A journalist comments on Israel and Netanyahu's position:
and alsoFor the leaders coming to Washington, waiting out President Obama is not an option.
The stakes are high for Mr Netanyahu. His political coalition hinges on not saying the words "two-state solution", yet Israel's long-term relationship with the Obama Administration depends on him saying them.I suspect that this shows why American intervention in the Middle East is never going to work. To a western journalist, 3 years seems like a long time. A "long term relationship" similarly appears to mean 3 years, since Obama is already clearly going to be a one-term disaster a la Carter. To a Jew, an Arab, a Turk, or a Persian, 3 years is a fleeting glance between ships that pass in the night; a century is an acquaintance; a millennium is a long term relationship.
One of the fundamental internal American contradictions is that we are a comparatively old state (the second-oldest continuous sovereignty), and yet such a young nation. We find it hard to grasp the historical view of geopolitics. Israel is a much younger state, but a far, far older nation, and one that suffers fewer idealistic illusions about the nature of enmity.
Comment by Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake — May 18, 2009 @ 12:59 am
Having someone try to exterminate all your parents, grandparents, etc., and do a pretty good job of it, also tends to suppress your idealistic illusions. Having nowhere to retreat to but the sea probably does something in that regard as well.
I'm more than a little surprised that Israel hasn't done something to Iran yet. Now that each passing week indicates the U.S. is even less likely to do anything, I wonder what they are waiting for?
Only the U.S. could (probably) take out the Iranian nuclear program with conventional bombing. Does Obama's policy indicate that he would prefer that Israel use nukes, rather than that we use conventional weapons?
Comment by Professor X — June 5, 2009 @ 5:46 am