The Obama "To Make Important Middle East Speech" MEGATHREAD

[Razgovory]

They could always just drive them out like the US did with the Indians.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The problem isn't the combination of being a religiously-defined nation and an occupier of non-national territory.  The problem is adding the concept of being a democracy to the mix.  They can't indefinately continue to occupy areas inhabited by large numbers on non-Jews indefinately.  Eventually, they will either have to grant full citizenship to Palestinians in the occupied territories, and thus lose the identity of being a Jewish state;  or cease to be viewed as a true democracy;  or else withdraw from the occupied territories.

Why? Nothing about democracy says treating occupied peoples outside the borders of your state democratically. There's no innate paradox between a democracy and repression.

[dps]

The problem isn't the combination of being a religiously-defined nation and an occupier of non-national territory.  The problem is adding the concept of being a democracy to the mix.  They can't indefinately continue to occupy areas inhabited by large numbers on non-Jews indefinately.  Eventually, they will either have to grant full citizenship to Palestinians in the occupied territories, and thus lose the identity of being a Jewish state;  or cease to be viewed as a true democracy;  or else withdraw from the occupied territories.

Why? Nothing about democracy says treating occupied peoples outside the borders of your state democratically. There's no innate paradox between a democracy and repression.

Because the Isrealis want it both ways.  They want to treat the West Bank as a hostile, occupied territory when it suits them, and at the same time as an integral part of the state of Isreal. 

[CountDeMoney]

Can't negotiate with the Palestinians.  Even when they're offered 99% of what they want, they say no.  Oslo, Camp David 2000...it's Arafat all over again.

[mongers]

Can't negotiate with the Palestinians.  Even when they're offered 99% of what they want, they say no.  Oslo, Camp David 2000...it's Arafat all over again.

That old lie.

Hint repeating it endlessly doesn't make it become truth.

[CountDeMoney]

Can't negotiate with the Palestinians.  Even when they're offered 99% of what they want, they say no.  Oslo, Camp David 2000...it's Arafat all over again.

That old lie.

Hint repeating it endlessly doesn't make it become truth.

Unfortunately, that whole 1% part of "pushing Israel into the Med" is an unacceptable Israeli concession.

Really, though: can you Euros be any more anti-semitic?  We'd have more respect for you if you just fucking came out and admitted it.

[grumbler]

Why can't it be rationally defended? History suggests if a state takes land by force that is all the defense they need to keep it, and as long as they are able to hold onto it is not everything else moot?

Ah, the old "history suggests" argument.  It isn't any more compelling when you use it like this than when OBL used it to moan that history suggested that when Christian nations' militaries captured Muslim cities they annihilate the population.

International law says that borders change as a result of treaties.  Sometimes those treaties are forced, but no one just gets to declare themselves in possession of more Lebensraum just because they currently militarily occupy a place.

[grumbler]

I was responding to what Oexmelin said.  He described it as an uneasy coalition, presumably between those who are fanatical and want to destroy Israel, and those more pragmatic who are willing to deal with Israel politically.  If that is the case why should we assume that any deal cut by the pragmatists would be honored by the Fanatics?

Again, I am not sure what the argument is, here.  Whatever policy that Hamas decides is their negotiating policy is what their negotiators will present in negotiations, just like all groups in negotiations.  The task of disciplining Hamas members would be the responsibility of the Palerstinians, just as the task of disciplining Israeli fanatics would be the responsibility of the Israelis.

Why would Hamas send negotiators that don't speak for all of them?  If Oex's description of Hamas is true then it's possible that can't.

Personally I don't see Hamas as this uneasy coalition.  I think their offers of negotiations are not in good faith, and are merely ploys to improve their image in the West.

It is possible that neither Israel nor the Palestinians can send a delegation to negotiate, true.  That has always been the case (at Taba it was Israel that refused to honor the deal that their negotiators had negotiated).

[grumbler]

They could always just drive them out like the US did with the Indians.

Yep.  Reading that story about the AmerHamas types driving the Navaho nation into the sea has always been weirdly fascinating.  The maps were by Tim, were they not?

[Razgovory]

Again, I am not sure what the argument is, here.

Then I fear the deficiency lies with you.  I'm sorry you can not meaningfully participate in this conversation.

[Admiral Yi]

Wait, so we finally found a foreign policy item on which you have some disagreement with the Obama administration?

Has the policy actually been announced yet?  All I've seen are the promos.

And for the record I criticized his split the difference + drop dead date approach to Afghanistan as well as his prevent the massacre of beelions and beelions of innocent Libyans policy.  So there. 

FOREHEADFOREHEADFOREHEAD

[Viking]

The problem isn't the combination of being a religiously-defined nation and an occupier of non-national territory.  The problem is adding the concept of being a democracy to the mix.  They can't indefinately continue to occupy areas inhabited by large numbers on non-Jews indefinately.  Eventually, they will either have to grant full citizenship to Palestinians in the occupied territories, and thus lose the identity of being a Jewish state;  or cease to be viewed as a true democracy;  or else withdraw from the occupied territories.

Why? Nothing about democracy says treating occupied peoples outside the borders of your state democratically. There's no innate paradox between a democracy and repression.

Because the Isrealis want it both ways.  They want to treat the West Bank as a hostile, occupied territory when it suits them, and at the same time as an integral part of the state of Isreal.

So, can you tell me where and when Israel tries to treat a part of the west bank as hostile occupied territory one day and an integral part of the state of israel the other?

[Martinus]

Can't negotiate with the Palestinians.  Even when they're offered 99% of what they want, they say no.  Oslo, Camp David 2000...it's Arafat all over again.

It's funny how you can simultaneously hold this view and support the IRA cause. 

[Martinus]

So, can you tell me where and when Israel tries to treat a part of the west bank as hostile occupied territory one day and an integral part of the state of israel the other?

Settling occupied territories is illegal under international law.

[Viking]

So, can you tell me where and when Israel tries to treat a part of the west bank as hostile occupied territory one day and an integral part of the state of israel the other?

Settling occupied territories is illegal under international law.

Thats not answering my question. The settlements would come under the treats as "an integral part of the state of israel" [sic] bit. dps' claim was that

Because the Isrealis want it both ways.  They want to treat the West Bank as a hostile, occupied territory when it suits them, and at the same time as an integral part of the state of Isreal. 

I want to know of any examples of the Israelis treating a piece of land in the west bank as occupied one day and an integral part of Israel.

The Israeli position is that the west bank territories not already annexed by Israel (the city of Jerusalem) are not occupied palestinian territories, but rather disputed territories.