Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

When you annex and integrate someone against their will, it's pretty much by definition 'forcibly'.

"force is awesome" = first line of the Israeli anthem

maybe the federation idea will get off the ground. i assume that no matter what happens there will always be a palestinian nationalist movement of some sort, but there's still a faroese independence movement too so no one is immune to separatists.

well some separatist movements are more troublesome than others...

i agree w/ bennett on this point that the primary mover of politics is quality of life and if the WB economy + quality of life was greatly stimulated by an annexation + integration i think that would quiet a lot of the nationalism. i was thinking a bit about this today bc i keep reading that the WB no longer believes that a palestinian state is possible and that the current trend is for a 1 state solution, 1 person 1 vote, etc. which would obv fit very easily into an annexation/integration model.

(that harpers round table from a few months ago that i think i linked here discussed nationalist v. egalitarian aspirations in the WB pretty candidly)

Well, but then the Israeli foreign minister goes out and states that arab-israeli people should be decapitated, and all of a sudden it doesn't seem so nice to be annexed + integrated by Israel. The comparison to Faroe Islands is pretty facile (at least use Greenland if you want to throw shade at DK)

Also, the idea that WB economy improves would mean tearing down the wall and stopping forcibly evicting palestinians to make settlements. Is Israel ready to do that?

I think it's obvious that once you give Palestinians in the territories citizenship, there are still going to be huge issues of inequality and institutionalized racism to contend with

Well, that is a bit off, I think. The inequality between Israelis and WB Palestinians isn't at all 'institutionalized racism' at the moment, it's rooted in different ways of treating citizens and non-citizens. Look at how every government treats non-citizens such as refugees etc, massive discrimination compared to how citizens are treated, but understandibly so, kinda. If Israel just overnight granted citizenship to WB Palestinians and called all of it 'Israel' it wouldn't be 'stil huge issues'. Those issues would change overnight as well, from problems concerning occupation and security, into institutionalized racism.

US to ‘evaluate’ stance after Netanyahu rules out Palestine

State Department spokesman Jen Psaki says that Netanyahu’s comments on a Palestinian state mean that “the US is in a position going forward in which we will be evaluating our approach to achieving a two-state solution.”

She also did not rule out rescinding its UN Security Council veto against anti-Israel resolutions.

“The fact that (Netanyahu) has changed his opinion certainly has an impact,” Psaki adds.

Psaki says the US and Israel will continue their close military, intelligence and security cooperation.

She adds that “we don’t think that his win has impacted the Iran negotiations or will.”

– Rebecca Shimoni Stoil

figure that should thrill some. i do wonder about the practical implications of the US withdrawing its automatic veto tho. let's assume they'd continue to veto hostile measures like sanctions + military interventions - what does that leave? lots of condemnations no doubt, resolutions for establishment of a pal state maybe, but anything that might make an actual impact on Bibi admin policy? you can't force Israel to end the occupation w/out actual leverage...

AIPAC bloc in US prez election would now be delivered to Donald Trump

AIPAC is pretty strongly committed to bipartisanship, and they are really unhappy w/ the Bibi/Obama relationship. I think maybe ZOA bloc is more what you're thinking.

I don't think O has the domestic support to really call Bibi's bluff here.

xp

I assume AIPAC and Hillary love each other

O is unilaterally in charge of all US UN policy isn't he? And he's not running for reelection. Presumably he can do what he wants?

that's technically true but idk if he'll conclude it's worth it

for one thing it would make Hillary run to his right on the issue (which the GOP will already do), and whatever short-term accomplishments he got would then be undone by the next administration

well esp if it won't have any effect beyond demonstrating his displeasure - then it's an expensive symbolic move

In other news-

The Pentagon is unable to account for more than $500 million in U.S. military aid given to Yemen amid fears that the weaponry, aircraft and equipment is at risk of being seized by Iranian-backed rebels or al-Qaeda, according to U.S. officials.

....“We have to assume it’s completely compromised and gone,” said a legislative aide on Capitol Hill, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pentagon-loses-sight-of-500-million-in-counterterrorism-aid-given-to-yemen/2015/03/17/f4ca25ce-cbf9-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html

ick

then it's an expensive symbolic move

obama's not averse to costly symbolic moves

more than $500 million in U.S. military aid

The important thing is that the US manufacturers of all these weapons and war materials were fully compensated by the US taxpayer, so the workers in those factories had good, well-paying jobs, the executives earned fat bonuses, and the stockholders reaped heavy dividends and capital gains. It's a win!

do i get to count losing $500 million in weapons and not even knowing if the houthis or al-q got it as an fp failure?

I'm pretty sure there would be a good black market for that stuff in a dozen different countries in Asia and Africa, so there's no reason to make bold assumptions about who ended up with it. It was probably exchanged for somebody's ready cash, though.

costs to export are huge and there's an active market in Yemen so I assume someone there has them

Someone with tens of millions of dollars to spend, which would limit the clientele I presume, if you chose to confine your sales to within Yemen.

Plus we now have the House budget and Republicans in the Senate as well (plus the White House) insisting that the Defense Department needs even more money at the same time they suggest cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Plus no one is gonna have a hearing on this and ask why the CIA and the NSA and defense were not more aware of the strength of the Houthis in Yemen. Oh, same ol' same ol', but still frustrating

air strike on Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi's presidential compound in aden this morning

http://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_600w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2015/03/17/National-Security/Graphics/USYemen_graphicv2.jpg

any of that stuff fit for airstrikes? ^

aw, the drones look pretty cute.

http://www.unmanned.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/raven-b.jpg

"Wheeeeeeee!"

WASHINGTON — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday walked back statements made during campaigning rejecting the possibility of a two-state solution, telling NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, “I don’t want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution.”

Netanyahu’s first post-elections interview was delivered to the US news TV station, indicating a focus on calming tensions with Washington, which have risen steeply following a sharp right turn by Netanyahu in the final days of his campaign.

“I haven’t changed my policy,” Netanyahu insisted. “I never retracted my speech at Bar-Ilan University six years ago calling for a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes a Jewish state.”

“What has changed is the reality,” he continued. “[Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] the Palestinian leader refuses to recognize the Jewish state and has made a pact with Hamas that calls for the destruction of the Jewish state, and every territory that is vacated today in the Middle East is taken up by Islamist forces. We want that to change so that we can realize a vision of real, sustained peace. I don’t want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution, but for that, circumstances have to change.”

lol dude will say anything

to Andrea Mitchell

I thought your position was he hadn't said anything different, anyway?

(You will hear anything)

"I will continue negotiating in bad faith like I have been from day 1. I dont understand what the big deal is"

my "position"? i thought he had said weeks before the election that he was against the two state solution and that he was reaffirming that the day of the election. it seems that he wants to emphasize the nuance that he is against a two state solution /now/ bc of current circumstances but not eternally. idk if this counts as a total reversal or not. i believe bibi will say whatever he needs to to whomever he needs to. but i do think this pseudo walkback suggests he won't be giving bennett the freedom to push the annexation idea - which counts a reversal in terms of my expectations for his future administration.

Matty Y vox piece from last year about public support (or lack thereof) for 2ss:
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/16/5897921/one-thing-israelis-and-palestinians-agree-on-they-dont-like-the-two

Strikingly, this conclusion that 27 percent of Palestinians and 35 percent of Israelis favor a two-state solution is likely an overstatement of the actual level of popular support.

so IS hates the Houthis too eh. no surprise there but yet another instance where US non-involvement seems best, as neither side really shares our interests

houthi is iranian backed

yeah no mystery

when are they gonna get tired of this sunni/shia thing

clown columnist Tom Friedman has the answer on how to stop Iran:

Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/opinion/go-ahead-ruin-my-day.html?ref=opinion&assetType=opinion&_r=0

Oniony

"Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?"

Excellent question.

the frenemy of my frenemy is my frenemy

Answer: Iran is much smarter than us.

eh that's a bit of an overstatement