dagblog - Comments for "Obama’s ME Speech Live: Comments? [Updated]"

What are we fighting for,

Resistance — Mon, 23 May 2011 09:19:52 +0000

In reply to That was a corazon espinado

What are we fighting for, Dont ask me I don't give

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBdeCxJmcAo

@.20 seconds

That was a corazon espinado

we are stardust — Sat, 21 May 2011 01:41:54 +0000

In reply to The problem is a failure of

That was a corazon espinado moment, canuck; no blame to you. I did not know that history, and it may dwarf the movements to allow Israeli and Plaestinian children to meet and talk, though those effort are always such good causes, and no one can say what effects (karma) they might yield in time. I wish and pine for a spiritual awakening that causes us to yearn more toward brotherhood, but it often seems such a distant yearning in the face of intractable suspicion and tribalist histories.

Bslev calls me naive and worse; that may be true. But I look to the third-world spokespeople (and especially the women who see so clearly the possibilities of a better more just world and the roads toward it) so often and find the enormous amount of forgiveness and yearning for Better Times, and keep hope that someday... well, you get the drift.

I checked in with some of the Israeli peace groups and found that most thought that Obama had tanked any possiblitites with his vernacular about Hamas and not really taking any negotiations seriously given...la la la; others figure that's a red herring given that the PLA alliance has already given assurances. I don't know, but I do hope they are not goaded into some reaction that will show them to be...extremist.

There was a song with a line about not being able to remember 'what was it we were fighting for'. Not even googling helped, but some days I think of it, vis a vis Iran, Israel, India/Pakistan...just that we've become so accustomed to the enmity. Sorry; Stardust needs...a jetpack and some Soma?

The problem is a failure of

acanuck — Sat, 21 May 2011 00:05:13 +0000

In reply to It's exactly where my

The problem is a failure of imagination (not yours, I'd add). If all that leaders on both sides can imagine is a hostile standoff, that's what will result from any negotiations. There was a period of optimism in the wake of Oslo when non-settler Israelis actually toured the West Bank, visiting newly opened casinos and surreptitiously buying pork in Christian villages. Visitors were called "the cousins." It took determined opposition by diehards and a woeful lack of leadership by supposed leaders to squander those early hopes. A multi-year intifada and a brutal war or two later, positions have only hardened. So maybe a hostile standoff (but with recognized borders) is the most we can hope for just now.

It's exactly where my

we are stardust — Fri, 20 May 2011 23:28:45 +0000

In reply to I haven't seen what Bruce

It's exactly where my imaginings went over the past half hour. That it's been so written in stone that there can be no peace makes all else nigh on to impossible; and I don't mean just between Israel and Palestine. Accepting the bitter premise means no attempts to try.

I haven't seen what Bruce

acanuck — Fri, 20 May 2011 23:25:53 +0000

In reply to Bruce mentioned that we

I haven't seen what Bruce wrote, and apologize if I'm putting words in his mouth. But the proximity of Ben Gurion to Palestinian territory is not an argument for seizing more land. It's an argument for making a viable, just and secure peace.

The accuracy and range of surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles gets better all the time. It's logistically impossible for Israel to push its borders far enough that there are no Palestians living just the other side. At some point, Israel has to weigh whether it wants to live in peace with its neighbors or to embrace never-ending war. And dispossessing still more of them guarantees the latter outcome.

Bruce mentioned that we

we are stardust — Fri, 20 May 2011 22:51:18 +0000

In reply to After his meeting with Obama,

Bruce mentioned that we should look at the land above Ben Gurion airport, but I never did. It may be one case, but still...on the face of it, you'd seem to be right.

Plenty of decent op-ed pieces in Haaretz, as you said. I just went to snag my favorite, and it seems to be gone, maybe to make room for more. One squib was there denying Hillary had a big old row with Netanyahu. ;o)

Do stick in here what you find of interest; I'm a bit on the run in RL as usual. Thanks, canuck.

After his meeting with Obama,

acanuck — Fri, 20 May 2011 22:08:10 +0000

In reply to Obama’s ME Speech Live: Comments? [Updated]

After his meeting with Obama, Netanyahu stuck with yesterday's explanation of why the 1967 borders can't be the basis for territorial negotiations:

"Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, but it cannot go back to the 1967 lines, because these lines are indefensible."

So it's a military question, a security issue? Riiiight.

I'm no military strategist, but I always thought the easiest line to defend was generally the shortest one between points A and B. Exactly the opposite of what successive Israeli governments have been creating with their growing patchwork of settlement blocs, isolated outposts, and enclaves within Palestinian urban areas.

Totally indefensible, in both senses of the word. And now, suddenly, security is trotted out as the key reason Israel can't return even 22% of historic Palestine?

Total hypocritical bullshit. And manifestly FALSE. Whatever borders Netanyahu has in mind (if any), they are going to be exponentially longer and more convoluted than anything that existed in 1967. Ergo, less defensible.

Are any of the analysts, experts and talking heads pointing out that self-evident fact? No.

I'm amazed to have any

Flavius — Fri, 20 May 2011 18:16:11 +0000

In reply to If there's a peace agreement

I'm amazed to have any support.

I understand the lack of opposition . Most likely represents a completely justified editorial judgement,. "Sure it was a terrible insult" as the farmer said when kicked by the mule. " but consider the source." And's in line with dagblog's naturally anti war tone--a descriptive not judgemental characterization. But support's surprising.

My suggestion reflects being stationed in cold war Germany. Even if we had been well equipped- which we weren't-the disproprtion in troop strength vs a vs the Soviets ,meant our real function was to guarantee the European's that we wouldn't abandon them if Stalin's forces poured hrough the Fulda Gap.

Plus the comments about Hamas

we are stardust — Fri, 20 May 2011 17:45:59 +0000

In reply to So the big "surprise" was

Plus the comments about Hamas having to prove, la la la; hard to say what failure to meet some standards will mean, IMO. But as far as the 'surprise', it was the only piece I saw that was news, as in Carney, et.al., claimed no plan would be unveiled (maybe this wasn't a 'plan', but still).

I confess I didn't see what Juan Cole did in terms of bravery in the speech; you seem to mirror that. We get so used to posturing in speeches it gets hard to know what goes on behind closed doors (wink, wink...nudge...) I'd love to hear what Mitchell thought of the speech. I just read his resignation note; it was easily one of the most curt in history. Obey was right: he was disgusted at the White House. I know it's heresy to say, but I wonder if Obama thinks anything will come of any of this, frankly. I read here and there the idea that 'Dennis Ross beat Clinton' on this one.

I totally agree with your 'freezing the revolutions in place'; nice framing, canuck. The only thing I've wondered about is why they haven't actually opened the Rafah crossing. Could that be one of the conditions of the $$, and if so, it would signal that some in the present government might want to accept it, neoliberal caveats and all.

I did laugh at the 'friends need to tell friends the truth' section. It was dialogue straight out of a West Wing episode, which may have been right out of a Clinton speech. But I sure didn't see the Bibi-smackdown/daylight-between them others did.

Thanks for you informed take.

So the big "surprise" was

acanuck — Fri, 20 May 2011 16:57:50 +0000

In reply to I bit the bullet and poked

So the big "surprise" was that Obama specified the '67 borders as a starting point for negotiations? Something everyone has understood for nearly two decades? That was what the White House was trumpeting?

This will go over like a lead balloon in the Arab world, where I suspect the "sea change" in U.S. policy that some American pundits are proclaiming will be seen as, "OK, the U.S. policy will no longer be massive intervention to prop up friendly dictatorships, just to prop up friendly 'democracies.' Why doesn't it just stop intervening?" Note that the Libyan rebels are overwhelmingly defectors from the Gaddafi regime, the Supreme Council that runs Egypt were an integral part of Mubarak's crony system, the Yemenis who are trying to replace Saleh are members of his own clan, for God's sake.

The Arab Spring is an unfinished revolution, and Obama (without saying so) is trying to freeze it where it currently stands by tossing a few billion dollars at countries willing to stay within the U.S. regional-power framework. Precisely what the revolutionaries want to break free from. In passing, the money for Egypt that Obama boasted of had already been announced by Clinton last month. And lots of it is guarantees for private foreign investment -- the kind of neoliberal crap that Gamal Mubarak was rejected over.

As for Israel-Palestine, as Gideon Levy and Aluff Benn suggest in Haaretz, Netanyahu -- despite his crying wolf over the '67 borders, got everything he could have hoped for -- above all, cold water on the September statehood proposal and an endorsement of his two-stage approach: borders and security first, and only then talks over Jerusalem and right-of-return. It won't fly, which suits the Israeli government just fine. Some may boo Obama when he speaks to AIPAC, but it will just be pro-forma.