I don’t think Obama said anything about the Golan Heights. In any case, the Israelis are better off just waiting to see what Syrian government emerges from the current unrest – who knows what that government’s policy on the Golan will be?
Lately I’ve been hearing this analogy being repeated. Just as it is unlikely for Mexico to demand Texas and CA, Palestine should not make any demand for territories. Can you elaborate how this is similar?
I can’t answer what Israel wants with the Palestinians, but I think I have a handle on what Bibi wants - and that is, a continuation of the status quo for as long as possible.
This status quo assumes an eventual two-state solution, at some indefinite point in the future - but that is not something Bibi will concern himself with. Rather, he intends to simply push the boundary of the Israeli state as far into the WB as he can - by, very slowly and gradually, increasing the size of the Israeli settlements. A sort of creeping annexation.
For him, the Palestinians are playing into his hands beautifully - he could not ask for better: a divided Palestinian polity was good, but a united one - a deal between Hamas and the PA - is even better. That makes a peace deal effectively impossible (it is difficult to make a lasting peace with a party apparently pledged to your eventual extermination by hook or by crook), and it is a deal, which would result in firm boundaries and no more creeping annexation, which he does not want.
Hence the strident reaction by Bibi to Obama’s latest, which is really nothing more than a re-iteration of the deal everyone believes to be the most obvious outcome ('67 borders the basis, with swaps; no “right of return”).
For Bibi, it is all about time. He sees time as being on his side. The longer the PA doesn’t have a reasonable act together, the more he can grab.
I do not think he’s thinking in terms of siezing the whole, or even a truly substantial part, of the WB; just in terms of getting the most he reasonably can. Then, he’ll build up a big wall of security (plus a literal big wall) on the border, and the Palestinians can do what they like on the other side of it - as long as they don’t attempt to cross.
His attitude is, I should reiterate, the result of literally decades of failed peace initiatives, which have destroyed the careers, disillusioned and disheartened those Israelis committed to a more substantive and equitable peace process. The result is that the “realistic” take by many in Israel is that pursuing a bilateral or multi-lateral peace initiative is a pointless waste of time. So they will pursue a self-interested, unilateral process, which sees them getting as much as possible out of the deal. They do not fear that the result will be unending conflict, since they figure they are in for unending conflict no matter what they do.
So to answer - the right-wing Israelis that Bibi represents wants nothing of the Palestinians, other than that they continue to do what they are doing now. Eventually, they want to wall them off and ignore them (except when they pose a security risk) in their somewhat-diminished WB country.
The striking difference between the two situations is that the American Southwest was underpopulated enough in 1848 that the American settlers were able to make it their own, eventually. The Israelis on the WB will never achieve that.
Of course to me there are lots of striking differences. But lately a lot have made this analogy again and again, as if Mexico and Palestine are the same. And I want to understand the views of those who keep invoking this analogy. Why and how are they similar?
Okay, I need someone to explain something to me.
I’ve heard claims, here and elsewhere, that current PM Netanyahu belongs to a more extreme and radical fraction in Israel political spectrum that most people in Israel don’t think he represents them (both in terms of votes and in general political sense). Yet, it appears that when he’s in US he gets almost complete and unfettered attention; i.e. anything he says is met with an agreement and rarely you will see (at least in North America) any political figure (with strong ethnic ties to Israel or those who are vying for campaign funds) publicly arguing against any particular stance Netanyahu has.
Ok, other than David Remnick in New Yorker - A Man, a Plan | The New Yorker - with an interesting look at his father and origins of his politics (actually quite riveting read).
So, what gives? Is he really infallible in his thinking?
Meh?
The reason people make the analogy is (1) it affects the US, where most posters happen to live; and (2) it is an example of forceful annexation.
To my mind, the better analogy is to the move westward of the German border after WW2 - though that was a far more brutal process than anything that has happened in the Israel-Palestine saga (and involved far more people and land, as well).
The Germans lost a war of aggression they waged, lost territory as a result, and saw some of their population displaced - all happening at about the same time as the foundation of Israel (rather than more than a century earlier) - it’s a better analogy on all fronts, but one less familiar to Americans.
Invalid premise. Not everything Bibi says is met with agreement. Of course he gets attention - he’s the PM of a country.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that the Palestinians shouldn’t expect any territory - just that they need to be realistic.
They have already been offered as good a deal as they can reasonably expect. They turned it down. It is unlikely that they will get a better offer in the future, just as it is unlikely that Mexico can expect to regain Texas.
Regards,
Shodan
please google photo of : “bibi netanyahu and obama in their early 20’s”. The USA is probably the only country in history not to take land from defeated enemies. I hope the administration and it’s party “sheep” don’t get any idea to give America back to england. I’d like to give Maine to canada, well ok, we’d have to throw in some incentives.
Newcomer, the strengthening variety of American Judaism has at the center of its faith unqualified support for Israel. Regardless of what action or policy it adopts.
I think the influence of the AIPAC lobby is overstated, kind of how the right likes to throw ‘unions’ at us. The U.S. acts in what it perceives to be the U.S.'s interests.
You can fling blame at Bibi, you can fling blame at Obama, but I don’t see how this was really the proper setup for a peace process, anyway. It didn’t happen last year. Too little, too late.
What on earth is “the strengthening variety of American Judaism”?
The audiences in the U.S. are not exactly the same, politically speaking, as the audiences in Isreal.
In not as related news, I can also see Israel getting more sympathy in light of the development that they bombed Iranian nuclear reactors. (There are a dozen articles on that this morning.) Reagan wasn’t exactly Israel’s bff in '81, so I’m thinking this gets a more favorable response than that raid.
toodely doo.
dominant
Then you are quite wrong. There is no religious requirement on any variety of Jews to support Israel. There is a religious-based opposition to Israel, among the most orthodox minority.
Damn it, I meant to say SYRIAN.
Heh, way to give me a heart attack. 
If you feel that way then you’re really not paying attention and don’t know much about Jews.
If you’re referring to “religious Judaism” when you refer to “American Judaism” then if you actually knew something about them then you’d know that the largest Hasidic denomination in the world, the Satmars, are strongly opposed not only to Israeli policies but to Israel’s existence.
Similarly, you’d be aware of large numbers of Reform congregations have protested against Israeli policies as have Reconstructionist congregations.
If you merely meant people who identified themselves as Jews then you’d be aware that massive numbers of American Jews have protested against Israeli policies.
You seem to have extremely odd beliefs regarding how Jews should be seen in comparison to others. On an earlier thread you enthusiastically argued that adult Jewish civilians(though not children) living on the West Bank were legitimate targets and supported their killing.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13588330#post13588330
When asked if you also supported the targeting and killing of Han Chinese in Tibet who are living on occupied territory and the targeting and killing of American Whites living in the US or Canada you refused to give an answer.
Perhaps you will give an answer, which I assume would be that you think that it should be open season on Han Chinese in Tibet and Whites in Toronto and LA.
Now, my guess for your animosity towards Jews is that you don’t know very many or much about them, or else you wouldn’t have made such a demonstrably false statement about the “variety of American Judaism.”
I recommend reading some books on them or just getting to know a few.