Saturday, March 27, 2010

Interventions I Believe In

Netanyahu has a choice: he is either "with America or with the settlers."

And I am glad we have a US President that is making that point.

Israel and the United States are natural allies, friends and effective family in the group of nations. But interventions are supposed to be staged by your closest family and friends.



DADvocate said...

Netanyahu has a choice: he is either "with America or with the settlers."

If only it were that simple, but it isn't.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

True. But folks can poach an oversimplification every once in a while. I doubt the settlers are behaving in the best interests for Israel, America be damned.

The complication is that there is too much power and money invested in keeping this conflict going (on both sides).

I don't have a problem with the projection of power to keep an ally secure. I do have a problem when our projection of power enables them to continue to violate international laws and borders, even as our own stated policy is and has been that said ally is acting in such violation.

Additional Israeli settlements in occupied lands hurts the interests of the United States, IMHO.

patsbrother said...

Let me see...

Regarding terrorists, who destroy things, the statement "you're either with us or against us" is the most incomprehensibly moronic statements an administration could make.

Regarding settlers, who build a couple dozen homes, "you're either with us or against us" is a mesmerizingly fantastic wunderposition for an administration to take.

Regardless what you think about Isreal and the settlement issue, that's asinine, your HO be damned.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Well, since the quote came from an Israeli op-ed, you can take it up with them.

But, in fairness, there is a difference between "building houses" and "building houses on land seized and occupied by military force."

patsbrother said...

I don't care who originally said it. You adopted it. Using an Isreali as your beard does not hide the absurdity of the statement you adopted as one you were glad the president is making.

And again, without attempting to justify it, there is also a difference between land claimed yesterday and land claimed decades ago.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Sorry, I thought that was your problem.

Terrorism is never OK. Neither is building houses on land siezed and occupied by military force. And this is taking place RTFN, not decades ago.

Regarding the difference in statements:

When Bush used the "with us or with the terrorists" meme, the "with us" part mean "in agreement with him." People inside and outside this country (including me) got called "anti-American terrorist sympathizers" for 7 years because of disagreements with how the GWOT was being prosecuted.

Valid points of disagreement, from torture to those lunatic color codes of danger, we were "with the terrorists" according to the Presdient's meme, even though we weren't in any way shape or form justifying or supporting terrorism against America. It was all political calculation.

On the other hand, every new settlement erodes the peace process. In addition to being internationally condemned, illegal and against the spirit of international cooperation since 1948, new Israelis settlements in the occupied territories increase terrorism against Israel, American troops overseas, and the United States of America.

The only reason to build new settlements is to cater politically to ultra-right-wing Israelis who make up Likud's base and maintain the status quo of hostility and humanitiarian crisis in the Middle East. There is a lot of money and power (on the Israeli, Palestinian, and International sides) tied up in keeping this thing going.

But new settlements cannot be defended. They run directly counter to the USA's stated goals of ending the GWOT on our terms and bringing the Peace Process to an agreeable and advantageous conclusion.

patsbrother said...
This comment has been removed by the author.