The Obama "To Make Important Middle East Speech" MEGATHREAD

[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.

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

Those issues are continents apart.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

It's called a buffer territory/state, nothing new, and they historically haven't been treated the same as the state they are buffering.

[OttoVonBismarck]

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.

Did you really just use the words "international law?" Let us not get too embroiled in discussions over inanities, but just as a reference point if I put up a sign in my back yard that says "Inside this home is a meth factory" and then send a packet over to the police department with a signed confession that I am operating a meth factory along with photographic proof and a final note saying "Come Get Some" then my violation of the law will be handled relatively quickly by overwhelming police action. Thus the theory that is law becomes force and action applied, and the principles of the law are enforced.

If Israel occupies territories gained through right of conquest, and this violates the norm that "territory changes due to treaties" (treaties typically signed to reflect which side has beaten the other, FWIW, we didn't take East Prussia from Germany due to some vague legal principles but instead because of the fait accompli of the conquest) unless there is an equivalent to the SWAT team that would break down the doors to my meth factory I posit Israel can continue doing what it has been doing indefinitely. It is not as though they have been doing this for only a brief time, and throughout history there are examples of other States holding territory that is widely thought to not "belong" to them rightfully for generations.

[Josephus]

Exactly. And if you hold on to the territory long enough it becomes a core province. 

[DontSayBanana]

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.

No, that's a status quo.  International law is a result of treaties.  There is no international governing body or law enforcement agency that doesn't rely on the nicety of a sovereign nation observing the treaty, hence why it's so hard to get sitting heads of state out of their countries for war crimes trials.

[Viking]

Exactly. And if you hold on to the territory long enough it becomes a core province. 

This is why I think all this babble over the borders of 1967 is vile bording on evil. The mere idea that if you just avoid negotiating a final status agreement that you can turn a ceasefire line into a border makes ceasefires impossible in the future. Any side which considers itself stronger will fight until they have reached all their goals, any side which has been defeated will refuse to concede on the grounds that nothing can be gained by negotiating.

Tell the Israelis and Arabs of 1948 that the green line is either going to be THE BORDER or THE BASIS FOR THE BORDER means that the fighting doesn't stop.

I don't understand why the idiot politicians of today don't understand this.

[Razgovory]

Ceasefires aren't impossible now, and ceasefire lines have become defacto borders in the past (see Korea). 

[Viking]

Ceasefires aren't impossible now, and ceasefire lines have become defacto borders in the past (see Korea).

Nobody is presently suggesting that the DMZ in Korea is a legitimate border, yet people are suggesting that the Green Line is.

[Razgovory]

The DMZ seems as legitimate a border as any.

[DontSayBanana]

The DMZ seems as legitimate a border as any.

EDIT FOR BELATED SARCASM DETECTION: Good point.  Even when the governments do agree, residents tend to make up their own ideas about where the line actually is.  SEE: American Colonies, 1763 Proclamation.

[Viking]

The DMZ seems as legitimate a border as any.

Well, neither country that share the border accept the border... so....I'd think it was a whole bunch less legitimate than most any other border.

[DontSayBanana]

Well, neither country that share the border accept the border... so....I'd think it was a whole bunch less legitimate than most any other border.

Yeah, took a second for the joke to sink in.

[OttoVonBismarck]

FWIW, I'll always side with pretty much anyone over Muslims who I think of as the worst kind of human garbage (all of them, especially the ones that don't conform to any of the stereotypes and just want to live peaceful, modern lives.) That being said I don't really view either party as being materially in the wrong here. You have a group of Arabs that had historically lived in the vague region that now makes up Israel/Palestinian territories (of course they had no real national identity because they were pseudo-tribal collections of peoples living under the Ottoman thumb and typically occupying land leased for generations, all the land owners lived in Istanbul and probably never personally surveyed their property before they sold lots of it to Jewish settlers right out from under the people living on it) want a certain territory for themselves. The justifications for the desire are irrelevant. If I want to buy a bottle of liquor and get drunk, I don't need a justification to do it. The Jews want the territory for themselves, again, the justifications don't matter.

There is no acceptable negotiated peace so one side resorts to asymmetric warfare (suicide bombings, car bombings et cetera), the only realistic tools they have. The other side resorts to overwhelming force, reprisals, security walls et cetera, the only realistic tools they have.

The only thing I really care about at this point is the fact that the United States has blown way too much political capital (and a decent amount of actual capital) in funding Israel, we've also had to fund Egypt because we support Israel, we're easier targets for the rantings of crazed Muslim jihadists because we support Israel. I see absolutely no material benefit to us in supporting either side. I'm all for cutting 100% of all funding to the region: no money to Egypt, no money to Israel, no money to anyone who isn't giving us something that materially benefits us. Fuck 'em all and let them fight it out like big kids on the play ground. I'm all about supporting the Saud family because at least I've seen us get tangible return on investment from them. I've not seen much good for the United States come out of involvement in the Holy Land.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Hmmm........


Welcome back OvB 

[Pat]

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.

Did you really just use the words "international law?" Let us not get too embroiled in discussions over inanities, but just as a reference point if I put up a sign in my back yard that says "Inside this home is a meth factory" and then send a packet over to the police department with a signed confession that I am operating a meth factory along with photographic proof and a final note saying "Come Get Some" then my violation of the law will be handled relatively quickly by overwhelming police action. Thus the theory that is law becomes force and action applied, and the principles of the law are enforced.

If Israel occupies territories gained through right of conquest, and this violates the norm that "territory changes due to treaties" (treaties typically signed to reflect which side has beaten the other, FWIW, we didn't take East Prussia from Germany due to some vague legal principles but instead because of the fait accompli of the conquest) unless there is an equivalent to the SWAT team that would break down the doors to my meth factory I posit Israel can continue doing what it has been doing indefinitely. It is not as though they have been doing this for only a brief time, and throughout history there are examples of other States holding territory that is widely thought to not "belong" to them rightfully for generations.

There is law enforcement in states but not between states, and that means you can break international law all you want! Awesome!