StrangerThan
Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
|
I don't see the powerful statement. Well, let';s rephrase that, I don't see why his statement(s) would be considered that powerful. They seem to be pretty much common sense as most people I've ever talked to understand the US has had a pro-Israeli stance over the years. I think most also understand another portion of his comments as well, that of
"Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas."
Note the use of Arab anger and Arab world to describe a host of peoples in different countries, where the implication is that Israel stands alone against most of them and has done so since its formation as a state. That same Arab world has refused to even recognized Israel as a state during much of the same time, adopting a resolution of no recognition, no peace, no negotiation that dominated the Arab position until 2002. The Arab peace initiative arose at that point, which sounds good on the surface except that one of the controlling factions in what is supposed to be the new state has embedded in its covenant the destruction of Israel and remains committed to the three no's. So it's not just a question of ground seized during the 1967 six day war. Its kind of like trying to deal with someone who won't deal with you. I think both the history of no no no along with having a new state next door who can't decide if they're going to live along side you or kill you is what helps frame the issue for many Americans.
I'm sure Petraeus' comments are accurate. I'm pretty much equally certain that you're not going to find a lot people in the US willing to hold a tougher line with Israel until those wanting the new state can act like adults and at least attempt to live in peace. No, I'll restate that. I think a good many people are willing to hold a tougher line and expect Israel to be accepting of conditions that could lead to a peaceful co-existence. I don't think however, that a majority are going to don rose colored glasses and pretend that because scales should be equal, means they are.
I don't see any reason to think he would be thrown down a black hole for his comments. They fall into that place I like to think of as common sense. We as a nation have held a favorable stance towards them. We as a nation also know it pisses a lot of Arab folk off for the state to even exist. I think our stance has moderated some over the past decade, primarily because the Arab stance has moderated some. It's easier to sit down to a table together when the other side is willing to sit down with you. Shrug.
I don't know what the hell you're supposed to do when half the people living in the house next door are intent on killing you though. I understand being able to deal with the half that aren't, but I also understand not being able to form a lasting peace when only half is even willing to let you live.
I didn't realize this debate defined left-right partisan lines however.
< Message edited by StrangerThan -- 9/5/2010 3:49:37 AM >
_____________________________
--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain
|
Petraeus "Israel-Palestine:Ongoing Conflict Harms ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread