1941

Both sides? No. The Israeli right that is currently in power is set on course for annexing as much land as possible while actively campaigning for an honest-to-go apartheid state in Israel where Israeli arabs would be deprived of their citizenship and given citizenship in some Palestinian bantustan.

1942

This might be a valid analogy if the US kept California under a brutal military occupation for 50 years, withdrew the army from New Mexico but kept it under siege because they didn’t like who New Mexico voted for, and for good measure subsidized fundamentalist Christians to seize the best land in California for fortified colonies.

1943

Ill try one more and this is more likely, what if say the mexican drug cartels started killing US law enforcement and citizens and the government of Mexico did nothing to deal with them or stop it. How would you recommend something like that is dealt with?

1944

Brett, it’s not a particularly relevant hypothetical because we’re not occupying the area.

It depends what you mean by agree. That will get democratic public approval, no, it doesn’t look like it; the Palestinian public is a very immature democratic system, and the Israeli public appears to be dead-set against any deal whatsoever.

I can picture a sort-of-undemocratic Palestinian government deciding the blatantly obvious land-swap solution is the way to go, but on the Israeli side it’d require, well, the current trend continuing for twenty years to the point they revoke Arab citizenship, stop holding elections, etc. At that point I can actually picture an oligarchy tired of the whole thing throwing in the towel if things get bad enough.

1945

Hamas isn’t Palestine. Extremists like Hamas gain power in the first place because of the brutality of the occupation.

1946

Yglesias weighs in. It’s worth reading.

1947

Just to throw a wild hypothetical out there, the way we’re currently dealing with murderous Mexican drug cartels that are out of control.

Hint: it does not involve invading Mexico, occupying Nuevo Laredo, and sending Mormons to build settlements in Baja.

1948

I think a bunch of fat guys with two-way radios and tactical knives should go make citizens’ arrests.

1949

And if the Mexican government was to support them, protect them and call them heros like Hamas does with the suicide bombers and others?

1950

And what if the drug dealers started wearing jetpacks and shooting heroin bullets at American schoolchildren in Duluth, Minnesota? You guys just haven’t thought this through.

1951

So you think there is no chance the drug cartels could bribe people in the Mexican government to protect them? It already happens at the city level and somewhat in higher lvls of government there.

1952

Surely you can get a book deal for that.

Brett, you’re probably not going to get anyone to engage with your analogy because it’s a shitty analogy designed to assumes your conclusions, not provide an accurate portrayal. There’s plenty of plausible historical analogies to choose from. Like, say, British and French-backed Native American troops engaging in plausible-deniable border raids on US territory.

1953

I’ve only been in Israel 3 times, none for more than a month, so I’m sure quite a few here have better experience than I do, but my sense was that the people inside of the country have a real sense of “us against the world” that will be difficult to change with words from the U.S. or U.N. or anywhere else. The people I spent time with (a mix of families and business people) had all experienced some form of attacks. The range of emotions+positions seemed to range from “I just wish we had the ability to destroy the people on our borders and in other nations that want us wiped off the map” to sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians but a feeling that their (the Palestinians) leaders were leading them astray. It was an odd feeling for an American, even one who is pretty well traveled, to see the military presence everywhere, to be briefed on where the gas masks were in the homes and meeting rooms and how to use them in case of a gas attack, where to go for shelter if rockets were coming in, etc. That feeling of “there are people out there who are close and just waiting for the opportunity to kill us all if they get the chance” was pretty pervasive.

I already know the reaction of many to that: they brought it on themselves, what about the Palestinians, etc. I’m not arguing who is right or wrong, and I was not allowed to spend any time with any Palestinians. Just saying that it was hard for me to imagine any kind of practical plan that could be proposed by the U.S. (or U.N. or anyone else) that the average Israeli would be comfortable with. I’m sure the average Palestinian has similar feelings, though coming from a different angle.

I.e. it is hard to imagine a peaceful resolution of the situation over there.

1954

From what I’ve read a lot of it is based on the long-term demographic changes. The oldstyle socialists are all dying off, replaced by incredibly nationalist Russian immigrants.

Well, I think you’d have a hard time finding someone on this board who thinks that; maybe at a Seattle protest rally. It’s an entirely understandably tragedy feeding on itself.

1955

The brief clip on the news tonight suggested that Obama made a great speech to an unamed Jewish lobby. Thoughts from anyone who saw more than my crappy news?

1956

It was to AIPAC. They even aired the whole thing in at least two Israeli news channels with passable simultaneous translation.

1957

Likud: classy as ever.

Members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud Party last night expressed satisfaction with Barack Obama’s speech and said that the president’s remarks were prompted by the forceful stand taken by the prime minister.

“The wisdom and determination of the prime minister and the dividends that they yielded were evident in President Obama’s speech,” said MK Carmel Shama-Hacohen. “President Obama gave an explicit, emphatic ‘no’ to the '67 lines and Hamas [while expressing] boundless support for the State of Israel as a Jewish and a democratic state whose security is ensured.”

Likud MK Danny Danon said that “Obama must understand that Israel will not pay the price for his tuition as he gets caught up to speed on the essence of the conflict. Obama is zigzagging in accordance with whatever position will give him more votes while justifying his Nobel Prize. We must stand strong in order to ensure that this will not be on account of the state of Israel.”

But of course, Israel would never interfere in US politics.

1958

Danny Danon wrote an op-ed for the NYT last week that was interestingly delusional. His solution to the Palestinian problem is for Israel to re-annex the territories that it’s pulled back from. And it gets dumber from there.

1959

Yeah, it read like he’s some kind of Iranian sleeper agent dedicated to the destruction of Israel. His ideas were just crazily self-defeating. I just assumed he could not be serious and it was some sort of weird, middle-east, never say what you actually mean, posturing.

1960

No, Danon is one of the leaders of the settler movement, and his op-ed was exactly what they advocate - annex the West Bank, confine Palestinians to urban bantustans, and make their lives so wretched that they leave for other countries.

It is true that the settler movement’s policies are crazy and self-defeating. They are also one of the pillars of support of the current government. This is why the thought of the Netanyahu government actually seriously entering into peace negotiations is ridiculous. Not only do they have no interest in any peace other than total and abject Palestinian surrender, any move towards peace talks would result in the settler/right wing bringing down the government immediately.

Op-ed in question: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/opinion/19Danon.html