The Petraeus briefing: Biden’s embarrassment is not the whole story

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Thank you. I can read. I believe I addressed this. The impact I can see of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on US efforts in the region is an indirect one, at best. It's an excuse used by despotic regimes and hostile forces (hostile to the US - al Quaida, Taliban, etc.) to incite anti-US passions. If the Israeli-Palestinian dispute was removed from the equation, those despotic regimes and hostile forces would simply find other ways to prop themselves up and justify their hostility. It's what they do.

You said that you don't understand the concept of "linkage," and that you don't understand why Petraeus is making the connection between the failure to resolve the conflict and the problems he says the U.S. faces as a result of it. But he listed the reasons for his statement.

Do you think the CENTCOM commander is incorrect about what creates problems for the U.S. armed forces to achieve their goals in the Middle East and Central Asia?

Is this your first WOM run-in? Her past battles with mawilson are legendary. He emerged victorious and she went into exile.

Keep dreamin'...

[Ban Hammer 13,645]

Is this your first WOM run-in? Her past battles with mawilson are legendary. He emerged victorious and she went into exile. It appears she is now returning, albeit on a limited basis.

the ones with gerard were pretty good too.

[scandal 951]

Is this your first WOM run-in? Her past battles with mawilson are legendary. He emerged victorious and she went into exile. It appears she is now returning, albeit on a limited basis.

The difference is I am better than mawilson.

He is a gecko, I am a sheep shagger.

Sheep beat geckos any time.

[scandal 951]

You said that you don't understand the concept of "linkage," and that you don't understand why Petraeus is making the connection between the failure to resolve the conflict and the problems he says the U.S. faces as a result of it. But he listed the reasons for his statement.

Do you think the CENTCOM commander is incorrect about what creates problems for the U.S. armed forces to achieve their goals in the Middle East and Central Asia?

Keep dreamin'...

By saying "I don't understand" I was speaking colloquially. I understand what it means perfectly well, in fact I went on to define it in the context of the 1990s and the Oslo accords. What I don't understand is the credence it is given as a dictate of how to resolve the problems of the region, when it's patently obvious that there are deep and profound issues in the Middle East that have nothing whatever to do with Israel/Palestine.

To hear King Abdullah or the Saudis tell it, if only Israel conceded territorial issues all else would fall into place and peace would spring from every corner of the Arab world.

Tell me something - the territories were under Arab control for 19 years from 1948 - 1967. Jordan and Egypt, had they wanted to, could have established a Palestinian state at any time during those years. They could have returned the exiled populations in their countries (particularly in Jordan) to the territories during those years. The PLO, established intentionally as a paramilitary group in 1964, did not establish itself as a Palestinian government in the West Bank when it had that opportunity from 1964-1967. Instead, Jordan, Egypt, the PLO, and the rest of the Arab world insisted throughout those 19 years, and beyond, that nothing less than the absolute and total destruction of the "illegitimate" state of Israel would satisfy them.

Where was "linkage" during those years? There was no Israeli occupation of the territories then. The only occupation was Israeli occupation of ISRAEL. That, apparently, was (and is) enough of an affront. The only "linkage" during 1948-67 was apparently that Israel dared to exist. To many, that remains the fundamental issue to this very day. It's not about settlements, it's about a Jewish state having the audacity to claim its rightful place in this world.

Wife Of Mahmoud - I am pleased to make your acquaintance, and am willing to engage in debate with you. You are not the first person I've debated who represents the other side from my own. I don't fear debate, on the contrary the only chance we have of progress is if we can discuss things civilly. No doubt we won't agree on much, but we may be surprised to find we agree on plenty, more than you might think.

My first and most basic question to you is this: Do you accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel, as a Jewish state?

I assert to you that I accept the fundamental right of Palestinians to self determination in a state of their own. Do you accord my people the same acceptance? If you do, there is room to discuss all the intricate permutations of the history, the problems, the solutions. If you don't, unfortunately there is not much to discuss. If the only acceptable alternative is "no Israel at all, period", the conversation is effectively over before it gets started.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

By saying "I don't understand" I was speaking colloquially. I understand what it means perfectly well, in fact I went on to define it in the context of the 1990s and the Oslo accords. What I don't understand is the credence it is given as a dictate of how to resolve the problems of the region, when it's patently obvious that there are deep and profound issues in the Middle East that have nothing whatever to do with Israel/Palestine.

To hear King Abdullah or the Saudis tell it, if only Israel conceded territorial issues all else would fall into place and peace would spring from every corner of the Arab world.

Tell me something - the territories were under Arab control for 19 years from 1948 - 1967. Jordan and Egypt, had they wanted to, could have established a Palestinian state at any time during those years. They could have returned the exiled populations in their countries (particularly in Jordan) to the territories during those years. The PLO, established intentionally as a paramilitary group in 1964, did not establish itself as a Palestinian government in the West Bank when it had that opportunity from 1964-1967. Instead, Jordan, Egypt, the PLO, and the rest of the Arab world insisted throughout those 19 years, and beyond, that nothing less than the absolute and total destruction of the "illegitimate" state of Israel would satisfy them.

Where was "linkage" during those years? There was no Israeli occupation of the territories then. The only occupation was Israeli occupation of ISRAEL. That, apparently, was (and is) enough of an affront. The only "linkage" during 1948-67 was apparently that Israel dared to exist. To many, that remains the fundamental issue to this very day. It's not about settlements, it's about a Jewish state having the audacity to claim its rightful place in this world.

Wife Of Mahmoud - I am pleased to make your acquaintance, and am willing to engage in debate with you. You are not the first person I've debated who represents the other side from my own. I don't fear debate, on the contrary the only chance we have of progress is if we can discuss things civilly. No doubt we won't agree on much, but we may be surprised to find we agree on plenty, more than you might think.

My first and most basic question to you is this: Do you accept the legitimacy of the state of Israel, as a Jewish state?

I assert to you that I accept the fundamental right of Palestinians to self determination in a state of their own. Do you accord my people the same acceptance? If you do, there is room to discuss all the intricate permutations of the history, the problems, the solutions. If you don't, unfortunately there is not much to discuss. If the only acceptable alternative is "no Israel at all, period", the conversation is effectively over before it gets started.

It’s nice to meet you too. I have read several of your posts, and there is no doubt that I would agree with you on several points.

I appreciate your taking the time to bring up some of the other issues related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - it’s a fascinating series of events and could fill pages of discussion.

But I must point out that it’s a digression from the topic. Petraeus is not talking about the many problems that face the Middle East in general, or the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is concerned with specific U.S. military objectives and American interests in the region, and what he says is hampering, even endangering his mission. He named several factors in his testimony to Congress. But the first one on his list is the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I was hoping for a discussion of that point - whether Petraeus is mistaken/misled, or just telling it like it is.

(BTW I have always expressed my support for international law and the U.N. resolutions.)

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It’s nice to meet you too. I have read several of your posts, and there is no doubt that I would agree with you on several points.

I appreciate your taking the time to bring up some of the other issues related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - it’s a fascinating series of events and could fill pages of discussion.

But I must point out that it’s a digression from the topic. Petraeus is not talking about the many problems that face the Middle East in general, or the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is concerned with specific U.S. military objectives and American interests in the region, and what he says is hampering, even endangering his mission. He named several factors in his testimony to Congress. But the first one on his list is the failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I was hoping for a discussion of that point - whether Petraeus is mistaken/misled, or just telling it like it is.

(BTW I have always expressed my support for international law and the U.N. resolutions.)

If the US were able to broker a working peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, I certainly think it would aide Middle East peace with say Iran maybe. It would certainly help take some of the wind of that regime's argument. Would it address Shia and Sunni or the Kurds? Probably not, I would agree with Scandal on this.

However, it would definitely help with Iran. That being said, the current Iranian government has shown they will not sway to even their own people. Therefore even if the average Iranian starts to see the US in a different light (and I believe they have) their voices will be extinguished. Then you have China who puts economics above human life. Without an economic reason, China will never sanction Iran.

(Sorry if I've gone off topic...what I'm getting at is that Israeli/Palestinian peace could have effect on aggressive nations with a unified people. However there are far too many tribes that have effectively been placed within a country because someone thought a line on a map looked "right" and their issues are unrelated to Israel. )

Edited March 17, 2010 by Sousuke

[mRx 16]

Petraeus is not talking about the many problems that face the Middle East in general, or the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is concerned with specific U.S. military objectives and American interests in the region, and what he says is hampering, even endangering his mission.

+1

Most red and blue politicians are bilateral in their support for Israel, as they say Israeli security is American security. Of course, exactly how FMF--i.e US weapons used by Israelis on their enemies--increases "American security" is unclear.

Surely, it helps Israel, but how does it help America?