Emanuel: U.S. fed up with Israel, Palestinians

[thundley4]

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel recently told the Israeli consul in Los Angeles that the Obama administration is fed up with both Israel and the Palestinians, Army Radio reported on Wednesday.

Emanuel met with Jacob Dayan, consul general of Israel in Los Angeles, about two weeks ago, after which Dayan briefed the Foreign Ministry.

Emanuel told Dayan the U.S. is sick of the Israelis, who adopt suitable ideas months too late, when they are no longer effective, according to Army Radio.
    
The U.S. is also sick of the Palestinians who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, Emanuel reportedly said.

Emanuel added that if there is no progress in the peace process, the Obama administration will reduce its involvement in the conflict, because, as he reportedly said, the U.S. has other matters to deal with.

Emanuel reportedly said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly acknowledged the two-state solution too late, and that the freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank came only after months of U.S. pressure.

The report added that both sides reportedly rejected the peace plan proposed by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, but that if there is progress in peace talks, Obama might visit Israel and the region.

Link

Another foreign policy failure for Lord Zero.  Israel is unwilling to commit suicide in the name of peace, so Lord Zero is unwilling to visit the region unless there is going to be a photo-op for himself as the Peace-Bringer.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

But the man-child need only walk among them to bring peace.

[Oceander]

Knock-knock, hello, telegram for Obama and Rahm, from reality!

Duh!

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The more I think about this the less I like it.

AQ war with us is based partly on our support of Israel. They want us to desert Israel.

Obama is capitulating to AQ.


BTW - look for applause from the ronulans and DU if I'm right.

[Ladywinter]

Would be very interesting to be a "fly" on Netanyahu's wall - while he's discussing BO and this new administration...

[thundley4]

The more I think about this the less I like it.

AQ war with us is based partly on our support of Israel. They want us to desert Israel.

Obama is capitulating to AQ.


BTW - look for applause from the ronulans and DU if I'm right.

Pile this on top of the way Iran has been messing around with the UN on it's Uranium for peaceful purposes, and Israel may feel justified in a preemptive strike on Iran.  That could be part of Rahm's plan, let Israel dig a hole to anger the other Arab countries into another war.  Rahm may be one of those self-loathing Jews.

[DumbAss Tanker]

If it was just the Israeli-Palestinian dynamic I'd say the WH had a rare attack of common sense, the situation is a lot like Imperial Germany faced with Austria-Hungary as an ally, for which the phrase 'Chained to a corpse' was coined...you have an 'Ally' with an insoluble problem and the more you engage with trying to help it, the worse the drain on yourself, with no visible way to improve the situation regardless of how much treasure and human life you throw away in the attempt.  On top of that, we have tried with a notable lack of success to play both Israel's 'Ally' and the role of neutral 'Honest broker' at the same time since the days of Jimmuh (Excepting the Reagan years), which even an idiot could see is fundamentally flawed.

Unfortunately, it's not a two-player game.  The Palestinians are as much pawns and pretexts for other players to pursue their own ends as they are actors in their own right, the others including AQ, the Iranians, and the Syrians.  It's pretty much a no-win for us no matter what we do, really a worse no-win than in its own way than any other foreign policy issue we have.  Walking away from it really isn't an option, though.   

[Javelin]

Another issue that is not considered is that once Israel accepts the fact that they are alienated the way they handle policy may change.  In other words, war.  Israel is not exactly known for sitting back and waiting for their enemy to make the first move.  The only times they have waited were due to pressure from the USA to not act such as in the Gulf War.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Another issue that is not considered is that once Israel accepts the fact that they are alienated the way they handle policy may change.  In other words, war.  Israel is not exactly known for sitting back and waiting for their enemy to make the first move.  The only times they have waited were due to pressure from the USA to not act such as in the Gulf War.

Yes, well, Obambi isn't exactly the astute peacemaker we were led to believe.

He could get a quilting bee to degenerate into broken bottles and razor blades, ala Honduras.

[SOFTBALL#4GRAMA]

Perhaps the U.S. is more fed up with Emanuel than they are with Israel, Palestinians...Just saying...

[Eupher]

In the rest of the article, Dayan claims that Emanuel's comments were "distorted". Meaning, of course, more spin from the spin doctors.

This is not the first time that Rahm has opened his yap at the wrong time in the wrong place.

Rat bastard. Fuggin' guy even looks like a rat.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Rat bastard. Fuggin' guy even looks like a rat.

He kinda does.

[Mustang]

Why do Jewish settlements piss off Palestinians so much? Does it bother them that Jews live on "Muslim" land?
Seriously, you don't see Israel kicking out Palestinian-Israeli citizens out of Israel.

[5412]

But the man-child need only walk among them to bring peace.

Hi,

I wish I had not deleted a Stratfor report I got this week.  Their take is that Iran is a real problem and BO is caught.  Sooner or later Israel is going to have to take action to protect themselves and, like it or not, the US is going to get involved.  They are scared (Pelosi)-less that Israel will indeed just bomb Iran because they know Israel can pull it off but they do not have the means to sustain a war and the US will get drawn in.  Of course it will be because of inaction on the part of the US to begin with.

Personally I say the sooner the better, let the games begin, it is gonna happen anyway.

regards,
5412

[rich_t]

Hi,

I wish I had not deleted a Stratfor report I got this week.  Their take is that Iran is a real problem and BO is caught.  Sooner or later Israel is going to have to take action to protect themselves and, like it or not, the US is going to get involved.  They are scared (Pelosi)-less that Israel will indeed just bomb Iran because they know Israel can pull it off but they do not have the means to sustain a war and the US will get drawn in.  Of course it will be because of inaction on the part of the US to begin with.

Personally I say the sooner the better, let the games begin, it is gonna happen anyway.

regards,
5412

I agree.

[Mustang]

Hi,

I wish I had not deleted a Stratfor report I got this week.  Their take is that Iran is a real problem and BO is caught.  Sooner or later Israel is going to have to take action to protect themselves and, like it or not, the US is going to get involved.  They are scared (Pelosi)-less that Israel will indeed just bomb Iran because they know Israel can pull it off but they do not have the means to sustain a war and the US will get drawn in.  Of course it will be because of inaction on the part of the US to begin with.

Personally I say the sooner the better, let the games begin, it is gonna happen anyway.

regards,
5412

Iran has a huge "youth-pro-western population". I think like 2/3 of the country's population is under 30.
If they are willing to go against the Islamic Republic, it could be a quick war--nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Then again...any scenario with Iran would be nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan.  It's either a quicky or a long-ass haul.
IMO, get the kids behind us, they are not our enemy.  

[Mustang]

With that being said, I still hate Islam. Guess what the media failed to report, terrorist attacks on Coptic Christians on Christmas in Egypt(January 7th, they follow the Orthodox calender.)

[Oceander]

Hi,

I wish I had not deleted a Stratfor report I got this week.  Their take is that Iran is a real problem and BO is caught.  Sooner or later Israel is going to have to take action to protect themselves and, like it or not, the US is going to get involved.  They are scared (Pelosi)-less that Israel will indeed just bomb Iran because they know Israel can pull it off but they do not have the means to sustain a war and the US will get drawn in.  Of course it will be because of inaction on the part of the US to begin with.

Personally I say the sooner the better, let the games begin, it is gonna happen anyway.

regards,
5412

That is inevitable, as you point out.  The simple, blunt fact of the matter is that as long as the anti-semitic strains of the old Iranian Revolution still control the levers of power in Tehran - and they will for quite a while, yet - Iran will constitute a so-called existential threat to Israel, and the severity of that threat will simply grow the closer and closer Iran gets to a functioning nuclear weapon (they don't even need one that can be mounted on a missile, all they need is one that can be flown on a one-way mission from Tehran to the borders of Israel and detonated).

That means that Israel simply cannot - if it wishes to continue to exist in any way, shape, or form - permit the Iranians to complete the construction of such a functioning nuclear device.  Since neither the US, the Western allies, nor Iran's two enablers, Russia and China, will restrain the development of Iran's nuclear weapons, that means that Israel has no one other than itself to look to for protection against the existential threat posed by Iran.  Since Israel cannot prevent that development through peaceful means, that means that, inevitably, Israel will have to use military force - enough bombs that can penetrate deeply enough to strike at Iran's crucial buried facilities.

Worse yet, the more time that passes before Israel strikes, the more likely it becomes that Israel will have to use its own nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities, by converting some of its weapons into so-called nuclear bunker-busters.  In fact, as I think of it, I speculate that perhaps the apparent delay in Israel's ultimate attack on Iran may, in fact, have to do with their converting, rapidly and secretly - the US must be regarded by them as a hostile enemy nation right now - some of their nuclear warheads into bunker busters.

At any rate, I daresay that we shall know, sooner or later, how Israel intends to prevent its own destruction at the hands of Iran.  Furthermore, if the Democrats do not want an Israeli-Iran war - possibly a nuclear exchange - permanently preventing their re-election in 2010 or beyond, they would be doing a lot more public ass-kissing of Israel, and a lot less of this toothless Bad Cop nonsense from Rahm.  Mr. Emanuel seems to have forgotten that the Israelis know how to survive existential threats; they surviverd the Nazis and Auschwitz, after all, and that is permanently burned into the country's institutional memory.

[5412]

That is inevitable, as you point out.  The simple, blunt fact of the matter is that as long as the anti-semitic strains of the old Iranian Revolution still control the levers of power in Tehran - and they will for quite a while, yet - Iran will constitute a so-called existential threat to Israel, and the severity of that threat will simply grow the closer and closer Iran gets to a functioning nuclear weapon (they don't even need one that can be mounted on a missile, all they need is one that can be flown on a one-way mission from Tehran to the borders of Israel and detonated).

That means that Israel simply cannot - if it wishes to continue to exist in any way, shape, or form - permit the Iranians to complete the construction of such a functioning nuclear device.  Since neither the US, the Western allies, nor Iran's two enablers, Russia and China, will restrain the development of Iran's nuclear weapons, that means that Israel has no one other than itself to look to for protection against the existential threat posed by Iran.  Since Israel cannot prevent that development through peaceful means, that means that, inevitably, Israel will have to use military force - enough bombs that can penetrate deeply enough to strike at Iran's crucial buried facilities.

Worse yet, the more time that passes before Israel strikes, the more likely it becomes that Israel will have to use its own nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities, by converting some of its weapons into so-called nuclear bunker-busters.  In fact, as I think of it, I speculate that perhaps the apparent delay in Israel's ultimate attack on Iran may, in fact, have to do with their converting, rapidly and secretly - the US must be regarded by them as a hostile enemy nation right now - some of their nuclear warheads into bunker busters.

At any rate, I daresay that we shall know, sooner or later, how Israel intends to prevent its own destruction at the hands of Iran.  Furthermore, if the Democrats do not want an Israeli-Iran war - possibly a nuclear exchange - permanently preventing their re-election in 2010 or beyond, they would be doing a lot more public ass-kissing of Israel, and a lot less of this toothless Bad Cop nonsense from Rahm.  Mr. Emanuel seems to have forgotten that the Israelis know how to survive existential threats; they surviverd the Nazis and Auschwitz, after all, and that is permanently burned into the country's institutional memory.

Hi,

Boy I wish now I had not deleted the article.  One thing it mentioned was that Israel needs some of those bunker buster type bombs to really pull it off, Iran is smart enough to have their facilities spread all over the place.

regards,
5412

[5412]

Hi,

Here is part of what the folks at Stratfor had to say.

regards,
5412


Iran's nuclear program has progressed without being slowed by international efforts. This is unacceptable to Israel, and so the Jewish state is both becoming more concerned about its national survival and playing up the threat to force more decisive action. The Israelis have said that unless the Americans can halt Iran's nuclear activities (whether through the use of "crippling sanctions" or military action), they will have no choice but to launch a military strike of their own to neutralize the program.

Despite its desire to avoid war, the United States understands that should such an attack occur, it would have to participate for two reasons. First, while Israel could undoubtedly throw the Iranian program back a few years, Israel lacks the reach to destroy it. Iran, cognizant of the threat it faces, has not only done extensive work to conceal the physical elements that make up its nuclear program, it has also distributed its various parts across the country. Israel will need U.S. military assistance in terms of bunker-buster ordnance to successfully penetrate facilities that are deep underground and spread across great distances. Second, Iran would undoubtedly retaliate in a number of theaters, and one of those theaters would be in the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most densely trafficked energy transport route - thus threatening to throw off the global economic recovery through rising oil prices.

U.S. participation would increase the likelihood of success in a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, and only the United States has the resources to both strike at the facilities and engage Iran's retaliatory capabilities in the Strait of Hormuz. But none of this means that the Americans want a war in 2010. Washington wants nothing more than to focus its efforts on the expanding war in Afghanistan and withdrawing from Iraq. It desperately wants to put Iran off for another day. But the Israelis are forcing the issue, and the Russians are amplifying the Iranian threat - as part of a plan to keep the Americans occupied in the Middle East - by encouraging Tehran to remain defiant.

STRATFOR does not have sufficient evidence to forecast that war lingers at the end of this road, but that is certainly a distinct possibility which may slide toward probability as the year wears on, and certainly as Iran comes closer to being able to build a nuclear bomb. The year 2010 will be about Israel attempting to force a conflict, the Americans attempting to avoid it, the Iranians preparing for it and the Russians manipulating all sides to make sure that a resolution to the standoff does not come too soon.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Iran has a huge "youth-pro-western population". I think like 2/3 of the country's population is under 30.
If they are willing to go against the Islamic Republic, it could be a quick war--nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Then again...any scenario with Iran would be nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan.  It's either a quicky or a long-ass haul.
IMO, get the kids behind us, they are not our enemy.  

Basic problem with that is that nationalism (Patriotism, really) will trump supporting an outside attacker no matter how pissed you might be at your own local crooks.  It's true here.  It's true there too.   

Why do Jewish settlements piss off Palestinians so much? Does it bother them that Jews live on "Muslim" land?
Seriously, you don't see Israel kicking out Palestinian-Israeli citizens out of Israel.

Well, the West Bank was pretty much entirely Palestinian until Israel occupied it in the 67 War, the Israelis actually don't have particularly clean hands on how they got to building settlements on it, between just kicking civilians out by brute force during the war, refusing to let refugees who had fled for their safety return to the their homes, and then a long period of shady use of their own legal system to dispossess remaining hereditary landowners who couldn't produce written deeds that satisfied the 'Totally unbiased' Israeli judges.  It remained 'Occupied' instead of being incorporated into Israel so the Israelis didn't have to accord citizenship to the inhabitants, except that the Jewish settlers from Israel proper living there did get to vote, effectively depriving everyone who wasn't Jewish of any self-determination, a situation which both served to both prolong and excuse the situation since it inflamed the passions of the (Highly-propagandized but also screwed-over) non-Jews into occasional violence, and that violence provided an on-going excuse to continue the indefinite occupation.

Just because we're generally on the same side doesn't mean everything they've done to date has been from the moral high ground.  Of course I realize there are a lot of people on this board whose support for Israel has purely religious reasons to which the who-shot-Johns are irrelevant, and that anything Israel does is right with them by definition.  My support for them or any other ally is limited to 'What does that do for us?'  I.e., it's bounded by just how much good it does us, and hits the wall at the point where it starts to hurt our own interests.

[TheSarge]

Basic problem with that is that nationalism (Patriotism, really) will trump supporting an outside attacker no matter how pissed you might be at your own local crooks.  It's true here.  It's true there too.   

Well, the West Bank was pretty much entirely Palestinian until Israel occupied it in the 67 War, the Israelis actually don't have particularly clean hands on how they got to building settlements on it, between just kicking civilians out by brute force during the war, refusing to let refugees who had fled for their safety return to the their homes, and then a long period of shady use of their own legal system to dispossess remaining hereditary landowners who couldn't produce written deeds that satisfied the 'Totally unbiased' Israeli judges.  It remained 'Occupied' instead of being incorporated into Israel so the Israelis didn't have to accord citizenship to the inhabitants, except that the Jewish settlers from Israel proper living there did get to vote, effectively depriving everyone who wasn't Jewish of any self-determination, a situation which both served to both prolong and excuse the situation since it inflamed the passions of the (Highly-propagandized but also screwed-over) non-Jews into occasional violence, and that violence provided an on-going excuse to continue the indefinite occupation.

Just because we're generally on the same side doesn't mean everything they've done to date has been from the moral high ground.  Of course I realize there are a lot of people on this board whose support for Israel has purely religious reasons to which the who-shot-Johns are irrelevant, and that anything Israel does is right with them by definition.  My support for them or any other ally is limited to 'What does that do for us?'  I.e., it's bounded by just how much good it does us, and hits the wall at the point where it starts to hurt our own interests.

You know this whole thing could have been settled back in '47 if the Palestinians had accepted their own piece of land that was offered to them when Israel got their homeland.

Instead they let hatred and prejudice override common sense.

The situation they are in...they have done to themselves IMHO.

[DumbAss Tanker]

You know this whole thing could have been settled back in '47 if the Palestinians had accepted their own piece of land that was offered to them when Israel got their homeland.

Instead they let hatred and prejudice override common sense.

The situation they are in...they have done to themselves IMHO.

True for both, really.  In addition to the Palestinians being stupid, there were some Israelis doing their best to actively terrorize non-Jews into leaving their own designated areas then, ultimately they massacred an entire village to drive the point home.  It apparently didn't occur to them that driving them away in 1948 might possibly create further problems down the road.  The merciless law of unintended consequences at work.

[Mustang]

Well, the West Bank was pretty much entirely Palestinian until Israel occupied it in the 67 War, the Israelis actually don't have particularly clean hands on how they got to building settlements on it, between just kicking civilians out by brute force during the war, refusing to let refugees who had fled for their safety return to the their homes, and then a long period of shady use of their own legal system to dispossess remaining hereditary landowners who couldn't produce written deeds that satisfied the 'Totally unbiased' Israeli judges.  It remained 'Occupied' instead of being incorporated into Israel so the Israelis didn't have to accord citizenship to the inhabitants, except that the Jewish settlers from Israel proper living there did get to vote, effectively depriving everyone who wasn't Jewish of any self-determination, a situation which both served to both prolong and excuse the situation since it inflamed the passions of the (Highly-propagandized but also screwed-over) non-Jews into occasional violence, and that violence provided an on-going excuse to continue the indefinite occupation.

Just because we're generally on the same side doesn't mean everything they've done to date has been from the moral high ground.  Of course I realize there are a lot of people on this board whose support for Israel has purely religious reasons to which the who-shot-Johns are irrelevant, and that anything Israel does is right with them by definition.  My support for them or any other ally is limited to 'What does that do for us?'  I.e., it's bounded by just how much good it does us, and hits the wall at the point where it starts to hurt our own interests.

True for both, really.  In addition to the Palestinians being stupid, there were some Israelis doing their best to actively terrorize non-Jews into leaving their own designated areas then, ultimately they massacred an entire village to drive the point home.  It apparently didn't occur to them that driving them away in 1948 might possibly create further problems down the road.  The merciless law of unintended consequences at work.

I am aware of some horrible things done by some Israeli settlers. But when the Israelis first came to the Levant, they were attacked first. Imagine a bunch of fresh holocaust survivors being attacked within days of landing on the holy land.

I know about the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, etc. Israel became aggressive and cold because they were constantly being attacked and threatened.

The reason I support Israel is partly religious, but it is also based on compassion. There is a huge chunk of the world belonging to Muslims, the Jews just have a small sandbox.
I used to be Pro-Palestinian when I was a teenager, until I realized that the Muslim Palestinians are more insulted that infadel Jews are on Muslim land more than because of occupation.
They even manipulate the Christian Palestinians (who they talk shit about behind their back), that their struggle is their struggle as well. Why don't the bordering Muslim countries give up little pieces of land so that the Palestinians can have a homeland? Why do they send them weapons and encourage them to wage war on Israel? It's all about "Muslim land"
It infuriates Muslims of a constant conspiracy of Jews trying to destroy the dome-rock in East Jerusalem.

The Muslims never make peace, they only decide on cease fires for a few years so they can rearm and repopulate to strike Israel again. And they always do strike again.
Btw, on Jan. 7th (Orthodox Christmas) , Coptic Christians were killed in Egypt by influences of Muslim brotherhood. The same people who run Hammas. They did nothing to provoke them, absolutely nothing. Their crime was being peaceful Christians.

[5412]

I am aware of some horrible things done by some Israeli settlers. But when the Israelis first came to the Levant, they were attacked first. Imagine a bunch of fresh holocaust survivors being attacked within days of landing on the holy land.

I know about the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, etc. Israel became aggressive and cold because they were constantly being attacked and threatened.

The reason I support Israel is partly religious, but it is also based on compassion. There is a huge chunk of the world belonging to Muslims, the Jews just have a small sandbox.
I used to be Pro-Palestinian when I was a teenager, until I realized that the Muslim Palestinians are more insulted that infadel Jews are on Muslim land more than because of occupation.
They even manipulate the Christian Palestinians (who they talk shit about behind their back), that their struggle is their struggle as well. Why don't the bordering Muslim countries give up little pieces of land so that the Palestinians can have a homeland? Why do they send them weapons and encourage them to wage war on Israel? It's all about "Muslim land"
It infuriates Muslims of a constant conspiracy of Jews trying to destroy the dome-rock in East Jerusalem.

The Muslims never make peace, they only decide on cease fires for a few years so they can rearm and repopulate to strike Israel again. And they always do strike again.
Btw, on Jan. 7th (Orthodox Christmas) , Coptic Christians were killed in Egypt by influences of Muslim brotherhood. The same people who run Hammas. They did nothing to provoke them, absolutely nothing. Their crime was being peaceful Christians.

Hi,

You might find this interesting.  My wife and I visited Costa Rica recently and have Panama also on the radar; particularly if we are unable to get health care.  I wrote a friend of mine who immigrated to the US and asked him what it is like to move to a new country.  I knew they moved to the US to use his words, "to find freedom".  He sent me an very interesting story, which to me outlines the very issue and point you are making.  Until there are no more non-believers living the muslims will do whatever it takes.  I agree with you about the Palestenians and Hammas, they have no intention of signing and keeping any peace agreements.  They are only done so until they are ready to attack again.

regards,
5412

Here is what my friend had to say:

In terms of my family's situation, the choice was really more of a dire necessity than a casual choice. My family is Assyrian, and in the early 1900's, my grandfather's tribe, for lack of a better description, was literally decimated at the hands of Turks, Kurds, soon to be Iraqis. Women and children were enslaved or forced into marriage and conversion to Islam. With the loss of our biggest allies the White Russians facing a Communist Revolution and the Brits having a convoluted geopolitical agenda, the Assyrians started to flee the highlands of Turkey and Iraq for places like Syria, Lebanon, Europe and the the U.S.

Even modern day Detroit would have looked like paradise given the circumstances. We ended up leaving Lebanon in the early 70s because a civil war was starting, my parents and grandparents had known life under the threat of sword [and had often meted out the sword themselves], and because they wanted to increase the chances that their offspring would survive. We really had no choice. My mother's father decided to stay in the Middle East. A few years later, in his seventies, he struggled with a 20 year old Islamist who broke into his house to kill him for being a 'nonbeliever', and a week later he died of peritonitis from multiple stab wounds to the abdomen. His attacker was viewed locally as a hero.