The US Middle East vision: war on dictators?Follow

I think supporting the uprising in Libya was a mistake.

I don't like either Palestine or Israel. Both sides behave horribly. Before Hamas took over Gaza I would say Israel behaved worse - now I'd swing the other way.

But most of all, I'm sick of the US fighting in overseas conflicts.

Which makes me /facepalm when the president says we'll support reform and transitions to democracy in the Middle East.

And while I agree with the general plan I've heard for an Israeli/Palestinian two state solution, I don't think it will work with Hamas dedicated to destroying Israel and the US and Israel considering Hamas a terrorist organization. Israel won't agree to take out their settlements nor end the blockade, and Hamas will continue to stir anger and tacitly endorse guerilla tactics against Israeli civilians.

Anyone watch the speech? Here's the transcript, which I'll probably sort through once I get home tonight.

Re: Israel and Palestine, I don't think the US should actively make suggestions who gets divided up how at all, it's not really your right. I know there's not really any other solution, either, but that is definitely not it. I actually don't think there will be any sort of solution for Israel and Palestine anytime soon.

And... I don't know. I would like democratic reform in the countries where it is happening, but then the US turn around and support Saudi Arabia who openly support the monarchy in Bahrain and have sent troops to help arresting those involved in the resistance there and thus also help prevent dialogue there. It's not really a clear message that's being sent.

That being said, I think it is actually somewhat important that they sort it out themselves with less support from the West rather than more. It will make democratic reform more meaningful for them and I think it's hard for the US and Europe not to cross the line where they're not helping change anymore but rather forcing unwanted change the people there aren't actually ready for.

Careful, that's a step down Libertarian Street.

If it's only walking on the anti-war sidewalk, I don't need to fear getting hit by the crazy traffic on that street

Predictably, this has many conservatives foaming at the mouth, calling it the start of a second Holocaust, the beginning of the end of Israel, an attack on Judaism, etc. I enjoyed musing over Rep. Allen West's remarks especially, as he seems to believe we belong to the Roman empire (or at least that their emperors' words are the end-all, be-all of cultural definitions today).

The only problem I have with the whole thing is the 180 degree turn this is in American policy regarding the borders. Nothing will be accomplished and we'll change again the next time there's a change in power in Washington. We'll cease to be a consistent or reliable voice on the issue.

Paul has slowly morphed into bizarro-varus. It's uncanny.

There was nothing slow about it. He's always been this loony, there was just a period of time when he didn't post much.

Edited, May 19th 2011 4:09pm by Majivo

What good does it do me to try to debate you when you're in a perpetual thrall of hysteria? It's a waste of time. You're rabid.

******* with your mates it is then!


Have fun with it.

Nope, not a poor choice of words. He always means the exact words he uses.

Which, I suppose, explains some of the negative reaction he's been getting over it. Can't imagine how anyone might get nervous about characterizing all the problems in the ME as being derived from the existence of Israel. Not like that falls right into anyone's talking points or anything...




Yeah. But it's not really anything new through, right? Just more of the same trend we've been seeing. Palestinian leadership associated with terrorist organization isn't exactly a new development. I get that the details change, but the overall issue really hasn't. I'll admit that I haven't followed this particular story very closely, but it seems like the biggest change isn't in the events, but in the choice of focus. Hence my pondering what might be behind said focus shift (or at least language shift with regard to the region anyway).




I meant simplistic as in "It's an easy topic to talk about". I'm not speaking about the actual issue in terms of problems and solutions. Maybe I'm cynical, but it seems like the whole Israel/Palestine peace thing has become some kind of rubber stamp issue here in the US. Taking it on seems to be less about actually trying to change or fix anything and a lot more about finding an issue that everyone knows about, pointing attention to it, then going through the motions of finding some new solution while soaking up press about doing so, then nothing changes.

I've often spoken in the past about how Clinton seemed to pursue the same thing purely as some sort of legacy building attempt. And in his case, he ignored other rising problems in the region because he didn't want to distract or damage what he was doing (or at least the image of what he was doing). Of course, at the end of a couple of years of talks and posturing, nothing changed. But in the meantime, he got to play statesman. I'm just concerned that this appears to be the Obama administration attempting to do the same thing. There are so many problems going on in that region, but this one seems like the easy one to tackle. Everyone knows the players. Everyone knows the music. Everyone knows their dance steps. And no one really expects results. You can coast through the process to the same expected endpoint with minimal effort but still point to it as "taking an active role" in trying to work out a ME solution.


That's why I say it's "simplistic". From a US perspective, it's by far the easiest and safest thing to take up in terms of ME politics. You kinda can't make a mistake with it, and you really can't fail since no one expects success.

No, you really are pretty rabid.