I don’t think I know what you mean, it’s not the way I think. Trying to allocate all the fault to one party in a dispute is a waste of time to me, I don’t see the value. The real problem in the Middle East is that’s all anybody wants to talk about.
In terms of legality, it’s obvious Hamas shouldn’t have taken them and shouldn’t be holding them, that’s a war crime. In terms of power to do something about it, that’s all on Netanyahu who’s clearly decided to let them die, as a military-political decision.
Sure. But it’s an odd thing to say if you don’t know what is true. Netanyahu destroyed all of Gaza and when he saw people cared about the hostages he claimed this was one of the reasons but there is substantial evidence he blocked all chance of many of them returning alive.
If you cared about the hostages, you might care about that? I do, so this is why these things are so appalling to me. I think it matters who does what in such a situation.
Huh? I think I do know what is true. Your sentence beginning with “Netanyahu” is more or less true, or in agreement with everything I’ve been saying about it for almost a year. Who told you I don’t care about it? Why do you think I can’t shut up about it?
I just don’t think I deserve a medal for being appalled. I don’t keep my emotions secret, but they are not an important part of the story.
The US hasn't achieved anything positive in the Middle East since Camp David 50 years ago. They should give up the idea that they have a role to play in the region any more than they can fix things in Sudan or Myanmar. Stop selling arms, stop holding meetings, cut off any contact with the criminal leaders (Khamenie, Netanyahu and MBS as well as whoever emerges in charge of Hezbollah and Hamas)
I suppose that’s the moral of the story. Just reading about the responsibility of poorly conducted US diplomacy in 2019 for the 2021 coup in Sudan https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/20/sudan-civil-war-biden-burhan-hemeti-foreign-policy/ —a story I didn’t know at all. US did cut off military aid after the coup, which clearly didn’t make things worse than they were at that point. But was there a point when they could have made things better?
I'm not seeing how formulating and pushing such an approach would survive the meat grinder of domestic US politics. Maybe in twenty years, with a new US generation uninterested in the assumptions of their grandparents about the ME, or several extreme turns of the domestic political wheel shuffling the deck, or a live conflict with China overshadowing ME involvements.
It's important to explore improbable and even fantastical scenarios on order to free our imagination. But the improbability should be noted.
There might be a useful distinction between the improbable and fantastical. I'd include a one-state solution, a two-state solution negotiated by the parties, the consequences-free removal or subjugation of all Palestinians, Biden's economic development fantasy, among the fantastical. Among the merely improbable I'd include your suggestion. I'd also include there a scenario with the imposition of a Palestinian state by the US (and partners) in the entire WB and Gaza, entirely emptied of Israeli control and settlers, with substantial limits on political rights (no Hamas, in a word), and no realistic military threats to Israel. And floated on a torrent of economic development cash. (Reminiscent of post-WW2 occupations.) As suggested elsewhere.
I don’t see a short-term political path either. But Trump appeals to a general disillusionment with foreign entanglements, and Harris might break decisively with Netanyahu if the war drags on into 2025.
As you imply, it’s only today’s grandparents (including Biden) who can remember Israel as a beacon of democracy, bravely defending itself against overwhelming odds. Once they have left the political stage, things might change.
I'm not aware of having made a suggestion in recent posts, not sure what you're referring to. My aim here is to sketch out what Biden tried to do, without denying it's a failure, and I haven't finished the coolest part of the story (spoiler, the plan had commonalities with the scenario you sketch, which is in fact a variant of two-state).
Sorry, I thought I was replying to Quiggin, I messed up. Your comment and the link about Sudan were interesting and appreciated.
My scenario is, yes, a two-state variant. But the difference between a two-state 'negotiated by the parties' scenario and an 'imposed by the US (and partners)' scenario is so great that I think my suggestion is in effect a separate category. Not least because improbable as it is in even a 20 year time frame, it at least is not fantastical.
I mentioned a 'consequence-free removal or subjugation of all Palestinians in the WB and Gaza' as a fantastical scenario. But the same, with an acceptance of likely very significant consequences, for example global terrorism against Jewish populations for 1 or two generations, is perhaps a merely improbable scenario. And maybe the most probable of the merely improbable?
In the immortal words of Barak Obama, what happens next? Is there no blowback, fallout, comsequenses from walking away from Israel? What's the price tag for washing our hands of the whole thing?
None, as far as I can see. Israel can defend itself, though maybe not the West Bank and Gaza. The US doesn't need Saudi oil, and shouldn't care what happens to MBS. Iran would presumably be a bit less hostile if the US declared a lack of any interest in what happens there, beyond general good wishes to the people of the region.
What price has the US paid for ignoring Sudan and Myanmar? If they want to do good, send money to poor people, not guns to murderers
So the concept of "balancing" regional powers like KSA, Iran, Israel, etc. is irrelevant or a sham, and any domestic opposition would have no bearing on say, the current election. Israel would just keep doing what it's doing at the level it's at (or maybe smaller, with less weapons) and they'rd be no other negative reaction in the Middle East. Big win?
Mushroom clouds over the Mideast? One of the least discussed factors I’ve seen is Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons. As long as the US supports Israel, it has no reason to use them and probably a strong incentive not to, since the US wouldn’t react positively. But if the US “washes its hands of the whole thing,” now the use of those weapons is on the table.
It’s interesting you seem to think the fault of no further hostage exchange is shared by both sides. Maybe look into that a bit more?
I don’t think I know what you mean, it’s not the way I think. Trying to allocate all the fault to one party in a dispute is a waste of time to me, I don’t see the value. The real problem in the Middle East is that’s all anybody wants to talk about.
In terms of legality, it’s obvious Hamas shouldn’t have taken them and shouldn’t be holding them, that’s a war crime. In terms of power to do something about it, that’s all on Netanyahu who’s clearly decided to let them die, as a military-political decision.
Sure. But it’s an odd thing to say if you don’t know what is true. Netanyahu destroyed all of Gaza and when he saw people cared about the hostages he claimed this was one of the reasons but there is substantial evidence he blocked all chance of many of them returning alive.
If you cared about the hostages, you might care about that? I do, so this is why these things are so appalling to me. I think it matters who does what in such a situation.
Huh? I think I do know what is true. Your sentence beginning with “Netanyahu” is more or less true, or in agreement with everything I’ve been saying about it for almost a year. Who told you I don’t care about it? Why do you think I can’t shut up about it?
I just don’t think I deserve a medal for being appalled. I don’t keep my emotions secret, but they are not an important part of the story.
The US hasn't achieved anything positive in the Middle East since Camp David 50 years ago. They should give up the idea that they have a role to play in the region any more than they can fix things in Sudan or Myanmar. Stop selling arms, stop holding meetings, cut off any contact with the criminal leaders (Khamenie, Netanyahu and MBS as well as whoever emerges in charge of Hezbollah and Hamas)
I suppose that’s the moral of the story. Just reading about the responsibility of poorly conducted US diplomacy in 2019 for the 2021 coup in Sudan https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/20/sudan-civil-war-biden-burhan-hemeti-foreign-policy/ —a story I didn’t know at all. US did cut off military aid after the coup, which clearly didn’t make things worse than they were at that point. But was there a point when they could have made things better?
I'm not seeing how formulating and pushing such an approach would survive the meat grinder of domestic US politics. Maybe in twenty years, with a new US generation uninterested in the assumptions of their grandparents about the ME, or several extreme turns of the domestic political wheel shuffling the deck, or a live conflict with China overshadowing ME involvements.
It's important to explore improbable and even fantastical scenarios on order to free our imagination. But the improbability should be noted.
There might be a useful distinction between the improbable and fantastical. I'd include a one-state solution, a two-state solution negotiated by the parties, the consequences-free removal or subjugation of all Palestinians, Biden's economic development fantasy, among the fantastical. Among the merely improbable I'd include your suggestion. I'd also include there a scenario with the imposition of a Palestinian state by the US (and partners) in the entire WB and Gaza, entirely emptied of Israeli control and settlers, with substantial limits on political rights (no Hamas, in a word), and no realistic military threats to Israel. And floated on a torrent of economic development cash. (Reminiscent of post-WW2 occupations.) As suggested elsewhere.
I don’t see a short-term political path either. But Trump appeals to a general disillusionment with foreign entanglements, and Harris might break decisively with Netanyahu if the war drags on into 2025.
As you imply, it’s only today’s grandparents (including Biden) who can remember Israel as a beacon of democracy, bravely defending itself against overwhelming odds. Once they have left the political stage, things might change.
I'm not aware of having made a suggestion in recent posts, not sure what you're referring to. My aim here is to sketch out what Biden tried to do, without denying it's a failure, and I haven't finished the coolest part of the story (spoiler, the plan had commonalities with the scenario you sketch, which is in fact a variant of two-state).
Sorry, I thought I was replying to Quiggin, I messed up. Your comment and the link about Sudan were interesting and appreciated.
My scenario is, yes, a two-state variant. But the difference between a two-state 'negotiated by the parties' scenario and an 'imposed by the US (and partners)' scenario is so great that I think my suggestion is in effect a separate category. Not least because improbable as it is in even a 20 year time frame, it at least is not fantastical.
I mentioned a 'consequence-free removal or subjugation of all Palestinians in the WB and Gaza' as a fantastical scenario. But the same, with an acceptance of likely very significant consequences, for example global terrorism against Jewish populations for 1 or two generations, is perhaps a merely improbable scenario. And maybe the most probable of the merely improbable?
I've posted my last installment, FWIW https://yastreblyansky.substack.com/p/netanyahus-other-war-iii
Yes.
In the immortal words of Barak Obama, what happens next? Is there no blowback, fallout, comsequenses from walking away from Israel? What's the price tag for washing our hands of the whole thing?
None, as far as I can see. Israel can defend itself, though maybe not the West Bank and Gaza. The US doesn't need Saudi oil, and shouldn't care what happens to MBS. Iran would presumably be a bit less hostile if the US declared a lack of any interest in what happens there, beyond general good wishes to the people of the region.
What price has the US paid for ignoring Sudan and Myanmar? If they want to do good, send money to poor people, not guns to murderers
So the concept of "balancing" regional powers like KSA, Iran, Israel, etc. is irrelevant or a sham, and any domestic opposition would have no bearing on say, the current election. Israel would just keep doing what it's doing at the level it's at (or maybe smaller, with less weapons) and they'rd be no other negative reaction in the Middle East. Big win?
Mushroom clouds over the Mideast? One of the least discussed factors I’ve seen is Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons. As long as the US supports Israel, it has no reason to use them and probably a strong incentive not to, since the US wouldn’t react positively. But if the US “washes its hands of the whole thing,” now the use of those weapons is on the table.
Idea that the US is restraining Israel looked plausible a year ago. Today, not so much
So stuff like this is meaningless theatre?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-10/us-sway-over-netanyahu-tested-as-israel-vows-deadly-iran-hit