The Obama "To Make Important Middle East Speech" MEGATHREAD

[citizen k]

Hamas is, like IRA and others, an uneasy coalition, with an ever-growing public-political component.

I'm still not convinced Hamas and IRA are very comparable. As far as organization goes, the IRA had a paramilitary structure. I don't think Hamas is a coalition of different blocs of Palestinian thought.

[Razgovory]

But isn't it part of the problem of perception? From what I gather, what Hamas is doing / saying on the ground is not so closely-aligned with the fanatical charter. Hamas is, like IRA and others, an uneasy coalition, with an ever-growing public-political component. Despite what Hamas has in its charter, I am not sure it is operating under the delusion that Israel will go away / be eradicated any time soon.

The core problem, where the leadership might share more the hopes and aspirations of the Palestinians, seems to be the right of return.

In that case negotiations are futile since Hamas negotiators do not speak for all of it's members.

[grumbler]

In that case negotiations are futile since Hamas negotiators do not speak for all of it's members.

Not sure what this means.  Hamas is a party.  It leadership speaks for the party when speaking ex cathedra, as it were.  Lots of individual expression as well, though not in any negotiations (which have never happened).

Why would Hamas send negotiators that don't speak for the party?

[mongers]

How come this thread suddenly shortened to two pages, iirc it was a least 20 pages long earlier.

[Caliga]

It's a new thread, mongers.  OP was trying to be amusing in creating a new thread with such a similar one to the 'Obama nailed Osama' thread.

[mongers]

It's a new thread, mongers.  OP was trying to be amusing in creating a new thread with such a similar one to the 'Obama nailed Osama' thread.

Oops my bad. 

[Martinus]

This seems like a sensible development. Israel has proven to be both a troublesome and a disloyal ally. It seems to me that 95% of the America's troubles with Middle East are based in the support of Israel. The Holocaust guilt seems to be dying out with the last Holocaust survivors so there is really no reason to continue supporting Israel anymore.

Besides, crusader kingdoms live about two - three generations, so it is not unprecedented.

Edit: this post was made while drunk.

[Malthus]

This seems like a sensible development. Israel has proven to be both a troublesome and a disloyal ally. It seems to me that 95% of the America's troubles with Middle East are based in the support of Israel. The Holocaust guilt seems to be dying out with the last Holocaust survivors so there is really no reason to continue supporting Israel anymore.

Besides, crusader kingdoms live about two - three generations, so it is not unprecedented.

Seems you and Bibi are hearing much the same thing in Obama's speech.

[Martinus]

So hot blooded.  So quick to take offense.

It would be hot, if it wasn't Tamas. 

[Martinus]

This seems like a sensible development. Israel has proven to be both a troublesome and a disloyal ally. It seems to me that 95% of the America's troubles with Middle East are based in the support of Israel. The Holocaust guilt seems to be dying out with the last Holocaust survivors so there is really no reason to continue supporting Israel anymore.

Besides, crusader kingdoms live about two - three generations, so it is not unprecedented.

Seems you and Bibi are hearing much the same thing in Obama's speech.

As said in the edit, I am after 3 strawberry margaritas.

[Malthus]

This seems like a sensible development. Israel has proven to be both a troublesome and a disloyal ally. It seems to me that 95% of the America's troubles with Middle East are based in the support of Israel. The Holocaust guilt seems to be dying out with the last Holocaust survivors so there is really no reason to continue supporting Israel anymore.

Besides, crusader kingdoms live about two - three generations, so it is not unprecedented.

Seems you and Bibi are hearing much the same thing in Obama's speech.

As said in the edit, I am after 3 strawberry margaritas.

That would also explain a lot about Bibi ... 

[OttoVonBismarck]

Wow, you know, it isn't hard to play the Holocaust card effectively.

You just have to talk about the unique need for Jewish security or something. Coming right out and dropping "Auschwitz" is really ineffective.

What it means is that Israel's position both as a religiously-defined nation and as an occupier of non-national territory cannot be rationally defended, so they will do so irrationally.

Didn't know the Wiesenthal Center people read languish, but they have picked up the typical languishite "debate" style almost perfectly.

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?

[Siege]

goy = gay

Are you also going to use the plural form for gays?
Gayim sounds kind of wierd.

[Razgovory]

In that case negotiations are futile since Hamas negotiators do not speak for all of it's members.

Not sure what this means.  Hamas is a party.  It leadership speaks for the party when speaking ex cathedra, as it were.  Lots of individual expression as well, though not in any negotiations (which have never happened).

Why would Hamas send negotiators that don't speak for the party?

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?

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.

[dps]

Wow, you know, it isn't hard to play the Holocaust card effectively.

You just have to talk about the unique need for Jewish security or something. Coming right out and dropping "Auschwitz" is really ineffective.

What it means is that Israel's position both as a religiously-defined nation and as an occupier of non-national territory cannot be rationally defended, so they will do so irrationally.

Didn't know the Wiesenthal Center people read languish, but they have picked up the typical languishite "debate" style almost perfectly.

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?

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.