I'd add them at the bottom, possibly after an ellipsis. None of the immediate neighbours are rich, certainly not rich enough to absorb 100ks of refugees without significant problems, they're still mostly now and historically almost always ruled by autocrats who don't care much for their actual citizens let alone refugees beyond wanting to make sure they don't revolt, Jordan's population is more than 50% Palestinian already which is historically and currently a big destabilising factor, Iran has no real obligation or reason as a distant shia persian country to accept sunni arab refugees and only really supports Hamas as an enemy of their enemy (with most of Hamas's money coming from KSA etc), and any settlement of refugees undermines the argument for repatriation/ compensation/ right of return, benefiting the one country they all regard as their enemy, Israel. Lebanon in particular is hard to blame as it was always a finely balanced ethnoreligious mix where suddenly adding 10% refugees to the population was always going to cause problems (unlike Jordan which got more proportional refugees but at least basically everyone was arab sunni) with almost no scope for flexibility and most of the really egregious anti palestinian stuff was carried out by non governmental groups like the Phalange and SLA.

 

I guess they collectively can be blamed somewhat for fighting Israel though that was a decidedly two-to-tango situation and ultimately a response to having an artificial and fundamentally antagonistic state arbitrarily plonked down on land people were already living in.

[Rostere]

 

Of course. But let me list the most important actors in this conflict for you:

•  
• The Israeli government
• The US government
• Fatah
• Hamas

Don't think for a second that the other surrounding nations aren't using Palestine as a playball in their politics. they too could have done more to help solve the local conflict. However, neither Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Syria nor Egypt have given significant options for accepting Palestinians. In fact in Lebanon they have a fairly sordid history in dealing with Palestinian refugees. So yeah, there's more players, and all of them seem stuck in popular politics and non of them (including Fatah, Hamas and Israel) are doing enough.

 

The surrounding nations (and other Asian nations, such as Iran) indeed use Palestine and/or Palestinian refugees as a "play ball" in their politics, I couldn't agree more to that statement. However, by themselves, no single one of them is that powerful or influential. Like I wrote, if they all got together they could change the game as much as the US could, but that's not very likely to happen because of their internal divisions. It will be interesting to see what happens in a more democratic Middle East though.

 

Also, I don't think the surrounding nations could (realistically) do much to ease the conflict, on the other hand there are a lot of things they could do to mess it up and prolong it further. Let's hope that the eventual new government in Syria is a sensible one.

 

They certainly do use them as political footballs and distractions from their own internal problems but it's difficult to assign too much blame to them, if they were added to the list even collectively I'd add them at the bottom, possibly after an ellipsis. None of the immediate neighbours are rich, certainly not rich enough to absorb 100ks of refugees without significant problems, they're still mostly now and historically almost always ruled by autocrats who don't care much for their actual citizens let alone refugees beyond wanting to make sure they don't revolt, Jordan's population is more than 50% Palestinian already which is historically and currently a big destabilising factor, Iran has no real obligation or reason as a distant shia persian country to accept sunni arab refugees and only really supports Hamas as an enemy of their enemy (with most of Hamas's money coming from KSA etc), and any settlement of refugees undermines the argument for repatriation/ compensation/ right of return, benefiting the one country they all regard as their enemy, Israel. Lebanon in particular is hard to blame as it was always a finely balanced ethnoreligious mix where suddenly adding 10% refugees to the population was always going to cause problems (unlike Jordan which got more proportional refugees but at least basically everyone was arab sunni) with almost no scope for flexibility and most of the really egregious anti palestinian stuff was carried out by non governmental groups like the Phalange and SLA.

 

I guess they collectively can be blamed somewhat for fighting Israel though that was a decidedly two-to-tango situation and ultimately a response to having an artificial and fundamentally antagonistic state arbitrarily plonked down on land people were already living in.

 

Basically, this.