I agree, and it’s also worth keeping in mind that the Arabs in positions of leadership on the West Bank and Gaza are probably exaggerating their populations for political reasons.
But a more interesting question is what happens next. There’s no reason to think that Arab fertility on the West Bank (or in Israel proper) will stop declining once it intersects Jewish fertility. And no reason to think Jewish fertility will stop increasing. Actually, it seems pretty likely that Jewish fertility will continue to climb as a greater and greater percentage of Jews living on the West Bank are hard core religious types. Even now, the TFR of West Bank Jews is over 5.
“If current trends continue” is always a big “if,” but it seems pretty clear to me that we are on track for a solid Jewish majority on the West Bank.
And once that happens, the West Bank can be annexed and the Arabs there offered Israeli citizenship.
That Obama sure is a dumbass…and a pussy, if I’m being honest. His inability to bring peace to the Middle East is laughable, as is his failure to completely repair the largest economy in the history of mankind in less than one term.
If he can’t solve small problems like these, what chance does he have if tough problems arise?
That made me giggle. “How dare Obama not bow down and lick the shoes of Netanyahu? How dare he actually talk to other countries in the region? What an insult!”. If that guy had anything of substance he wouldn’t need the heavy loading of emotionally charged language (starting with “insults”) to make his case. What a wanker.
You can laugh all you like, but apparently the protocol is for the president to invite foreign heads of state to eat with him and his family in such a situation. Assuming this is true, then it was in fact an insult.
Apparently it was also an insult to the British that Obama returned the Churchill bust which had been sitting in the Oval Office. Assuming that it was, no reasonable person would react by saying “How dare Obama not bow down and lick English shoes?”
Assuming that it was true, yes. Unless, of course, it wasn’t.
Long way to go for dinner. So where did that story come from?
You know the bust was just on loan, right?
Obama and company were not particularly friendly to Gordon Brown and he did refer to Cameron as a “lightweight”, both of which were spectacularly tactless (although he has openly retracted the latter), but the bust thing is a bust.
I’m always amazed at the ability of people to rationalize any behaviour of a POTUS no matter how steep the turn they took. And, especially in the case of Obama who made so many turns his head is still spinning.
Your attempt at the joke is really piss poor because it just simply isn’t funny considering what exactly happened with his speech. Funny joke about Obama’s speech is that Netanyahu had to makes changes to HIS speech or risk appearing less Jewish than Obama.
The fundamental issue I have is that people still think that US is in this to adjudicate and resolve the conflict. No. US is in it to support Israel’s case to the most extreme condition. But, yeah, US gets “frustrated” with “unruly child”:
[QUOTE=G&M Article]
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ruled out any new freeze in settlement construction, a key Palestinian demand, raising tensions and further challenging the U.S. and its Quartet partners.
[/QUOTE]
Up your head deeper in your ass – that, at least, has a potential of being funny.
Agreed. My only objection is the equation of “Obama insulting Netanyahu by not inviting Netanyahu to dinner” with “Obama not licking Netanyahu’s shoes”
I do. And from what I understand, the Brits offered to extend the loan for an additional 4 years. I don’t know enough about diplomatic protocol to say for sure that it’s an insult, but it sure seems like an insult to me.
And if somebody argued that it was an insult, it would not be equivalent to claiming that Obama was not licking English shoes.
The trajectory of the arab spring (including its relationship with Israel) is going to be affected by things that happen today. The US can be honest brokers or it can be the hell or high water ally of Israel.
We can support Israel without supporting everything they do, can’t we? Or does supporting Israel mean we must turn a blind eye to the bullshit they pull?
The UN vote on Palestinian statehood is not “bullshit pulled” by Israel. Nor should it be voted against, in my opinion, as a gesture of support for Israel.
If you have read any of my posts, you would know why I’m against it - because the UN should not be “recognized” as a state, when its present government has neither of the bedrock aspects of state-hood - namely, unity and control of its territory. Split between Hamas (elected, against recognition, rules Gaza) and the PLO (unelected, for recognition, rules the WB), “Palestine” simply isn’t a state, and would not be even if Israel loved the idea.
The “trajectory of the Arab spring (including its relationship with Israel)” can no more instantly make Palestine a state when it is not, than it can make poor people not-poor when they are. If the threat is that the populations of Arab nations will explode in righteous anger if the vote does not go as they wish - well, even really angry people cannot, by fiat, declare that 2 + 2 = 5.
I keep re-reading my post and I’m not sure which bit is assumed to have been a joke. None of it was intended as such, although I found the linked article ludicrous enough to laugh at.
Actually - and I was not clear about this - the “not licking Netanyahu’s shoes” bit was a reaction to the whole article, not just the first item. Take this, for example:
Oh no! Robert Gibb’s condescended to say that both sides should come to the table with constructive and trustful dialogue!
Or this statement from Hillary Clinton, characterized as a “lecture”:
I won’t recap the rest of the article but the gist of it is that any criticism of Israel (and particularly of the building of settlements) was an insult to Israel rather than an acknowledgement that continuing to build would be seen as a provocative act and thus counterproductive to peace talks, and that the US had a valid interest in establishing a dialogue with Israel’s enemies as well as maintaining one with Israel. I thought the hyperbole in one direction deserved some hyperbole in the other.
Yeah, okay. It’s a snub, or at least a protocol gaffe. Admittedly at that point Gordon Brown was in office and frankly I didn’t care if he got snubbed.
The relationship with the UK is not the same as the relationship with Israel. There is not a strong pro-UK lobby. The UK is unlikely to be invaded if the US criticizes it and does not have the same ability to assume US support even when pissing off the US. So the hyperbole doesn’t hold.
If he attacked only Israel – and that’s what the article implies – that’s a problem. And it’s unreasonable to characterize this conduct as “failing to lick Netanyahu’s shoes.”
Again, if the pressure is one-sided, it’s a problem. Besides, Hillary Clinton knows perfectly well that Israel is providing water and electricity to Gaza and allowing humanitarian aid through.
Is Hillary Clinton pressuring the Arabs to make unilateral concessions in the interest of getting the Israelis to move towards peace?
I agree. The UK is arguably a closer ally than Israel. So if Obama snubs the UK, it would be more legitimate to accuse him of “failing to lick English shoes” than it would be with Israel. But it would still be illegitimate.
Enthusiats who see Obama insulting Israel in everything he does are approximately as correct as enthusiasts who see Obama grovelling to Israel in everything he does.
