BG: Obama aggravates Israel’s mistake

[Larry]

Well normally when both sides are armed they fight and someone wins. Unfortunately the world has decided that in this case tit for tat violence is the only acceptable course of action.

Well, both of them have chosen to fight through "unconventional methods".

(It's a global trend.)

[Baculus]

He's not the first or the last POTUS to try and make the people look away from a domestic timebomb.

So, are you suggesting that the Obama administration arranged for the Israelis to announce these settlements expansions just to "wag the Dog"? And that somehow the American public are going to be distracted from a year-long domestic policy debate over a foreign policy issue?

Seriously?

Heck, looking at CNN, this isn't even one of the top stories highlighted on their front page.

[Baculus]

the Obama admin has been borderline incompetent in the foreign policy realm from Day 1. the Israelis are just now figuring out that these people don't know what they are doing and wil lhave to attend to their own defense needs. they always have, of course. it will just be more overt now.

Joe Biden.....what a bufoon!!!!

Do you really think the Obama administration inherited an orderly foreign policy situation? I mean, if you think Obama has done a poor job, how do you think the previous administration handled it?

Remember the whole pirate situation? I remember some right-wingers, such as Rush Limbaugh, rooting for failure. That didn't happen. Remember the so-called "apology tour"? Many leaders around the world hailed Obama's efforts to "push the reset button."

I don't think his first year is as grim as you would paint it to be.

[Destino]

So, are you suggesting that the Obama administration arranged for the Israelis to announce these settlements expansions just to "wag the Dog"? And that somehow the American public are going to be distracted from a year-long domestic policy debate over a foreign policy issue?

Seriously?

Heck, looking at CNN, this isn't even one of the top stories highlighted on their front page.

well put lol

[Larry]

well put lol

I think "And that somehow the American public are going to be distracted from a year-long domestic policy debate over someone overseas supposedly insulting Joe Biden?" would have been better.

(I know. Always a critic.)

[Jrew1223]

"In his prepared testimony, Petraeus, who until now has been hailed by many pro-Likud neo-conservatives as the greatest US military commander of his generation and possible presidential material for 2012, argued that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of US partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR [Centcom's Area of Responsibility] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world." - This is what I have been saying the whole time while you all are questioning my credibility and knowledge on the issue. I see your criticism and raise you a General Petraeus.

[Chopper Dave]

I don't understand what the dispute is here. This is the first time in years that our government has taken a responsible position towards the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. I'm usually the most pro-Israeli guy in the room, but how many pathetically unsuccessful years of all carrot and no stick can you live with before it's time to say enough is enough?

Likud made their statement; their apology was the equivalent of "with all due respect." This is pro ball we're talking about, mistakes like this don't get made at that level. It's not like they just ****ed up the timing. Likud made a deliberate political statement, and then apologized to shield themselves from the political blowback. Likud made their statement, and we made ours, and it's exactly the way the Obama administration should have handled it. Israel should be as unconditional of an ally as we can possibly have, but that can only go but so far, and it's a two way street.

Netanyahu needs to be reminded of two things: first, you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. Second, if the hand that feeds you is expected to be an honest broker in a peace negotiation with your sworn enemy, you're putting them in an awfully ****ty situation with such a high-profile show of disrespect, or whatever you want to call it. If they don't respond harshly, they jeopardize their legitimacy as an honest broker. And you definitely don't want to jeopardize the legitimacy as an honest broker of the hand that feeds you. That's just ****ed up.

So yeah, hit em hard Barry. They're big boys, they can take it.

[twa]

I see your criticism and raise you a General Petraeus.

So do you support giving Petraeus military oversight in that sphere of the world as well?...that is what he is lobbying for.

[Baculus]

I think "And that somehow the American public are going to be distracted from a year-long domestic policy debate over someone overseas supposedly insulting Joe Biden?" would have been better.

(I know. Always a critic.)

:-)

[fansince62]

So basically you could use that argument to suppress any discussion on any subject as not being "comprehensive". It's an absurd thread of logic.

I mean if you want to introduce something for consideration, do it. Don't use it as an excuse to not contribute meaningfuly to the conversation.

I actually find this board more conservative than liberal. Guess it depends upon your perspective.

Again, I think 120 billion over the last 60 years has bought us a seat at the table. If you are familiar with Israel you will acknowledge she benifits from a wide vareity of political opinions across her diverse political parties. I think it's rather indefensible to try to deny political discussion by Americans after having cashed all those checks.

Fact is America is hip deap in the problems, and has a very significant interest in a solution.

look...I'm sorry for breaking the news to you...but you are not the arbiter of "meaningful contributions".

1) speaking of succinct thinking.....who is advocating for "suppressing any discussion"? You must be confusing me with how Pelosi and Obama are running the government. I do believe my input was that the discussion was remakably banal for its lack of depth and scope. let's review the bidding:

- let's take a geostrategic problem and winnow it down to how much we have invested (i.e., we expected a return) and how much we can withold (i.e., we will exact punishment). we won't describe what sort of return we expect other than the nebulous notion of "peace" (at what cost and to whom) and we won't consider the implictions of the punishment we want to exact. we won't even consider why we were spending all that taxpayer money in the first place.

- we'll imply that the problem ultimately traces (surprise, surprise) to poverty and....just like 5 decades of well intentioned largesse in...say Newark......money will solve the problem!

2) We'll propose taking a path that totally ignores 40 years of intrusive and militaristic action by Syria and Iran. But heck...they're bit players eager to get-along with Obama!

3) We won't examine the political aims and ambitions of the parties of hope and change: hamas and hezbollah. but we do have the stellar role they have played in Lebanon to serve as an indicator.

4) We won't ask ourselves...before witch slapping the Israeli's....whether there are relationships we benefit from (such as intelligence sharing) that might introduce long-run costs that haven't been figured into the calculus.

5) We'll instead pose some mythical, unified will of the American people (health care is obviously an aberrant event that is not symbolic of deep divisions in this counrty) that demands that foreign policy should be conducted like Acorn pursuing a mortgage bank in court.

6) Why we might even consider an edgy plan(!!!) that places demands on the Palistinians as well! But that doesn't appear to be an element of the plan in play here.

Best of all? I do have friends who live in Israel. They have lost family in a rain of indiscriminate rocket fire. I have also been to that God forsaken part of the world multiple times.

The Palinistinians are a people abandonned in all quarters. It is sad that their lives have so little import in the palaces, congresses and commisariats across the globe. It is also sad for the bulk of the Palistinian people that the political and military expression of their plight, their "leadership", is so riven with genocidal revanchists.

[Larry]

- we'll imply that the problem ultimately traces (surprise, surprise) to poverty and....just like 5 decades of well intentioned largesse in...say Newark......money will solve the problem!

Just to pick one part of your post. (Admitting that I haven't finished reading the rest.) But it seemed to me like this part was at least somewhat directed at me. (Or at least, an idea which I suggested, in another thread.)

How do you feel about the Marshall Plan? The idea that it was in America's strategic interest to build up the economies of post-WW2 Europe, under the theory that people who aren't starving are a lot less likely to go Communist?

Me, the impression I've got is that it was possibly the best money the US has spent since the Louisiana Purchase. A prosperous Europe not only resisted the Call of Communism, they were valuable economic trading partners, and continue to be so to this day.

How about you?

Edit:

Just tried to read the rest of your post. But since it appears to be a string of rah-rah right-wing motivational buzzwords, without any real coherent statement of a position (that I can see), I'll admit that I stopped reading about item #6 or so.

[Jrew1223]

So do you support giving Petraeus military oversight in that sphere of the world as well?...that is what he is lobbying for.

Why not?

[Thiebear]

I'm not a fan of what Biden did, but President Obama has been cool and quiet on this issue. letting the lackey's point out the mistake in timing ...

Still doing a good foreign relations job.

(not being sarcastic)

[Chopper Dave]

I'm not a fan of what Biden did, but President Obama has been cool and quiet on this issue. letting the lackey's point out the mistake in timing ...

Still doing a good foreign relations job.

(not being sarcastic)

Two points: first of all, whatever your politics, he's got pros handling his foreign policy. With Biden and Clinton in his ear it'd be hard to screw it up. Secondly, the best example of this is that they're pointing it out, like you said, as a mistake in timing, playing it cool while still holding Israel accountable. It wasn't a mistake in timing. Israel knew exactly what they were doing. A less tactful administration one way or the other either wouldn't care or would totally flip their ****.

[MurrayH81]

Dude, you are not adding much to the dialogue. Flinging random :pooh: at Obama and the liburls in every thread is kind of useless.

I beg to differ, it keeps him from doing direct physical harm to someone while he types. Other than that, you may be correct. :cool:

1) the adminstration deserves to be embarrassed for its incompetence.

You are correct, it would have been much better for them to invade a 3rd party in the area after claiming there were WMD, and adding some new countries to the axis of evil list. That's competent foreign policy, right?

2) the Israeli government is fundamentally responsible for the security of its people...not placating a nitwit like Biden or an ethically challenged person like HC.

How long can they do that without a foreign partner (like the US)?

So, are you suggesting that the Obama administration arranged for the Israelis to announce these settlements expansions just to "wag the Dog"? And that somehow the American public are going to be distracted from a year-long domestic policy debate over a foreign policy issue?

Seriously?

Heck, looking at CNN, this isn't even one of the top stories highlighted on their front page.

What policy debate? The economic recovery and health care revamp are beign rammed through over the objections of citizens of all stripes. Our opinions/votes are absolutely meaningless to the political class in Washington, unless they are tied to large donations. This latest proposed maneuver to pass legislation is just plain awful.

[twa]

Why not?

Indeed ....might be interesting,as well as useful in the days ahead.

[JMS]

So do you support giving Petraeus military oversight in that sphere of the world as well?...that is what he is lobbying for.

Central command currently has the entire middle east, egypt and north africa; except Israel. Israel is part of the European command. This made sense in the passed because central command didn't have any combat troops associated with it. If something happenned like Iraq, Iran, etc... it was envisioned that central command would borrow troops from the other commands. It was envisioned Israel could draw on combat support units quicker if she was placed under a command which actually had commbat troops.. Makes no sense what so ever in our current posture.

An Army officer was always appointed to Europe command. A navy officer was always appointed to head up Pacific command. Central command traditionally based out of Florida, would jump back and forth between army and navy....

I think Patreaus's recomendation make sense. Today Central command is stronger than either European Command or the Pacific Command and has two ongoing wars to fight there. Israel should belong in central command, after all it's a middle eastern country. not a European one. Her security considerations are middle eastern, not European. The middle eastern centric central command should oversee our interests there, and today they have the resources to do so; unlike in the passed.