Given how pissed off the Lebanese are over Shebaa Farms, I don’t want to guess how they’re going to take the annexation of Beirut by either the Israelis or Palestinians.
Because Jordan was never part of Canaan/Palestine/Israel/Judea historically.
Well, that’s just the sticking-point, isn’t it? Apparently, a lot of Israeli Jewish voters, and shame and disgrace and guilt and all the torments of Gehenna be on every last single one of them, do not feel that way.
Have you looked at maps before posting?
Shamefully.
Then you know how wrong your statement that “Jordan was never part of Canaan” is.
It was part of Herod’s kingdom, perhaps (it was certainly never a part of Solomon’s kingdom, which never existed), but it never mattered. Now, it does.
Compare it to modern map.
Or, if you prefer, Saul and David’s kingdom: Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) - Wikipedia
Well, that’s all bullshit, isn’t it? I’m going by The Bible Unearthed, the which is far more credible than any Scripture of Man or God.
The Bible Unearthed doesn’t disagree about the size of Canaan. It just disagrees about what parts of Canaan the ancient Israelites controlled. But Canaan consisted of all of Israel proper except for the southern Negev, the West Bank, most of Jordan, a chunk of Syria, and all of Lebanon. You’ve heard of the Canaanites of Lebanon, right? They went on to found colonies around the Mediterranean, the most famous of which was Carthage, which would give Rome all that trouble later? Hannibal and all that?
You also ignore that according to the Arabs that Jordan was part of “Palestine”.
You do realize that until the British partitioned it and created “Transjordan” it was part of Palestine during the entire thousand plus years it was ruled by Muslims.
It is one of many sticking points.
How to square being a representational democracy with equal rights for all with being a homeland for one particular group? Can it be squared without compromising on one or the other uncompromisable point?
The conflict between the ultra-religious minority (growing in population though) and the mostly secular majority.
And other cans that keep getting kicked down the road.
For now however Bibi’s victory (assuming he can form a coalition) has given the PA the best possible result they could hope for. An Israel that acts like it needs no friends, that is doing its best to be alone in the world, and who has declared that they are no serious partner in any potential peace process toward a two state solution. How hard will the U.S. continue to block the PA’s efforts to declare themselves a state unilaterally and get international recognition as such a circumstance? Should it?
So, according to the NY Times, Netanyahu is now claiming to once again support the two-state solution. Could that be a record for a flip-flop on a major issue? His position evolved pretty quickly there.
Can someone closer to the situation there put this into context?
Bullshit. It never existed.
PM Netanyahu is not yet the leader of the new Israeli government. Under the Parliamentary system, when no single party reaches the required number of seats to gain control of the government (and chose the new PM), the party with the highest number of seats (in this case, the Likud party) has the first opportunity to create a ruling coalition with one, or more, of the other parties. Coalition means compromise. If a minority party agrees to join with Likud but requires that a two-state solution be put back on the table, Likud is free to make the deal or lose the PM position.
If Likud can’t form a coalition, then the party with the next highest number of seats gets it’s chance to form a ruling coalition, and so on down the line.
From BG’s link:
I state this as a believer in the need for a Jewish homeland, a Jewish American who has no qualms about calling himself a Zionist: In what way has Israel under Bibi’s watch been a great ally of the United States?
And I just have to say that the discussion about Palestine pre-Israel and defining it as Canaan is about as dumb as it comes. There was no Palestinian identity before Israel existed and there was no Israeli identity before then. There are both identities now, there are now generations who consider themselves one or the other and in a few cases both. Simple facts on the ground that anything other than maintaining a crappy status quo needs to accept and deal with. Jordan will not be part of any future Palestinian state so its being part of what was historically labelled “Palestine” or Canaan is immaterial.
In what way has it ever been?
The argument is made well here.
Going back to early cold war days Israel acted as an effective United States proxy against Soviet control of the Mid-East.
Israel has historically voted in lockstep with American interests in global venues.
Israel has historically respected American wishes during many critical times, from being at the ready to mobilize or to belay becoming directly involved based on U.S. needs during the 1970 attempted take-over of Jordan by the PLO and concurrent invasion of Jordan by Syria in support of the PLO, to restraint as requested by the US when bombed by Iraq.
Israeli bases fuel American ships and planes in a consistently predictable arrangement.
The predictability of wanting to be allied with the United States has been the greatest value Israel has brought to the relationship. No other regional actor is stable enough to be relied on, and those that have some stability have required the United States to support regimes that are anathema to other U.S. values.
And of course intelligence sharing and as a trading partner (huge actually).
In truth on the scale of history Israel has done pretty well as far as allies go, especially given the actors to chose between in that region (and you’d be foolish to think that abandoning Israel would make others in the region more reliable partners).
But Bibi acts like the United States needs the relationship more than Israel does. This is a mistake: Israel needs the United States more and persistent and fairly consistent disrespect of American requests is poor policy. Ally still, yes, but a great one, let alone none greater? Only if America in fact has no allies that are all that great … which might actually be the case.
It would not, but it might make them easier for the U.S. to deal with.