We learned from the Palestinians

[bemildred]

A sense that something big has been missed is filling the air, the sort of feeling that had the outgoing government's term been stretched a little longer, things would have looked entirely different. For example, had Ehud Olmert not been suspected of corruption and stayed in office, dialogue with Syria could have moved forward faster. Had Tzipi Livni found her composure a moment sooner, we would be dancing together in Ramallah's discotheques.

Because now, at this very moment, there is an American president who is willing, and is even taking action, to thaw relations between his country and Syria. And he has a secretary of state who sounds so determined when she says "two states for two peoples" that it seems it's possible things can be different. But we, it seems, like the Palestinians, know just when the time is right to miss an opportunity. When America has finally matured, we are using Benjamin Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman as a defensive shield against any initiative.

As Israel continues to dig in, the region is carrying on with its regular agenda. A new strategic alliance is emerging right in front of us. It comprises Iran, Syria, Turkey and Iraq. In this alliance, Russia holds the cards and the United States, which stood by watching under George W. Bush, is trying to find room at the table. The convenient division between "moderate" and "extremist" Arab states is no longer useful. Friendly Qatar has become an ally of Syria; Saudi Arabia, which claimed the patent for the Arab initiative, is sending Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal to Damascus to rebuild the Arab alliance. Syria, along with Iran, Iraq and Turkey, plans to set up a joint electricity grid, while Iran is being described as an enemy of the Arabs. The Arabs? Except for Syria, Qatar, Iraq and Sudan. The old arrangement that Israel thought it could navigate is falling apart. The bad guys and good guys are changing roles, and they are dragging the Western countries along. Who is an ally and who is an enemy? Who is the blind one here? Washington, which does not see where terrorism comes from, or Israel, which remains preoccupied with the locks on the gates to Gaza and the amounts of sugar, salt, concrete and iron to be allowed in? The United States, which is trying to adopt new methods against the Iranian threat and offer an alliance to Russia, or Israel, which is fumbling about trying to decide whether to procure an American anti-missile system or develop an anti-Qassam missile at a cost of $1 million each?

And what an achievement for Israel. The United States conditioned the transferring of its contribution to Gaza's reconstruction to the release of Gilad Shalit. And what if the U.S. does not transfer the funds? How much will there be for reconstruction? How much is $5.5 billion minus $900 million? Still double what the Gaza Strip needs.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1069327.html

[IndianaGreen]

1. Israel's agents in Congress were responsible for the Shalit caveat to Gaza reconstruction

Let's tell the unvarnished truth: Gilad Shalit is DEAD. He is DEAD and his corpse is being used as a political tool by unscrupulous politicians just as missing naval aviator Lt. Cmdr. Scott Speicher, who is as DEAD as Shalit, was used by neocons as added justification for invading Iraq.

Israel and the Palestinians are experts are missing opportunities for peace. The IP conflict reminds me of that classic Star Trek episode starring the late Frank Gorshing, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield." Here is the synopsis of that fantastic and highly relevant to IP episode, a story that deals with two beings having only one thing in common: the hatred each felt for the other.

Synopsis

The U.S.S. Enterprise intercepts a stolen Federation shuttlecraft which contains a humanoid named Lokai. Taken aboard the ship, Lokai tells the crew he is from the planet Cheron, and asks for asylum on the U.S.S. Enterprise. His most distinctive feature is that he is half black and half white, starkly separated down the middle of his body.

The U.S.S. Enterprise tracks another vessel, pursuing at great speed. The ship's only passenger beams on board and is discovers to be another humanoid from Cheron. The difference in this man, Bele, is that his black and white skin is reversed from Lokai's. Bele claims to be Cheron's chief officer sent out to bring in political traitors, and has been pursuing Lokai. The more the two men are aboard the starship, the more Kirk realizes that the basic problem between them — and their entire race, apparently — is their opposite color. Tiring of their bigotry, Kirk decides to ignore the two guests and concentrate on his original mission; to decontaminate the planet Ariannus, plagued with a bacteria that endangers billions of lives.

When Bele takes control of the U.S.S. Enterprise in a desperate attempt, Kirk sets the ships auto-destruct sequence instead of allowing the hijacking to continue, and the alien returns command to the captain. However, once planet Ariannus is decontaminated, Bele takes back his control over the starship and leads it back to Cheron. What they find is a long-dead planet, annihilated by their interracial bigotry. Lokai beams down to the surface to escape Bele, who follows. The U.S.S. Enterprise leaves them on the surface, to decide their own fates.

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TOS/episode/68800.html

[bemildred]

2. I'm not much of a Trekkie, I'm afraid.

I was more interested in the development of the new "Northern Alliance". Which, if you think about it, is proof positive that the Neocons and their ilk don't have the foggiest idea what they are talking about. They are one trick ponies, long-range mouth-fighters, simple-minded fools. Consider the question whether the "best outcome" in Iraq, a year or a few down the road, the new Shiia Crescent which is jelling into place as we speak, is really better than Saddam's Iraq, for any of the parties that the effort was supposed to benefit. The only real winners so far are the Kurds and Iran, and Iran at least seems likely to keep its gains. And the change is permanent, a continuing process, there will be no going back. And consider what has been brought into being in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Anybody that thinks this is all going to be patched up is not paying attention.

[pelsar]

3. and the left isnt any better at intl politics....

i have no idea how much influence the US has on the geographical events......no doubt some places it has zero influence and others its has more....and then events start happening and no one knows where they end up, no matter who starts them, right or left...zimbabawa and iran come to mind.

[bemildred]

4. Iraq was a "war of choice", and "the left" opposed it all the way.

And it has been a disaster, and a very expensive disaster too. So "the left" was right, and "the left" deserves credit for being correct, for seeing more clearly than the morons on "the right".

"The right" will now produce excuses about how nobody can be sure that it would have been better to leave well enough alone, and that nobody could have predicted this outcome, but in fact exactly this outcome was predicted by "the left" before the war was even started, both wars actually, so "the right" is blowing smoke to cover its sorry ass.