Israel/Palestine

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

34. You're right about Congress. But, (and I am pleasantly surprised by this) the White House

Thu Mar 21, 2013, 02:54 PM

Mar 2013

has taken a number of steps in recent months that signal a big U-turn in the Mideast away from destabilization, regime change, and mounting militarization of U.S. involvement in the Sunni-Shi'ia conflict. That entails a distancing from the strategy of confrontation being pushed by Netanyahu. That has been a difficult disengagement, given the political head-lock AIPAC has on Capitol Hill.

I think more rational people in DC and Tel Aviv are beginning to recognize that they have unleashed a whirlwind across Sunni MENA that they cannot control, and that an explosion of civil war in Egypt threatens Israeli and American interests far more than Iran ever did or could.

The President's trip to Israel is an effort to calm and reassure the Israeli public, rather than a display of support for the current ruling coalition that might not survive very long.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Reconsidering the two-state solution [View all] cali Mar 2013 OP

How about this solution: reconsider U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel. leveymg Mar 2013 #1

Israel wouldn't surrender if US aid stopped. They'd make more of their own.... shira Mar 2013 #2

Thanks for your candor - you equate the two-state solution with surrender. leveymg Mar 2013 #4

No, Israel is not in the weapons export business to China henank Mar 2013 #13

Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) sold the Lavi design to China: sources below. leveymg Mar 2013 #14

There are an awful lot of ifs and buts in those statements henank Mar 2013 #19

Jane's wouldn't have published it if the sources weren't considered credible. You asked for sources leveymg Mar 2013 #21

I'm for that, but I don't think it's either in the realm of possibility cali Mar 2013 #5

What about land swaps? oberliner Mar 2013 #7

hasn't that become a dim prospect with the settlements built cali Mar 2013 #9

No, Olmert's offer of 2008 disproves that. The Palestinians.... shira Mar 2013 #41

oh please. And what about all the greater israel proponents- quite a few cali Mar 2013 #43

What about them? How much more does Israel need to offer.... shira Mar 2013 #45

"How much more does Israel need to offer...." R. Daneel Olivaw Mar 2013 #49

You need to inform yourself on the Clinton Initiatives, Olmert Plan.... shira Mar 2013 #51

Do you support the Israeli settlements in the West bank? Yes or no? R. Daneel Olivaw Mar 2013 #54

Hardly, Shira, and we've been through this before: Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2013 #56

Ben Ami said he wouldn't have accepted the Camp David offer.... shira Mar 2013 #62

Way to completely miss the point of the post. Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2013 #63

Finkelstein is wrong. n/t shira Mar 2013 #64

No, he is not. Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2013 #66

You really don't know much about this topic oberliner Mar 2013 #52

Do you support the Israeli settlements in the West bank? Yes or no? R. Daneel Olivaw Mar 2013 #55

Uh, no - do you? oberliner Mar 2013 #58

"The Parameters received wide support in the Israeli cabinet" that was long ago azurnoir Mar 2013 #60

Doubtful oberliner Mar 2013 #61

It's redundant to insist that Israel be recognized "as a Jewish state" Ken Burch Mar 2013 #59

Israel could offer everything you say it needs to offer.... shira Mar 2013 #65

I'm rejecting a silly, pointless demand by Netanyahu, not "blaming Israel". Ken Burch Mar 2013 #67

It's necessary and just. It will go to show the Palestinians are serious.... shira Mar 2013 #70

Recognizing Israel would do all of that. Ken Burch Mar 2013 #71

It hasn't done that since 1993, when it was supposedly recognized then. shira Mar 2013 #72

The war is not about there being an Israel. aranthus Mar 2013 #68

Then why wasn't it asked of Egypt or Jordan? Ken Burch Mar 2013 #69

Not necessarily oberliner Mar 2013 #47

Just a credible threat would provide leverage and movement. Except for one thing - AIPAC. leveymg Mar 2013 #8

I disagree. First of all, AIPAC is not a foreign lobbying shop cali Mar 2013 #11

Indictment: AIPAC officials worked with Mossad Chief of Station to plant Irandata in Pentagon files leveymg Mar 2013 #15

so what's the obvious falsity" cali Mar 2013 #17

AIPAC acts as an agent of a foreign power - every other country's lobbyists are required to register leveymg Mar 2013 #22

What part of AIPAC consisting of Americans leftynyc Mar 2013 #26

You don't know the law. US Citizens must register as agents of foreign leveymg Mar 2013 #27

So - according to you leftynyc Mar 2013 #33

No, not unless you're being paid to spread propaganda or influence policy on behalf of Israel. leveymg Mar 2013 #36

I can't think of anyone leftynyc Mar 2013 #38

Proof? The FBI has been recording AIPAC's phones for decades pursuant to FISA warrants. leveymg Mar 2013 #39

Espionage should be prosecuted and leftynyc Mar 2013 #40

+1 leveymg Mar 2013 #42

OK. Shaktimaan Mar 2013 #46

The OSP-AIPAC indictments showed AIPAC is not in compliance with FARA, and how the group leveymg Mar 2013 #48

If no two-state solution, then Israel has to become a true democracy with civil rights and no_hypocrisy Mar 2013 #3

+1,000,000 TexasProgresive Mar 2013 #6

First of all, Israel is already a true democracy. aranthus Mar 2013 #50

Unfortunately, a two-state solution is the only thing that could work in the foreseeable future LeftishBrit Mar 2013 #10

how is it that a 2 state solution is even remotely workable in the forseseeable future? cali Mar 2013 #12

How is the US to persuade Israel to halt settlements if we don't threaten to cut off foreign aid? leveymg Mar 2013 #16

I didn't say that was going to happen, cali Mar 2013 #18

The US has cut off, or limited aid to Israel of various types at times, and may well again. leveymg Mar 2013 #23

That was when Israel was treated as an ally instead geek tragedy Mar 2013 #30

"Nothing else" is not the same as "this". Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2013 #25

There's always the one state solution Challenger1 Mar 2013 #20

Two-state solution is a talking point, not a meaningful goal. geek tragedy Mar 2013 #24

The two-state solution, based in the Oslo Accords, is the foundation of US I/P policy leveymg Mar 2013 #28

"the foundation of US I/P policy" geek tragedy Mar 2013 #29

A complete failure? Complete failure would be a genocidal war. leveymg Mar 2013 #31

George H W Bush was far tougher on Israel geek tragedy Mar 2013 #32

You're right about Congress. But, (and I am pleasantly surprised by this) the White House leveymg Mar 2013 #34

The policy seems to be one of disengagement, with geek tragedy Mar 2013 #35

+1 leveymg Mar 2013 #37

a thread about a one state solution azurnoir Mar 2013 #44

+1000 Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2013 #57

I found this interesting: Fantastic Anarchist Mar 2013 #53