Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Has Netanyahu over played his hand?

he is in coma since 2006.

Still? wonder if he will ever wake up.... that must be some hospital bill!

don't condone israeli policies, but i don't believe in the peace process (or the road map) either. it takes one look at the map of israel/palestine/occupied territories that one can't simply draw a border between israelis and palestinians as the colonial powers did in africa for instance. apologies for being cynical :(

So what do you see as a solution?
 
Still? wonder if he will ever wake up.... that must be some hospital bill!

i don't think sharon will ever come back from the vegetative state. he is a hero of the domestic hard liners in israel, the proud conqueror of the golan heights, so they won't be bothered with the bill.

So what do you see as a solution?

if i was a king for a day, i would basically split the map of israel and palestine in two equal territories, dividing the north and south. i would leave the israelis in the north, and the palestinians in the south. i do realise that given the trials & tribulations and pride of both israelis and palestinians, they would never accept this kind of deal though.

israel-palestine-map2.jpg
 
if i was a king for a day, i would basically split the map of israel and palestine in two equal territories, dividing the north and south. i would leave the israelis in the north, and the palestinians in the south. i do realise that given the trials & tribulations and pride of both israelis and palestinians, they would never accept this kind of deal though.

israel-palestine-map2.jpg

Erm- Have you spent much or any time in The Negev? :D
 
Unfortunately, he's probably played his hand perfectly. The Democrats have always historically been much more sympathetic to Israel than the Republicans - it's only the weird form of Christian right-wingery we saw flourish under Bush that shifted that position somewhat. The Democrats are still firmly behind letting Israel do whatever the fuck it wants, even if the administration has been a tad more outspoken on this issue than expected.

Netanyahu is telling them to fuck the fuck off, and whenever Israel does that the US retreats quietly, but not before handing over another large cheque.
 
Unfortunately, he's probably played his hand perfectly. The Democrats have always historically been much more sympathetic to Israel than the Republicans - it's only the weird form of Christian right-wingery we saw flourish under Bush that shifted that position somewhat. The Democrats are still firmly behind letting Israel do whatever the fuck it wants, even if the administration has been a tad more outspoken on this issue than expected.

Netanyahu is telling them to fuck the fuck off, and whenever Israel does that the US retreats quietly, but not before handing over another large cheque.

not entirely true. netanyahu had problems with bill clinton. it was widely accepted that netanyahu privately had said that he could not wait for clinton's departure from the white house. netanyahu's government, of course, was thrown out during clinton's presidency.

but i agree with you that both democrat and republicans (recklessly in my opinion) support israel. so this public display of dismay we are seeing now is really bullshit.
 
It seems to me that the Israelis will just continue to do what they do and nobody will have the balls to stop them.

eta: and the people who do have the balls don't have the weapons.

Seems to me to be all about "facts on the ground". The Israeli's will keep building and when a settlement comes (and it will, though maybe not in our lifetime) they will have to be taken into account thus strengthening their claim to land (in their eyes at least).
 
Seems to me to be all about "facts on the ground". The Israeli's will keep building and when a settlement comes (and it will, though maybe not in our lifetime) they will have to be taken into account thus strengthening their claim to land (in their eyes at least).

The facts on the ground seem to indicate to me that as usual, the person with the biggest gun, gets their way!
 
Netanyahu had the same problems with Clinton for the same reasons - he refused to go anywhere near a negotiating table. Rabin and Barak both built far more settlements than Netanyahu did in his first stint as PM, and probably in this one, but Labor has always favoured building "facts on the ground" whilst pretending to negotiate for a peace that is being made impossible by the building. Likud has always preferred to provoke bombings and use this as an excuse to avoid talks. Now Netanyahu is adopting both tactics simultaneously. Perhaps that's his idea of a (relatively) centrist coalition?
 
Netanyahu is telling them to fuck the fuck off, and whenever Israel does that the US retreats quietly, but not before handing over another large cheque.

I don't think this is true. There have been plenty of times when the US have exerted their influence over Israel when they feel it is in their interests to do so. For example it appears to be the case that Israel wanted to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and Bush in fact forbid them from doing so. In fact it is ludicrous to think that a small country like Israel could exert so much influence over the largest super power in the world. You can hardly explain this with the Israeli lobby considering how small it is compared to many of the massive corporate lobbies.

Whether Obama has the support of the American political establishment or the desire to force them to climb down is another matter. Even if they agree with the Israelis on this I'm not sure they'd like the precedent of an Israeli Prime Minister being able to get away with such a public snub. Many mainstream voices in Israel seem to recognize this, see

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156476.html
 
Yup. There'no votes going to be lost in Israel for his actions, and Fat Boy knows that the Democrats are too weak and divided on this issue to act against it - and they know that once the Republicans get in - its back to phospherous attacks on the A-rabs.

Having screwed over the whole of the Middle East to set up its bridgehead in the region, American capitalism is hardly like to withdraw support from its only major ally just because a few thousand Untermensch will be further dispossessed. Fuck, the Israelis have sent spies into America killed their civilians (Rachel Corrie) and even US troops (USS Liberty), so such trivial issues as respect for basic principles of justice or the well-being of others - are hardly going to be significant on American state policy (not unless they'll damage financial interests).

Untermensch?

Really?
 
Obama is catching a lot of hell. The Israel lobby is going full blast against him over this. Too bad. I think he really tried to do the right & reasonable thing & he'll get clobbered over it. Really hysterical rhetoric being thrown around. This is why no US politician messes with Israel, especially in an election year. Netanyahu has not overplayed his hand. Obama has.
The Obama administration's fierce denunciation of Israel last week has ignited a firestorm in Congress and among powerful pro-Israel interest groups who say the criticism of America's top Mideast ally was misplaced.

With diplomats from both countries referring to the situation as a crisis, the outpouring of anger in the United States, particularly from Capitol Hill, comes at a difficult time for the administration, which is now trying to win support from wary lawmakers — many of whom are up for re-election this year — for health care reform and other domestic issues.

"Let's cut the family fighting, the family feud," Lieberman said. "It's unnecessary; it's destructive of our shared national interest. It's time to lower voices, to get over the family feud between the U.S. and Israel. It just doesn't serve anybody's interests but our enemies."

At least eight other lawmakers have offered similar concerns, and more are expected to weigh in after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton upbraided Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for the housing announcement in a tense and lengthy phone call on Friday and White House officials repeated the criticism on Sunday's talk shows.

"It's hard to see how spending a weekend condemning Israel for a zoning decision in its capital city amounts to a positive step towards peace," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. He complained that the administration was attacking a "staunch ally and friend" when it should be focusing on the threat posed by Iran's nuclear problem.

Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, said he was "shocked and stunned at the administration's tone and public dressing down of Israel on the issue of future building in Jerusalem."
"We cannot remember an instance when such harsh language was directed at a friend and ally of the United States," Foxman said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100315/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_mideast_israel_3
 
I don't think this is true. There have been plenty of times when the US have exerted their influence over Israel when they feel it is in their interests to do so. For example it appears to be the case that Israel wanted to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities and Bush in fact forbid them from doing so. In fact it is ludicrous to think that a small country like Israel could exert so much influence over the largest super power in the world. You can hardly explain this with the Israeli lobby considering how small it is compared to many of the massive corporate lobbies.

Whether Obama has the support of the American political establishment or the desire to force them to climb down is another matter. Even if they agree with the Israelis on this I'm not sure they'd like the precedent of an Israeli Prime Minister being able to get away with such a public snub. Many mainstream voices in Israel seem to recognize this, see

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156476.html

You certainly get the dog wagging the tail sometimes too, but it is ludicrous to dismiss Israel as insignificant and unable to influence US policy. It has the fourth or fifth largest military in the world and has nuclear weapons, is strategically situated at the junction of the Middle East, Africa and Europe, and somehow manages to soak up the kinds of billions in US "aid" that actual poor countries never get a sniff at.

It's the UK that can't stand up to the US, not Israel.

"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about America. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."

Ariel Sharon -- Israeli Cabinet meeting, Oct 3, 2001

It mind sound delusional, but it's a pretty fair approximation to reality.
 
You certainly get the dog wagging the tail sometimes too, but it is ludicrous to dismiss Israel as insignificant and unable to influence US policy. It has the fourth or fifth largest military in the world and has nuclear weapons, is strategically situated at the junction of the Middle East, Africa and Europe, and somehow manages to soak up the kinds of billions in US "aid" that actual poor countries never get a sniff at.

All those are reasons why Israel is even more dependent on the US and makes the idea that they can exert undue control over them even more unbelievable. This is why this is a slippery slope to conspiracy theories, because there really is no plausible mechanism for how it could command the largest superpower in the world to do it's bidding.

Far more plausible is that US policy towards Israel (and everywhere else) is driven by strategic interests and far larger domestic lobbies. See

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm

And from the Guardian today, it seems that wider elements of the US state desire to bring Israel into line over this

The US magazine Foreign Policy posted a report on its website yesterdaythat in January top US commanders briefed the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, that US failure to stop Israel continuing with settlement building on the West Bank damaged US relations with the Arab world. Judith Kipper, a Middle East specialist at the Washington-based Institute of World Affairs, said there had long been a divergence between the US and Israel over various issues and a recognition of this fact was overdue.

She did not expect the US to threaten to withhold financial or military aid or intelligence and that going public was sufficient as a big stick.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/15/israel-us-rift-settlements-jerusalem

It's also worth remembering that this has been referred to as the worst US-Israeli rift in 35 years. And if you look at what happened then, the US demanded that Israel withdraw from areas of occupied Egypt taken in 1967. and unsurprisingly Israel kicked up a fuss but ultimately submitted.
 
All those are reasons why Israel is even more dependent on the US and makes the idea that they can exert undue control over them even more unbelievable. This is why this is a slippery slope to conspiracy theories, because there really is no plausible mechanism for how it could command the largest superpower in the world to do it's bidding.

Far more plausible is that US policy towards Israel (and everywhere else) is driven by strategic interests and far larger domestic lobbies. See

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20060328.htm

And from the Guardian today, it seems that wider elements of the US state desire to bring Israel into line over this



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/15/israel-us-rift-settlements-jerusalem

It's also worth remembering that this has been referred to as the worst US-Israeli rift in 35 years. And if you look at what happened then, the US demanded that Israel withdraw from areas of occupied Egypt taken in 1967. and unsurprisingly Israel kicked up a fuss but ultimately submitted.

That's not really saying anything different. Of course it is because it is seen as in the US strategic interest to keep Israel onside, and that's precisely why Israel pushes the boundaries so far and so often. They know they'll get away with it.

The US does, ultimately, have the upper hand, of course. But just as they wouldn't have wanted to lose Israel to Soviet influence during the cold War they won't want to lose them to Chinese influence now. On the other hand, US policy in the Middle East is changing and Israel might find itself a less convenient ally in future.

This administration have been a lot more outspoken than expected so far. It will be interesting to see how this story develops.
 
Netanyahu had the same problems with Clinton for the same reasons - he refused to go anywhere near a negotiating table. Rabin and Barak both built far more settlements than Netanyahu did in his first stint as PM, and probably in this one, but Labor has always favoured building "facts on the ground" whilst pretending to negotiate for a peace that is being made impossible by the building. Likud has always preferred to provoke bombings and use this as an excuse to avoid talks. Now Netanyahu is adopting both tactics simultaneously. Perhaps that's his idea of a (relatively) centrist coalition?

agreed. ehud barak was at least speaking to the palestinians albeit i accept that during barak's time the settlements were still being built. he was just more hopeful, barak. at least i thought so. then there was u-turn of sharon of removing settlers from the villages he helped to build, things were moving somewhere. sorry i am all over the place with the sequence of events.

1600 new homes is a hell of a way to show that his coalition govt is commited to any peace talks... :(
 
Obama is catching a lot of hell. The Israel lobby is going full blast against him over this. Too bad. I think he really tried to do the right & reasonable thing & he'll get clobbered over it. Really hysterical rhetoric being thrown around. This is why no US politician messes with Israel, especially in an election year. Netanyahu has not overplayed his hand. Obama has.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100315/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_mideast_israel_3

Abe Foxman is on the case!
 
George Mitchell has just postponed his visit to Israel.

The US requires answers to its recent demands before he travels.

Tension cranked up!
 
Sadly, Israel has no intention whatsoever of halting construction of the settlements. All the while they are creating new 'facts on the ground'. They won't stop until someone stops them.
 
Seems to me to be all about "facts on the ground". The Israeli's will keep building and when a settlement comes (and it will, though maybe not in our lifetime) they will have to be taken into account thus strengthening their claim to land (in their eyes at least).



It does seem that settling/occupying is still the way to claim land. This evening Radio 4 had a story about Al Rawabi, the first Palestinian city being built in Gaza for 5 thousand housing units. Aparently financed by a Qatari investment. The report mentioned that the construction company & planners are still waiting on the government of Israel to build a road in and around the city. :facepalm: how the hell is that possible?!

Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rawabi
 
Sadly, Israel has no intention whatsoever of halting construction of the settlements. All the while they are creating new 'facts on the ground'. They won't stop until someone stops them.

This is ethnic cleansing in front of the world. The Israelis are the Nazis of the middle east

Paxman on Newsnight last night. "Why don't you say halt all settlements or we cut off all the money"

State department spokesman Blah blah waffle waffle blah blah, road map waffle, negotiations blah blah.

Paxman. "I'm sorry, I thought my question was clear enough., Why don't you tell them to stop building or they get no more money? "

State department spokesman " well, we dont want to prejudge negotiations, blan blan, both sides need to , blah blah,"

Meanwhile Palestinian kids are on the streets facing off with house bricks against the armoured cars of the IDF
 
Back
Top Bottom