blbg: Obama: ‘Israel Doesn’t Know What Its Best Interests Are’

[JMS]

I thought this article was very interesting. It's a rare occasion where high ranking American's are both voicing frustration with Israel, and hinting about a future when the US is no longer a rubber stamp on "diplomatic issues". Even that Israel's current actions are endangering it's continued existence as an jewish state.

Now I think you take all this with a grain of salt. I think ultimately this is the way governments talk to each other when they aren't successful in doing so in private. Publicly declaring a position, laying out analysis for the other side to consider and debate.

As far as recent US/Israeli relations... this article is the equivalence of a rubber hose, a vocal and public declaration of frustration caused by Israel that may result in a "significant shift in policy".

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-14/what-obama-thinks-israelis-don-t-understand-.html

Obama: ‘Israel Doesn’t Know What Its Best Interests Are’

Shortly after the United Nations General Assembly voted in late November to upgrade the status of the Palestinians, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that it would advance plans to establish a settlement in an area of the West Bank known as E-1, and that it would build 3,000 additional housing units in east Jerusalem and the West Bank.

A large settlement in E-1, an empty zone between Jerusalem and the Jewish settlement city of Maaleh Adumim, would make the goal of politically moderate Palestinians -- the creation of a geographically contiguous state -- much harder to achieve.

The world reacted to the E-1 announcement in the usual manner: It condemned the plans as a provocation and an injustice. President Barack Obama’s administration, too, criticized it. “We believe these actions are counterproductive and make it harder to resume direct negotiations or achieve a two-state solution,” said Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

‘Best Interests’

But what didn’t happen in the White House after the announcement is actually more interesting than what did.

When informed about the Israeli decision, Obama, who has a famously contentious relationship with the prime minister, didn’t even bother getting angry. He told several people that this sort of behavior on Netanyahu’s part is what he has come to expect, and he(Obama) suggested that he has become inured to what he sees as self-defeating policies of his Israeli counterpart.

In the weeks after the UN vote, Obama said privately and repeatedly, “Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are.” With each new settlement announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation.

And if Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah -- one that alienates even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend -- it won’t survive. Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term one.

The dysfunctional relationship between Netanyahu and Obama is poised to enter a new phase. Next week, Israeli voters will probably return Netanyahu to power, this time at the head of a coalition even more intractably right-wing than the one he currently leads.

Obama has always had a complicated relationship with the prime minister. On matters of genuine security, Obama has been a reliable ally, encouraging close military cooperation, helping maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge over its regional rivals and, most important, promising that he won’t allow Iran to cross the nuclear-weapons threshold.

Yet even this support didn’t keep Netanyahu from pulling for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in last year’s presidential campaign.

On matters related to the Palestinians, the president seems to view the prime minister as a political coward, an essentially unchallenged leader who nevertheless is unwilling to lead or spend political capital to advance the cause of compromise.

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, Obama’s nominee to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, is said to be eager to re-energize the Middle East peace process, but Obama -- who already has a Nobel Peace Prize -- is thought to be considerably more wary. He views the government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as weak, but he has become convinced that Netanyahu is so captive to the settler lobby, and so uninterested in making anything more than the slightest conciliatory gesture toward Palestinian moderates, that an investment of presidential interest in the peace process wouldn’t be a wise use of his time.

Obama, since his time in the Senate, has been consistent in his analysis of Israel’s underlying challenge: If it doesn’t disentangle itself from the lives of West Bank Palestinians, the world will one day decide it is behaving as an apartheid state.

The Consequences

For Israel, the short-term consequences of Obama’s frustration are limited. The U.S. won’t cut off its aid to Israel, and Obama’s effort to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions will continue whether or not he’s fed up with Netanyahu.

But it is in terms of American diplomatic protection -- among the Europeans and especially at the UN -- that Israel may one day soon notice a significant shift. During November’s vote on Palestine’s status, the U.S. supported Israel and asked its allies to do the same. In the end, they were joined by a total of seven other countries, including the Pacific powerhouses Palau and Micronesia.

When such an issue arises again, Israel may find itself even lonelier. It wouldn’t surprise me if the U.S. failed to whip votes the next time, or if the U.S. actually abstained. I wouldn’t be particularly surprised, either, if Obama eventually offered a public vision of what a state of Palestine should look like, and affirmed that it should have its capital in East Jerusalem.

Obama isn’t making unreasonable demands. Israeli concerns about the turmoil in Syria and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood are legitimate in the American view, and Obama knows that broad territorial compromise by Israel in such an unstable environment is unlikely.

But what Obama wants is recognition by Netanyahu that Israel’s settlement policies are foreclosing on the possibility of a two-state solution, and he wants Netanyahu to acknowledge that a two-state solution represents the best chance of preserving the country as a Jewish-majority democracy. Obama wants, in other words, for Netanyahu to act in Israel’s best interests.

So far, though, there has been no sign that the Israeli government is gaining a better understanding of the world in which it lives.

[@DCGoldPants]

I saw this as an American 1st and a Jew 2nd.

Israel needs to get past Netanyahu because he's failing his country and people again. Not because he went in big on Romney. But because Obama in this instance is right.

But end of the day, we can look at our own American Congress and say the same thing. No? "Best Interests" is a tricky thing.

Look, I don't think a 2nd state solution will work. I think if you give the Palestinians their own full-on country, it wouldn't survive very long. Sometimes you've got to let people fail on their own.

[Larry]

Agree with the analysis.

Predict that a LOT more people will react to the headline, than to the analysis.

---------- Post added January-16th-2013 at 12:05 PM ----------

Look, I don't think a 2nd state solution will work. I think if you give the Palestinians their own full-on country, it wouldn't survive very long.

I'm not certain that you're wrong, but would you care to elaborate on that? Like, what do you see this hypothetical state falling to.

(Me, I could see it happening. I think that if the Palestenians were to just be given their own country, then what you'd wind up with would be an incredibly weak Palestenian government, in a country where powerhouses like Iran have really powerful underground armies. I think that the terrorists would proliferate and escalate, and the nominal Palestenian government wouldn't have the power to stop them. (If Israel can't stop Iran from arming terrorists in Palestine, how can we possibly expect the Palestenian government to do so?))

[@DCGoldPants]

I'm not certain that you're wrong, but would you care to elaborate on that? Like, what do you see this hypothetical state falling to.

I don't think there are enough people there that are strong enough to keep a real gov't together. They can't form and then be only focused on then defeating Israel. If they form and then attack, why shouldn't Israel crush them and take it all? Because the other neighbors would get involved? Then we'd get involved? I think these other anti-Israel countries are also anti-Palestinian, they just don't say it.

Gov't forms, too man radicals get involved, everything falls off the tracks. Rinse, Repeat.

I've said this before. If every Jewish and Western Influence left the middle east, do you think they would have a peaceful region of the world? I don't. I think they would turn on each other because that's the mentality of the current generation over there.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Reaction will not be positive as there is a very large portion of our population that believes the US must defend Israel regardless of what she does. There are those who do so politically, and there an even larger segment that does so for theological reasons.

Neither will hear this well.

[TradeTheBeal!]

I don't think there are enough people there that are strong enough to keep a real gov't together. They can't form and then be only focused on then defeating Israel. If they form and then attack, why shouldn't Israel crush them and take it all? Because the other neighbors would get involved? Then we'd get involved? I think these other anti-Israel countries are also anti-Palestinian, they just don't say it.

Gov't forms, too man radicals get involved, everything falls off the tracks. Rinse, Repeat.

I've said this before. If every Jewish and Western Influence left the middle east, do you think they would have a peaceful region of the world? I don't. I think they would turn on each other because that's the mentality of the current generation over there.

Perhaps a generation without overt Western/Israeli influence would yield a better adjusted, more peaceful culture? I don't think it's realistic at this point to try and solve the problem next week in one fell swoop. Shared sacrifice and tiny baby steps toward diplomacy should result in a move towards a peaceful mindset for the generation being born today, both in Palestine and Israel. Let's hope, anyway.

[Predicto]

If they form and then attack, why shouldn't Israel crush them and take it all? Because the other neighbors would get involved? Then we'd get involved? I think these other anti-Israel countries are also anti-Palestinian, they just don't say it.

I think that is a huge (and foolish) assumption. The Palestinians do not want their own state just so they can turn around and throw it all away on a hopeless attack against a vastly superior opponent. That is a Glenn Beck/Avigdor Lieberman level of analysis. I am really surprised to see you even suggest it.

The Palestinians want their own state so that they can have their own state.

I'm not a pie in the sky idealist. It is possible - highly likely even - that such a new state will have problems controlling its radical element, and that there will still be sporadic attacks on Israel for decades to come. But that is already the case today, even more so because the Palestinian authority lacks the legitimacy of actually being a real government of a real state.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think that is a huge (and foolish) assumption. The Palestinians do not want their own state just so they can turn around and throw it all away on a hopeless attack against a vastly superior opponent. That is a Glenn Beck/Avigdor Lieberman level of analysis. I am really surprised to see you even suggest it.

The Palestinians want their own state so that they can have their own state.

I'm not a pie in the sky idealist. It is possible - highly likely even - that such a new state will have problems controlling its radical element, and that there will still be sporadic attacks on Israel for decades to come. But that is already the case today, even more so because the Palestinian authority lacks the legitimacy of actually being a real government of a real state.

I don't buy that the folks who want to be involved in a new Gov't there will be a majority of just wanting their own state. If they form and the attacks continue, what is the proper response?

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Can someone explain to me, a 22 year old with solid understanding of history but still far too young to "have been there", America's obsession with the nation of Israel?

As it was explained to me in High School, Israel was British land occupied predominantly by Muslims that was "given" to the Jews as an "apology" or a "sorry you just got gassed" token following WWII. I don't mean to sound crude, that's literally how it was explained to me in High School. As I was taught, from there things naturally blew the **** up. The local muslims were livid at suddenly finding themselves living in a Jewish state and war broke out. The fledgeling nation of Israel prevailed and established itself primarily through the monetary and equiment contributions from Western Nations, who, after all, had just worked very hard to establish the new nation.

As a naive 22 year old kid, can someone set this right for me? Why did we ever think this was a good idea? And why, to this day, do we continue to support a nation that has shaky origins at best? Is it purely because we hitched our wagon to it and refuse to be wrong? Were the cold war implications as the Soviets were moving east? Why should I, a young American who only lived a single year of his life under the cloud of the cold war, consider Israel an "ally" and Palestine an "enemy"?

[gbear]

Then the response is the same as when any other nation state attacks another, a war. There are some potential advantages though. With the time spent organizing a new government, things will be built. Right now, what is there worth a tank shell much less a missile? I know that is some what of an exaggeration, but is there much left Israel can say, "behave or we will destroy X"

Beyond that, there is the Roman philosiphy of conquered lands. They frequently put the rebells back in charge with the understanding that if attacked they would sack the city again. Why do this? Because when forced to lead, it's harder to find time and energy to attack and still have resources enough to defend all you just got or built.

Finally, I think there is a realization of hte power of demographics. How long till Jews are a minority in Israel?

[Predicto]

I don't buy that the folks who want to be involved in a new Gov't there will be a majority of just wanting their own state. If they form and the attacks continue, what is the proper response?

The same as it is between any two states where one can't control militants or terrorists who use it as the base for attacks against the other. A spectrum of options between overt cooperation between law enforcement authorities on both sides up to invasion by one side against the other. That is happening all over the world right now - and is already happening in the current situation in Israel/Palestine.

But that is NOT what you said. What you said was that a New Palestinian State is going to form up and turn around and declare war on Israel. That is a completely different thing, and (in my opinion) a really silly thing to assume, and that makes it a really weak argument against letting the Palestinians have their own state.

[talk show host]

Why do american politicians care so much about Isreal anyways? I never understood that.

[martytheman]

I've said this before. If every Jewish and Western Influence left the middle east, do you think they would have a peaceful region of the world? I don't. I think they would turn on each other because that's the mentality of the current generation over there.

Current generation? Those ****ers have been killing each other for 2000 years.. I don't think it will ever stop, no matter what influence is/isn't there

[JMS]

Look, I don't think a 2nd state solution will work. I think if you give the Palestinians their own full-on country, it wouldn't survive very long.

It really depends upon how it's done. If the Palestinians are given something to loose ( capital in east Jerusalem, contiguous land, enough support from the west to make a go of it, and no punitive invasions by Israel) then it could work. The problem is the folks proposing this in Israel ( Kadima ) aren't proposing a separate state because they want peace with the Palestinians. They are proposing it because they want somewhere to warehouse the Palestinians as a balm against the inevitable apartheid argument. The argument which occurs when the majority of the people in Israel and the occupied territories, who have endured systemic discrimination, who have lived in greater Israel and the occupied territories for the last 40-50 years, simple ask for the vote. Based upon that I don't think a second state will work either. I think a separate state under these circumstances falls along the lines of segregation, separate but equal, and apartheid. I think it's a formula for another 70 years of antagonism.

I think the dawn is about to set, if it hasn't already on a two state solution to this problem.

[@DCGoldPants]

The same as it is between any two states where one can't control militants or terrorists who use it as the base for attacks against the other. A spectrum of options between overt cooperation between law enforcement authorities on both sides up to invasion by one side against the other. That is happening all over the world right now - and is already happening in the current situation in Israel/Palestine.

But that is NOT what you said. What you said was that a New Palestinian State is going to form up and turn around and declare war on Israel. That is a completely different thing, and (in my opinion) a really silly thing to assume, and that makes it a really weak argument against letting the Palestinians have their own state.

I said "if", not a definite. Right? I said if they form and attack. I said they can't form and be only focused on defeating Israel because that wouldn't work IMO.

[Predicto]

I said "if", not a definite. Right? I said if they form and attack. I said they can't form and be only focused on defeating Israel because that wouldn't work IMO.

Yes, but you used it as an argument against the two state solution. This is what you predict would happen, ergo, don't give them their own state because it can't work.

I find that argument illogical, and I generally only see it from people like Beck and Avigdor Lieberman. Whether the Palestinians are going to be able to control all of their people is a legit question. But that's already happening now in spades, and it has little bearing on whether a second state is a good idea (IMO).

[Thiebear]

This is what i've read about

The United Nations just gave Palestinians a State.

And in return they also got 22% of their land back.

So now they can't go back to the occupied territory as this also recognizes Israel?

I'm not an expert, but it seems like the more I read the worse this sounds to the people of Palestine.

[JMS]

Can someone explain to me, a 22 year old with solid understanding of history but still far too young to "have been there", America's obsession with the nation of Israel?

I'll give it a go..

As it was explained to me in High School, Israel was British land occupied predominantly by Muslims that was "given" to the Jews as an "apology" or a "sorry you just got gassed" token following WWII.

Not exactly... Israel was an ancient country which broke into two nations (Israel and Judah) both of which were conquered seven and five hundred years before Christ was born respectively. The earliest movement towards recreating this state of Israel occurred with Early European Zionist's around the turn of the 20th century in Europe. Between the time of the fall of ancient Israel and the creation of the modern state of Israel the area was refereed to as Palestine, A province of Persia, Macedonia, Egypt, Rome, Mongols, Islam, Crusaders, Islam again, and ultimately the Ottoman empire.. After WWI when the Ottoman Empire lost, The British mandate of Palestine began in 1922 with Jews making up about 10% of the population. During the preceding thousands of years Palestine was a home for Arabs, Christians, and Jews; and over that time each had been in the ascendency, and each had lived by the leave of the others. But mostly since the rise of Islam, Muslims had controlled Palestine except 100 years during the crusades and the British Mandate of coarse.. During the British mandate, Britain agreed to administer the area on behalf of the league of Nations. After WWII wealthy Zionists organized campaigns to resettle displaced European Jews into Palestine over the objections of the great powers ( mostly Britain). This culminated in harsh crackdowns by the British on European refugees seeking to enter Palestine "illegally", and terrorist attacks on the British forces overseeing Palestine. In 1945 Jews made up about 30% of the population of Palestine(including all the recent immigrants). the population increases and the terrorist attacks on it's soldiers resulted in the British mandate ending 14 May 1948.

When the mandate ended, Israel declared itself a nation, was instantaneously recognized (by the United States and USSR) and was basically attacked by all of it's Arab neighbors( Egypt, Morocco, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Syria) resulting in the first of many miraculous victories by small an scrappy Israel. The First United Nations plan for Israel was to divide the territory between the Israeli's and Palestinians leaving Jerusalem as an international city.

Resolution 181: Recommending partition of the British Mandate for Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, and the City of Jerusalem.

The Israeli's didn't like this because many wished for Israel to reclaim all of her historic land, something which continues to be contentious to this day... The Arab Palestinians didn't like this because the Israeli's still only amounted to less than half of the population, yet they were given a little more than half the land.

From the declaration of Israel as a country, to present time; Israel has basically removed Arabs from their lands in order to resettle them by Jewish Israelis. they have done this by scaring Arabs of their lands, and through military actions; The Pace has changed but these displacements continue to this day and has resulted in huge refugee camps on the outskirts of Israel Proper in territories occupied by Israel for 50 years but not a part of greater Israel. Areas like Gaza one of the most densely populated areas of the world and the West Bank.

There really never has been a UN Resolution which gave Israel land, or recognized Israel's right to remove people from their land.

Israel has what they have because they've taken it, and held it often in opposition to UN calls for refugee's to be allowed to return to their homes. so this is why most nations including the United States don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and consider the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories illegal.

Here is a link on the demographic info I gave..

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/demograhics.html

---------- Post added January-16th-2013 at 03:22 PM ----------

Current generation? Those ****ers have been killing each other for 2000 years.. I don't think it will ever stop, no matter what influence is/isn't there

No they really haven't.... Modern Israel was established in 1948, These troubles don't date back for thousands of years they are a modern problem.

As a naive 22 year old kid, can someone set this right for me? Why did we ever think this was a good idea?

I don't think anybody really thought it was a good idea or thought it would work other than those Israeli's who did it against tremendous odds. Not even a majority of jews here in the United States thought Israel was a good idea in 1948. I don't think you can dismiss their achievement by just saying they got overwhelming aid from the West or the United States either.. I think Truman recognized them, and gave them about 200,000 dollars worth of aid in 1948... That ain't that much... Israel really became a primary client state of the United States after 1968... In 1968 they were flying french mirage jets and using British tanks... in 1972 they were flying American Jets and using American tanks.... Prior to 1968 and even in 1968 US/Israeli relations had major challenges. They were by no means considered the close ally they are today. During this time actions taken by both governments either did cause governments on one side to fall, or would have if they had come to light at the time. So the thinking they were always a close ally with the United States is just revisionist history. I think we initially formed such a tight relationship with Israel because they were seen as the lessor of two evils. It was expedient. We were looking for a strong hedge in the region to offset the growing Soviet client states of Egypt and Syria, and Israel was looking for assistance against the same folks for their own regional concerns.... I think we continue to support Israel for broad number of reasons. Certainly part of it is Israel is very politically savey and over the decades we've both become well known to each other. We both get a lot out of the relationship... I think there certainly is some cost too.

---------- Post added January-16th-2013 at 03:46 PM ----------

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=299796

PM hits back at Obama: I know what's best for Israel

Netanyahu visits Gaza border, says over last four years Israel has stood up to strong pressure and will continue to do so.

A day after US columnist Jeffrey Goldberg quoted US President Barack Obama as saying that Israel under Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu does not know what is in its own best interest, Netanyahu visited the Gaza border Wednesday, was told that December was the quietest month in the last 12 years, and essentially replied to Obama: "Yes I do."

I think everyone understands that only Israel's citizens will be the ones to determine who faithfully represents Israel's vital interests," Netanyahu said on a visit to an army base near Gaza in his first direct response to Obama's reported criticism. "Over the last four years we stood up against strong pressure, and I will continue to do so for Israel's security.

......

But Likud officials accused Obama of “gross interference” in the Israeli election and said the president was “taking revenge” against Netanyahu for his perceived intervention in the November US election on behalf of unsuccessful Republican challenger Mitt Romney. The officials said Obama had been swayed against Netanyahu by President Shimon Peres and former prime minister Ehud Olmert.

Goldberg told The Jerusalem Post that he was amused by the reactions of Israeli politicians, especially accusations that he had conspired with the Israeli Left to maximize damage to Netanyahu. He said what he had written was consistent with statements Obama had made in the past about the need for Israel’s friends to hold up a mirror and tell the truth.

[@DCGoldPants]

Yes, but you used it as an argument against the two state solution. This is what you predict would happen, ergo, don't give them their own state because it can't work.

I find that argument illogical, and I generally only see it from people like Beck and Avigdor Lieberman. Whether the Palestinians are going to be able to control all of their people is a legit question. But that's already happening now in spades, and it has little bearing on whether a second state is a good idea (IMO).

Ok, just making sure that wasn't what I said.

Compare it to whoever you want. I don't agree. Suppose the thought is they need to do a better job creating a voice for what they want while stopping whatever it is that is holding them back.

[Larry]

My general opinion on "the two-state solution" is:

1) I don't know how stable it would be.

2) I'm absolutely, 100% certain that nothing else can possibly work.

No solution that doesn't involve a Palestenian state, with borders roughly where they were in 67 (if not sooner) can possibly work.

[The Sisko]

It really depends upon how it's done. If the Palestinians are given something to loose ( capital in east Jerusalem, contiguous land, enough support from the west to make a go of it, and no punitive invasions by Israel) then it could work.

And therein lies the rub, i.e. the how it's done part. Aside from what you've mentioned, a fledgling Palestinian state would need to be strong enough to defend itself from internal/external threats but not strong enough to challenge Israel militarily and without recreating the old model of a dictatorship that we support in order to keep a lid on the Islamic extremists. Palestine's Arab neighbors would have to be a little nervous about this too, especially Jordan because of their large Palestinian population. Though I support a two state solution in part because I'm sick of us paying the price to protect Israel, I'm also very, very, very skeptical that it will work.

The argument which occurs when the majority of the people in Israel and the occupied territories, who have endured systemic discrimination, who have lived in greater Israel and the occupied territories for the last 40-50 years, simple ask for the vote. Based upon that I don't think a second state will work either. I think a separate state under these circumstances falls along the lines of segregation, separate but equal, and apartheid. I think it's a formula for another 70 years of antagonism.

I've said it before but I can't believe the Palestinians haven't pursued this option already. In fact, I think their best strategy at this point is to recognize Israel, renounce violence (and make it happen) and then allow the Israeli right to continue its intractibility while waiting for the demographic reality on the ground to tilt in their favor. At that point they pull the MLK thing on Israel. American majority opinion would only support Israel for so long with pictures of Israeli security forces beating up, tear gassing, etc. non-violent Palestinians. I think European popular opinion is already against them so I can only imagine what would happen there were this scenario to play out.

[JMS]

And therein lies the rub, i.e. the how it's done part. Aside from what you've mentioned, a fledgling Palestinian state would need to be strong enough to defend itself from internal/external threats but not strong enough to challenge Israel militarily and without recreating the old model of a dictatorship that we support in order to keep a lid on the Islamic extremists. Palestine's Arab neighbors would have to be a little nervous about this too, especially Jordan because of their large Palestinian population. Though I support a two state solution in part because I'm sick of us paying the price to protect Israel, I'm also very, very, very skeptical that it will work.

I don't think Jordan is the problem or any of Israel's other neighbors. They've all endured Palistinians on their boarders for quite a long time now.. The fundimental problem is Israel doesn't really want to give up the land that would be necessary. Israel has hundreds of thousands of citizens in the West Bank, and also recieves a significant part of her water from that area. I defintely think there is a number of people in Israel who believe they can win by not negotiating.. And given the history of the last 30 years when the Arabs have been willing to negotiate, Those Israeli's might have a point... The problem is can you rely on the international support Israel has enjoyed over the last 30-40 years over the next 30-40 years. That is harder to predict.

I've said it before but I can't believe the Palestinians haven't pursued this option already. In fact, I think their best strategy at this point is to recognize Israel, renounce violence (and make it happen) and then allow the Israeli right to continue its intractibility while waiting for the demographic reality on the ground to tilt in their favor. At that point they pull the MLK thing on Israel. American majority opinion would only support Israel for so long with pictures of Israeli security forces beating up, tear gassing, etc. non-violent Palestinians. I think European popular opinion is already against them so I can only imagine what would happen there were this scenario to play out.

I don't think the ANC ever pledged non violence, certainly not decades before the fall of aparthied. But I pretty much agree with you, all violence in the troubles on either side is counter productive. Neither side has a military solution. Ultimately they are both going to have to negotiate a settlement that neither will be happy with. We've known the formula for decades now and both sides have agreed on this formula for peace.... Land for Peace... The issue has only been terms, and now perhaps what is going on is that formula will no longer work for the Palistians. It's long been predicted, and maybe we are not quite their yet, but soon they won't want land, rather they will want the vote and that's why Kadima founded by the Ariel Sharon who spent most of his political career on the extreme right of Israeli politics endorsed a two state solution. Because not to is an existential threat to Israel as a jewish state.

[alexey]

I like Israel and all, but it's a democracy and democracies get into trouble when incentives are misaligned

I am specifically concerned about a situation where some Israeli politicians can 1) make some Palestinians angry on demand and 2) get political advantage by pointing at angry Palestinians. That picture just does not strike me as a recipe for success.

[JMS]

I like Israel and all, but it's a democracy and democracies get into trouble when incentives are misaligned

I really don't think Israel is a democracy. It's really a theocracy. It's a country founded and maintained along religious lines and that's written directly into it's constitution.

This is done in the basic laws which server as Israel's constitution, by adopting "Jus sanguinis", which means citizenship is not based upon birth but the citizenship of parents... That and the basic law which convey's citizenship "the Law of Return", is open exclusively to Jews.

I mean would you really consider the United States a democracy if it didn't have religious freedom? If your religion dictated your suitability for land ownership, rights, even your viability for citizenship?... Clearly our founding fathers who made freedom of religion the very first amendment to our constitution would not.

That point is what is driving the entire discussion....Now that Jews are a minority in the lands Israel controls, when that majority become voting age, can Israel still claim to be a democracy while disenfranchising the majority of the people generation-ally born and raised on the lands she claims? The answer is certainly not as judged by Ariel Sharon and his Kadima party.. That's why they favor a two state solution. Not because they are liberal peace-nics, but because as far right conservatives they see no other way to address this systemic threat. Given this can Israel really claim to be a democracy? Knowing she's systemically discriminating against the majority of her citizens solely based upon religious background? I don't think so. It's really the root cause of the troubles... Those displaced and prosecuted along religious grounds seeking to create a homeland for protection along those same religious grounds, and the folks who were living on that land being rather cross about the sacrifices they've had to make to facilitate this.

In fact the word theocracy was invented to describe the first iteration of Israel this one is supposedly based upon.

Calling Israel a democracy clouds the entire rational for the troubles from the American Public. Which is why it's used. Calling it what it is really lends understanding to an important underlying cause of the troubles..

I am specifically concerned about a situation where some Israeli politicians can 1) make some Palestinians angry on demand and 2) get political advantage by pointing at angry Palestinians. That picture just does not strike me as a recipe for success.

Hell that's currently going on between the United States President and Israeli PM.. I don't think it will work because so many people think giving Palestinians land will address the injustice they've endured. I think it's a good step, but it's really only a piece of the solution, a piece which I don't think will be meaningful enough if not supported by other pieces.

[visionary]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/23/us-israel-election-idUSBRE90K0FP20130123

Netanyahu turns to Iran after narrow election win

Hawkish Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed victory in Israel's parliamentary election, shrugging off surprise losses to centre-left challengers and vowing on Wednesday to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

However, Tuesday's vote, which also disappointed religiously inspired hardliners, may deflect the premier's focus on confronting Tehran and resisting Palestinian demands as Israel's secular, middle-class demanded new attention to domestic issues.

That, in turn, might draw Netanyahu toward a less fractious relationship with his key ally, U.S. President Barack Obama, who himself embarked on a new term this week with great ambitions.

Exit polls showed the Israeli leader's right-wing Likud and the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu would remain the biggest bloc in the 120-member assembly, but with only 31 seats, 11 fewer than the 42 the two parties held in the last parliament.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/world/middleeast/yair-lapid-guides-yesh-atid-party-to-success-in-israeli-elections.html?smid=tw-nytimesworld&seid=auto

Charismatic Leader Helps Israel Turn Toward the Center

With his good looks and suave manner, Yair Lapid had long been a celebrity and symbol of success here, building a strong following as a prominent journalist and the host of a popular television show.

But by the time the polls closed here Tuesday, it was clear that Mr. Lapid had reinvented himself as one of the most powerful political leaders in the country, leveraging his celebrity and a populist message that resonated.

Mr. Lapid, 49, was the surprise of the Israeli election. His party placed second, when polls said it would come in fourth. He had predicted that he would do better with his outreach to the middle class and his emphasis on social justice and the rising inequalities in society. He was right. His centrist Yesh Atid Party won 19 seats in the 120-seat Parliament, according to preliminary results, positioning Mr. Lapid as the chief power broker in the formation of the next governing coalition.