…in which the administration lives, that results in their selling out of Israel:
I would sum it up as a growing administration belief that solid U.S. support for Israel is probably the reason for radical Islamic anti-American terrorism; and, secondly, the Palestinian issue can be best resolved with the return of Israel to the 1967 borders. Apparently, this thought stems from the assumption that there has been a radical reappraisal about Israel on the part of the Arab nations, and Islamic world at large, who in toto have now accepted Israel’s right to exist. Therefore, with the casus belli removed, in the future we should expect no more wars — like 1948, 1956, and 1967, when Israel did not hold the Golan Heights or the West Bank. Accordingly, the withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza were positive first-steps and left stability in their wake.
I suspect that Netanyahu knows that he’s on his own now.
Passionate support for socialism at home and selling out the only democracy in the Middle East. Yup, sounds like change to me. Don’t know about hope, though.
Rand, you accused the US (well, the Obama administration) of selling out Israel on the upcoming Racism/Bash-Israel conference. I assume you were heartened by today’s news that the US is pulling out of the conference.
Like the Indian partition of 1948 with East and West Pakistan, after the 1967 war, the Israelis should have moved all non citizens Arabs out of the conquered territory to various Arab states and accepted all Jews from those states. It probably would have been close enough to a one to one ratio to even swap houses, etc. The ancient Kingdoms of Judah and Israel extended east of the Jordan to almost Damascus, so making the Jordan and the Golan the eastern boundary makes a logical border.
Instead, we’ve got a group of victims into the third generation, and they are not satisfied with any boundary, as VDH points out. If Israel would have forced them across the Allenby bridge, they would have to work like the rest of us. Given their present conditions, I’m sure they would be better off.
More heartening news from today’s newspapers: “U.S.: No normal Syria ties until it stops backing Hamas, Hezbollah”
(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067510.html)
I think Ha’aretz (left-leaning but balanced) and Jpost.com (right-leaning but balanced) are an excellent good addition to the The Corner if you want news and analysis regarding the relationship between the US and Israel.
“More heartening news from today’s newspapers: “U.S.: No normal Syria ties until it stops backing Hamas, Hezbollah”
So we’re now back to the Bush position. That is heartening news. It’s the ambiguity, Bob. They fumble around to come up with a position and act like it will change and then go back to the Bush position. I’m all for this kind of hope and change, I hope they don’t change our position.
I’m waiting for that Saudi shill Freeman to give his morning briefing with, “Those reports of Syrian and Egyptian tanks from China on Irsael’s border are false. Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin’ eyes?”
Heh. Ambiguity is the name of the game when negotiating in the middle east. Syria has been sending ambiguous signals for decades, the Israelis reciprocate, and there is little harm in the US joining in. The Israelis are ready to make peace with Syria, and the two sides have been negotiating quietly for quite some time. In particular, Netanyahu has personally negotiated with Assad. See this article in today’s Haaretz:
(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067291.html)
Netanyahu doesn’t take the Bush approach, and neither will Obama. Although that’s not to say that Obama and Netanyahu will take the same approach – I wouldn’t be shocked if Netanyahu bombed Syria during the midst of peace negotiations.
Bill, do you think Israel is threatened by a conventional tank attack from anywhere? I think this would be a formula for quickly converting tanks into scrap.
Bob, have you ever read of the Yom Kippur War?
Since the Yom Kippur War, Israel’s air force has gotten so sophisticated that Israel’s nation-state adversaries only have a chance in an asymetric war in which Israel is also trying to limit civilian casualties. A conventional attack with tanks rolling across the desert is not currently a threat to Israel. Israel’s air force has acted with impunity against Syria for the last ten years, including blowing up Syrian tanks in Lebanon before the pull-out, buzzing Syria’s presidential palace, and destroying what apparently was a North Korean nuclear arms plant.
Syria has a motive to build nuclear weapons, as does nearly everyone unfortunately, but other than that, the two countries don’t have any particular motive to attack each other. They are probably ready to sign a peace treaty. The Isrealis certainly seem to think so.
Syria doesn’t have a motive to attack Israel?
Bob, this is what I mean by living in an alternate reality. Syria would love for Israel to be destroyed. The fact that they’re scared to attack Israel doesn’t mean that they don’t have a motive to do so.
I meant “realistic motives” or some such. The US would like to own Cuba (or Canada) but we don’t really have a motive for attacking either country right now. Or better yet, reverse the situation: Cuba would love for the US to disappear, but it hasn’t had any reason to bother us for quite some time — Syria, like Cuba, is a dictatorship that can deflect internal opposition by rallying its people to oppose a powerful external enemy, but in reality, both countries need to focus on their own shortcomings and aren’t currently interested in biting off more than they can chew. I should have said “serious interest” instead of “motive”.
And the difference between Cuba and Syria is that Syria doesn’t have an ideological reason to be against making peace with its powerful neighbor, and it has a lot to gain. It needs to decide: does it want to seek prosperity by dominating Lebanon and flirting with Iran, or does it want to trade with Turkey and Israel, and have access to markets in (and get aid from) the EU and the USA.
And the difference between Cuba and Syria is that Syria doesn’t have an ideological reason to be against making peace with its powerful neighbor, and it has a lot to gain.
Really? That Ba’ath Party stuff is just for consumption by the rubes?
And you know this how?
In practice, Baath party in Syria has one ideological component: that certain Alawites should be running Syria. That’s it. The Baath party in Syria is hardly the mirror image of its counterpart in Iraq. I never see any reference to the Baath party or its ideology whenever I see any analysis of Syria – it used to be all about Hafez Assad and what he wanted, and now it is all about what Assad’s son and the people behind him want.
As an almost irrelevant aside, consider the ideology: Pan-Arab: hardly! Syria’s only ally in the region is Iran, which isn’t Arab. Socialist: Nope, they’re a mixed economy. Freedom: Not at all. But, more importantly, the Syrian govt barely even pays lip-service to this ideology, and the “rubes” certainly aren’t buying it, which is why Syria had better look to its own shortcomings.
I don’t actually feel like we disagree, by the way. I’m just more optimistic that the Obama administration will be pretty much like every other US administration. There have been minor variations in warmth between specific US and Israeli leaders, but I don’t think these variations were historically significant.
Syria had better look to its own shortcomings.
I suspect that’s exactly what Pelosi told them last year. And if she did, I’m sure Assad laughed his ass off, just like I did, when I read that naivety.
I was going to say that military dictatorships are not sustainable. But rather than laughing our asses off each other, I’d rather be serious: How long has a military dictatorship provided continuity of rule in the modern era? What’s the average length? How long can Assad reasonably assume that he’ll stay in power? Assad is relatively young – is he likely to stay in power the rest of his life? Or put it a different way: what do you expect will happen in Cuba after the Castro brothers leave the scene? Do you think it will remain a stable dictatorship with continuity of rule?
: How long has a military dictatorship provided continuity of rule in the modern era?
In the case of Lybia, 40 years, but Myanmar beats it by 5 years. But I’m assuming a narrow definition of military dictatorship. We were talking about Syria, which is considered a republic although military authoritarian. It has provided continuity of rule in this manner for almost 40 years.
How long can Assad reasonably assume that he’ll stay in power?
Well, his dad stayed in power for 30 years. Then the Syrian consitution was changed, so that Bashar could take over before he turned 40. So considering how willing his nation was to make him President in 2000, I’d think he feels pretty comfortable about his power.
Assad is relatively young – is he likely to stay in power the rest of his life?
Apparently Syrians thought he would be to young to take over as well. At least until they were faced with the problem of losing his dad, while Bashar was only 36. But instead of sticking with their principles, they decided he was old enough. As for whether he will keep his power for the rest of his life? His dad did, so there is precendence.
what do you expect will happen in Cuba after the Castro brothers leave the scene
I don’t know. Idiots use to ask, what do you think will happen with Castro died, because they assumed that would be the end of the dictatorship. Now idiots ask what will happen after Castro’s brother leaves the scene. Fidel and Raul both have sons, and perhaps will follow the models of continuity of rule developed by DPRK and Syria.
? Do you think it will remain a stable dictatorship with continuity of rule?
Why wouldn’t I think this? Assad managed the continuity just fine, after hi s father’s death. Even those his age was a short coming, he managed to still retain power. So I suspect he’s not as worried about other things people might consider short comings.