Obama Does Cairo

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Perhaps if we're talking about India, Pakistan, etc. the I/P issue might not have as much weight, but certainly (and the current polls are reflecting this), in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. this is the number one issue America must deal with to improve relations in the Middle East. For instance, Lebanon is about to go to elections so are probably concerned that if they vote for a Hezbollah coalition government if the U.S. are going to be cool with that.

2 of those countries already have treaties w/Israel, Syria is the most hardline country on Israel, Lebanon is a mess (which the Israelis had a large hand in, of course, along with Syria). I think also the Lebanese elections - at least as I understand it - depend more on a few Maronite swing votes than on the U.S.' attitude towards Hizballah. Joe Biden essentially admitted that America will keep funding the Lebanese Armed Forces regardless of who wins.

what do you mean by "improve relations"? for whom, with whom? to what end?
 

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
this is really where you're losing me. Pan-Arabism? are you serious man? that was a mess even when Nasser was alive. what do you back that up with, if anything? even leaving out that Iran isn't an Arab country.

Hatred of Israel is pretty much the only thing that the rest of the region can agree on... no?
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
By diplomatic record I am specifically referring to various peace proposals down through the years.

Sorry for not elaborating more here or providing the usual links. Deadlines... :eek: Certainly the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002 springs to mind, Egypt and Jordan accepting 242 in the wake of the 6 day war, ... there's some very intriguing stuff in the record of UN general assembly resolutions as well.

OK, the Arab Peace Initiative is a really good example. Resolution 242, less so - that was accomplished by Israeli force of arms, really.

there have also been some stunning rejections. by Arafat, most prominently, but the Arabs & especially the Palestinians have a long history of shooting themselves in the foot over peace deals. the Jews have been stubborn too, of course, they're just (usually) cagier about it.
 
Last edited:

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Hatred of Israel is pretty much the only thing that the rest of the region can agree on... no?

how does that equate to Pan-Arabism? hating Israel & hating each other are not exactly contradictory. in fact they seem to go hand in hand.
 
D

droid

Guest
How exactly?

It's self evident isn't it? In the simplest terms, If you're a mob boss who wants to project your power into another city it's quite handy to have a friendly and heavily armed aggressive lieutenant in place.

Interestingly enough, the 'cop on the beat' phrase':

was first used by Nixon’s Secretary of Defense, Melvyn Laird, referring to US policy in the Middle East. Similar descriptions were given at the same time by US intelligence, by Senator Henry Jackson (the Senate’s leading specialist on the Middle East and energy), and others. And often at other times.
 
D

droid

Guest
OK, the Arab Peace Initiative is a really good example. Resolution 242, less so - that was accomplished by Israeli force of arms, really.

there have also been some stunning rejections. by Arafat, most prominently, but the Arabs & especially the Palestinians have a long history of shooting themselves in the foot over peace deals. the Jews have been stubborn too, of course, they're just (usually) cagier about it.

I have to go back to Arafat in the UN in '78... acceptance of UN 242, de facto recognition etc...

And my point about 242 is that Jordan and Egypt accepted it - not that they initiated it - and yes Israel achieved it through force of arms - by starting a war and seizing the OT's..,
 

vimothy

yurp
Think the idea that the US has had a continuous, consistent and unconflicted strategy in the ME in general and WRT Israel in particular is, well...

And of course such a strategy implies policy objectives, so I guess that this is easily proven, if true.

Furthermore, it applies a perculiarly homo economicus-esque analysis to the situation. Motivations are stripped to rational choices about mere self-interest. (For example, Christian Zionism has a long history in America -- nothing self-interested about that, unless its the self-interest of politicians wanting to please their constituents).

In any case the logic of this strategy is not clear to me. Certainly it does not appear to be a rational choice if we accept realist premises about the behaviour of states. Why could they not simply abandon Israel and continue to buy oil much as they do now?

It's self evident isn't it?

Is it? Could you maybe make it more explicit for the hard-of-thinking amongst us?
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
I have to go back to Arafat in the UN in '78... acceptance of UN 242, de facto recognition etc...

And my point about 242 is that Jordan and Egypt accepted it - not that they initiated it - and yes Israel achieved it through force of arms - by starting a war and seizing the OT's..,

re: starting a war - keep in mind that Nasser demanded (& got, with no protest) a UNEF withdrawal, moved troops into the Sinai, mobilized his army, closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping (which he knew Israel would go to war over), etc before the Israelis responded. Syria also kicked things off 2 months before the war started by getting into it w/the IDF in the '56 DMZ. the Syrians had also been subsidizing guerrillas to carry out cross-border raids for years. so "starting a war" is not as simple as you make out.

re: Arafat - I didn't say he never made peace overtures. just that he rejected some crucial ones as well.

re: 242 - the point is it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts or b/c they suddenly saw the light. if the point you're trying to make is that Arabs are willing to accept a non-belligerent Israel then surely resolutions accepted essentially at gunpoint don't reinforce your point?
 
D

droid

Guest
re: starting a war - keep in mind that Nasser demanded (& got, with no protest) a UNEF withdrawal, moved troops into the Sinai, mobilized his army, closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping (which he knew Israel would go to war over), etc before the Israelis responded. Syria also kicked things off 2 months before the war started by getting into it w/the IDF in the '56 DMZ. the Syrians had also been subsidizing guerrillas to carry out cross-border raids for years. so "starting a war" is not as simple as you make out.

Well, this is all for another thread, but 'Straits of Tiran' = 5% of israeli shipping, internal records indicate it was not the cause for war. UNEF could easily have been redeployed on the other side... as I mentioned to you before '1967' by Tom Segev is a good place to start on this. The point is that despite escalations on both sides Israel knew they had a huge advantage and attacked first, which makes them the aggressor (and they were very aware of the perception of their actions and went to great efforts to hide this fact).

re: Arafat - I didn't say he never made peace overtures. just that he rejected some crucial ones as well.

Not disagreeing, but do you have anything particular in mind?

re: 242 - the point is it wasn't out of the goodness of their hearts or b/c they suddenly saw the light. if the point you're trying to make is that Arabs are willing to accept a non-belligerent Israel then surely resolutions accepted essentially at gunpoint don't reinforce your point?

242 wasn't forced 'at gunpoint' onto Egypt and Jordan, though I'm certainly claiming that there was any kindness involved, the point is (the usual paradigm for victors v losers sure) is that Israel rejected and continues to reject 242, whilst nearly all other states in the region have at some point accepted it and based peace plans on it.
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Well, this is all for another thread, but 'Straits of Tiran' = 5% of israeli shipping, internal records indicate it was not the cause for war. UNEF could easily have been redeployed on the other side... as I mentioned to you before '1967' by Tom Segev is a good place to start on this. The point is that despite escalations on both sides Israel knew they had a huge advantage and attacked first, which makes them the aggressor (and they were very aware of the perception of their actions and went to great efforts to hide this fact).

the issue wasn't, as you well know, the % of Israeli shipping but whether Israel could allow Nasser to close off the Straits as he pleased w/o responding. again w/UNEF the issue isn't whether the UN force was actually there but whether Nasser could just order them out & take Sharm Ash-Sheikh as he pleased w/o Israeli response. I find your logic that being the stronger side automatically makes you the aggressor dubious to say the least. if you are Nasser (& Syria) & you know you are weaker & you continue the cycle of provocation then you bear some of the responsibility when you get attacked & demolished. @ "hide this fact" - so what? what country hasn't done that, in every war ever fought?

but as you said, another thread.

Not disagreeing, but do you have anything particular in mind?

most famously the rejection of Barak's offer in 2000 for a Palestinian state that would have included all of Gaza & over 90% of the WB. tbc I don't to mean to focus exclusively on Arafat. other examples would be; rejection of the Peel Commission, rejection the favorable to them White Paper, rejection of the Partition Plan (accepted, albeit grudgingly, by the Jews), the three no's of the Khartoum Resolution, etc etc

(the usual paradigm for victors v losers sure)

you said it, not me.
 
Last edited:
D

droid

Guest
the issue wasn't, as you well know, the % of Israeli shipping but whether Israel could allow Nasser to close off the Straits as he pleased w/o responding. again w/UNEF the issue isn't whether the UN force was actually there but whether Nasser could just order them out & take Sharm Ash-Sheikh as he pleased w/o Israeli response. I find your logic that being the stronger side automatically makes you the aggressor dubious to say the least. if you are Nasser (& Syria) & you know you are weaker & you continue the cycle of provocation then you bear some of the responsibility when you get attacked & demolished. @ "hide this fact" - so what? what country hasn't done that, in every war ever fought?

but as you said, another thread.

Thats not my logic. My logic is that if you get into an argument with someone and you're the one who throws the first punch then you are the aggressor. But yes, the ins and outs of 67 require another thread - but read that book! :D

most famously the rejection of Barak's offer in 2000 for a Palestinian state that would have included all of Gaza & over 90% of the WB. tbc I don't to mean to focus exclusively on Arafat. other examples would be; rejection of the Peel Commission, rejection the favorable to them White Paper, rejection of the Partition Plan (accepted, albeit grudgingly, by the Jews), the three no's of the Khartoum Resolution, etc etc

Well I think this interpretation of Barak's offer is bollocks TBH, but as I've been promising to address it in another thread I'm happy to leave it for now. :D

Peel commission? are we seriously going back that far? Khartoum? I'm talking post-67 (and not just a few months after).

you said it, not me.

Sure... and that's the problem in a nutshell. Israel need to lose to negotiate. Israel can lose only once. Therefore Israel must negotiate before they lose, but Israel need to lose to negotiate...
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Well I think this interpretation of Barak's offer is bollocks TBH, but as I've been promising to address it in another thread I'm happy to leave it for now.

no let's have it. unless you really don't want to get into it. & before you do - yeah, I'm aware the it was only like 65-70% of the WB at first & that the rest was to be ceded over time contingent on various conditions, that it didn't include Jerusalem, etc.

Peel commission? are we seriously going back that far? Khartoum? I'm talking post-67 (and not just a few months after).

I said it was a long history. plus, unless you want to lay into Barak's offer...

let's add Hamas to the list, w/its ambiguous attitude towards the Arab Peace Initiative. and towards negotiation in general.

Sure... and that's the problem in a nutshell. Israel need to lose to negotiate. Israel can lose only once. Therefore Israel must negotiate before they lose, but Israel need to lose to negotiate...

yes, it's a difficult position to be in.
 
Last edited:
D

droid

Guest
no let's have it. unless you really don't want to get into it. & before you do - yeah, I'm aware the it was only like 65-70% of the WB at first & that the rest was to be ceded over time contingent on various conditions, that it didn't include Jerusalem, etc.

I said it was a long history. plus, unless you want to lay into Barak's offer...

let's add Hamas to the list, w/its ambiguous attitude towards the Arab Peace Initiative. &

yes, it's a difficult position to be in.

Sorry Padraig, I have to go home now and vote and then mind the baby! :cool: I started a reply to Scott's points about Barak's offer. Hopefully Ill get back to it soon.

Sorry for being such a waster. :eek:
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
Sorry Padraig, I have to go home now and vote and then mind the baby! :cool: I started a reply to Scott's points about Barak's offer. Hopefully Ill get back to it soon.

Sorry for being such a waster. :eek:

not that's alright! surely voting & looking after the baby are x1000000 than wasting time on message boards!

enjoy the weekend then ya bastard. not even lunchtime yet for me.:D
 

nomadthethird

more issues than Time mag
This isn't really politically relevant, but does anyone else think Obama is getting increasingly smarmy and turning more and more into Bill Clinton every day? I thought his delivery of that speech was a little off. He sounds less and less earnest all of the time. This one sounded really canned, in that delightfully Obama way where it sounds like it was written months ago by Obama himself then copyedited by a crack team of 100 staff members to smooth out the overly optimistic parts.
 

Sick Boy

All about pride and egos
.

Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but it seems like Biden actually insinuated the opposite?

Joe Biden said:
The US will evaluate the shape of its assistance programme based on the composition of the new government and the policies it is advocating

Andrew Exum said:
It’s about building up institutions over time, regardless of who wins the election. But make no mistake; if a Hizbollah-led coalition wins the election in June, aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces will be a real fight in Congress. I think the administration, the department of defence, and US Central Command all understand that. Israel’s more hard-line supporters in the Congress will push hard for a curtailment of aid to the Lebanese Armed Forces
 

padraig (u.s.)

a monkey that will go ape
.Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, but it seems like Biden actually insinuated the opposite?

no I think you're reading it right. I read it a few weeks ago & I forget about that conclusion. tho, the other side being;

We appreciate the broad support in Lebanon and around the world for you, President Suleiman; for your efforts to produce a -- pursue a national unity dialogue and to revitalize the vision of a peaceful Lebanon, a democracy that obviously cannot be strong without strong institutions. [AM: So you're going to keep funding the LAF no matter who wins?]

...And therefore the United States remains committed to making sure that Lebanon's institutions are as strong as possible. [AM: Is that a yes?]

Abu M's most recent take on it.

it sounds like it'll be a real fight in Congress if Hizballah wins the elections. still, it's not like if Hizballah wins the U.S. is going to say "well, f**k you".

anyway the point I really should have made is that Lebanese public opinion - unlike, say, Turkish or Egyptian public opinion - doesn't really matter that much in the scheme of U.S. foreign policy, not to sound callous towards the Lebanese. your point having been about public opinion in Arab countries.
 

josef k.

Dangerous Mystagogue
Perry Anderson on the US-Israel axis:

The Middle East is the one part of the world where the us political system, as presently constituted, cannot act according to a rational calculus of national interest, because it is inhabited by another, supervening interest. For its entire position in the Arab—and by extension Muslim—world is compromised by its massive, ostentatious support for Israel. Universally regarded in the region as a predator state that could never have enjoyed forty years of impunity without vast supplies of American arms and money, and unconditional American protection in the un, Israel is the target of popular hatred for its expropriation and persecution of the Palestinians. By logical extension, America is detested for the same reason. Al-Qaeda’s attack on it was rooted in this context. From the standpoint of American power, rationally considered, a Palestinian state that was somewhat more than a Bantustan would pose no threat whatever, and could have been created at any time in the past half century by merely holding back the flow of dollars, guns and vetoes for Israel. The reason why this has never happened is perfectly clear. It lies in the grip of the Israeli lobby, drawing strength from the powerful Jewish community in the us, on the American political and media system. Not only does this lobby distort ‘normal’ decision-making processes at all levels where the Middle East is concerned. Until recently—and even then, only incipiently—it could not even be mentioned in any mainstream arena of discussion: a taboo that, as with all such repressions, injected a further massive dose of irrationality into the formation of us policy in the region.

VIA
 
Last edited:
Top