Should Palestine unilaterally declare independence?

[Yoadm]

To be fair I don't think that the Israeli part of that alliance was the major concern of the US.

Ofcourse it was. The US response with regards to Israel was critical to how the US would look in the middle-east, especially the Arab world, which the former administration was courting. Thus, most of the US 'anger' was directed at Israel.

[Yoadm]

No it really wasn't, most of the US 'anger' was directed at Britain and France for a variety of reasons. That's not a controversial analysis of the crisis.

The US threatened to intervene directly against Israel. It did not do the same towards Brittain or France.

[Lark the Sisterman]

Actually its your posts that are coming across as hysterical. And not in the funny sense of the word either.

Care to explain what's "hysterical" about this?-

Triskele

The Arab populace doesn't call the shots- their rulers do, so I'm not sure what it is I have to concede to.

And in any case, of course they would rejoice if America would cut its ties with the Zionist entity... but the message would still be that America is a betrayer of long time allies and can't be trusted.

Loyalty is highly esteemed in Arabian cultures and their scholars will surely remind them- after the rejoicing has died down- of the words of the classic Muslim historian, Ibn Hazm, from Cordoba, as a warning-

And as bright and talented as General Petraeus is, I believe he's dead wrong on this one.

There are other high ranking officers, bright and talented, with a completely different view:

[ljkeane]

The US threatened to intervene directly against Israel. It did not do the same towards Brittain or France.

Look the fact that the actions of Britain and France were the major concern of the US is pretty much undebated in every historical analysis of the crisis I've ever read/seen so I really don't see much point in debating it ad nauseum. I accept that the Eisenhower administration was less fervant in it's support of Israel than subsequent US governments have been.

[shadowbinding shoe]

About Israel ignoring its agreements with the US by approving a building project, this is really not true.

The US demanded when Obama got into office that Israel freeze all its building projects in the disputed territories (for a year, I think). Israel was unenthusiastic and finally the compromise was reached that a freeze would be in effect for half a year on all the disputed areas except Jerusalem. The Palestinian authority became pretty angry at the US for accepting these terms but those were the terms.

Since this current building project is in Jerusalem there was really no breach of contract or some such. The talk has been about how Israel should have waited a few days until Biden left the area before making this (low level committee announcement)

[Ser Reptitious]

Lark,

(They aren't even considered for the EU, though they wanted that more than anything till they realized they had no chance)

Actually, the process to admit Turkey as a full member of the EU began in October 2005. Here's a link: http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/eu-turkey-relations/article-129678

Granted, it's a long road and there is no guarantee they will ever reach the end of it, but that's still a long way from your assertion that Turkey isn't even being considered for the EU.

[Shryke]

Care to explain what's "hysterical" about this?-

The fact that you've posted the writings of a long dead guy as some sort of guide to the Arab way of thinking.

"Arabs don't trust anyone who stops supporting an ally for any reason."

What is this, the Arab version of "Inscrutable Asians"?

You've thrown an assertion out there and refuse to back it up. All you've done is attack me for calling out your completely ass-backwards and unfounded belief in a ridiculously counter-productive mode of thinking in international politics.

[Lark the Sisterman]

Lark,

Actually, the process to admit Turkey as a full member of the EU began in October 2005. Here's a link: http://www.euractiv.com/en/enlargement/eu-turkey-relations/article-129678

Granted, it's a long road and there is no guarantee they will ever reach the end of it, but that's still a long way from your assertion that Turkey isn't even being considered for the EU.

Turkey will be admitted to the EU when shryke enlist to Mark Steyn's fan club.

You may buy the official lie that the case is being reviewed and considered via the usual bureaucratic proceedings. Doesn't mean I have to bite.

[Werthead]

Turkey will be admitted to the EU when shryke enlist to Mark Steyn's fan club.

You may buy the official lie that the case is being reviewed and considered via the usual bureaucratic proceedings. Doesn't mean I have to bite.

Turkey has very stringent goals to meet to get approval for EU membership. The EU want Turkey to be a member for a large number of economic reasons, not to mention its contributions to any command European defence force would be considerable.

The problem is that all of this is dependent on Turkey and Greece getting properly on board with discussions over Cyprus and Turkey sorting out the situation with the Kurds. Since both situations have been ongoing for decades, it is unlikely to be solved in the immediate future. France and Austria are also lukewarm on the proposition, France especially as its traditional leadership position in the EU would wane to third or fourth place as Turkey would field more MEPs than it.

The current likelihood is that Turkey will be admitted to the EU, but not until the 2020s.

[Galactus]

The US threatened to intervene directly against Israel. It did not do the same towards Brittain or France.

Israel was the one with most of the troops on the ground. The Franco-British forces were nominally there as "peacekeepers" (although it was clear taht they were going to seize the Canal) if anyone tried to evict them the first objective would be to strike out the Israelis. They couldn't really hold on their own, and their entire legitimacy was based on being there as "neutral" third parties.

In fact, almost unbelievably, Turkey has been a far more important and reliable member of NATO than France, which basically withdrew from the alliance (in favour of an integrated command structure and an alliance with the alliance, so to speak) in the 1960s when NATO refused to help its war against Algerian nationalists, and only recently returned to full membership status.

The french withdrawal from NATO wasn't really because of the Algerian issues.

[Lark the Sisterman]

The current likelihood is that Turkey will be admitted to the EU, but not until the 2020s.

If I'm not mistaken, one of the parameters that condition the admission is more democracy- hence separation of church (or rather mosque) and state.

With Erdogan in power, Turkey is on a highway to the opposite direction, so unless the EU becomes itself Muslim by 2020, it ain't gonna happen.

We'd like to think that the army is the one who's really in control in Turkey, preserving the secular state, but there are numerous indications that Erdogan is very effective in weakening the army's grip- eventually undermining the vision of Kemal Attaturk.

[Galactus]

With Erdogan in power, Turkey is on a highway to the opposite direction, so unless the EU becomes itself Muslim by 2020, it ain't gonna happen.

Erdogan has actually done a lot to make Turkey meet the entry criteria. They're still far away, but he's actually loosened things up quite a bit.

We'd like to think that the army is the one who's really in control in Turkey, preserving the secular state, but there are numerous indications that Erdogan is very effective in weakening the army's grip- eventually undermining the vision of Kemal Attaturk.

Except that the vision of Atatürk was not a democratic one. The army (and the economy) are the largest obstacles to Turkey's entrance into the EU.

[Lark the Sisterman]

Except that the vision of Atatürk was not a democratic one. The army (and the economy) are the largest obstacles to Turkey's entrance into the EU.

Yes, I'm aware of the paradox.

Erdogan has actually done a lot to make Turkey meet the entry criteria. They're still far away, but he's actually loosened things up quite a bit.

I have to admit ignorance here. Can you name a few?

What I do know is that as far as foreign policy is concerned- meaning the issue of Iran- the rift between Turkey and some major EU countries has only widened.

And in any case, the unspoken truth is (and I hope it won't come as a shock to some of the board's sensitive souls)- no matter how hard Turkey tries to adjust herself to EU standards- it will never be admitted cos:

a. Economic reasons- the EU does not want its markets flooded with cheap labor and cheap products. (or something like that- I'm no expert in economy but I read some who are, awhile back)

b. Demographic reasons- Europe doesn't want 70 million more Muslims who can now enter their turf freely. (shocking, I know, but that's the unspoken truth- feel free to accuse me of speculating much, but I can smell it and I just know it's so :ohwell: )

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Please keep the discussion civil and on-topic. Thank you. [/mod]

[Yoadm]

Look the fact that the actions of Britain and France were the major concern of the US is pretty much undebated in every historical analysis of the crisis I've ever read/seen so I really don't see much point in debating it ad nauseum.

But you arnt backing up your assertion with anything. The actions of all three were a concern, but Israel was the only nation that captured any significant piece of Egyptian land (namely, the Sini peninsula). Allso, out of all three, Israel was the only country threatened directly by the US. Thus, I don't really see how you can deny this.

[ljkeane]

But you arnt backing up your assertion with anything. The actions of all three were a concern, but Israel was the only nation that captured any significant piece of Egyptian land (namely, the Sini peninsula). Allso, out of all three, Israel was the only country threatened directly by the US. Thus, I don't really see how you can deny this.

Seriously I think this is rather ridiculous to discuss but as a starting point so far as I'm aware Israel wasn't threatened with military action by the US anymore than France and Britain were. Here's a summary of the exchanges between Israel and the US from an extremely pro Israel source and nothing of the sort is mentioned.

There's a long list of reasons why this sort of imperialist approach from Britain and France and it's timing was more of an issue for the US and it is pretty obvious that the focus of it's response was on those two countries. Again I don't think this is even a subject that I've ever seen considered worthy of debate.

[Yoadm]

Seriously I think this is rather ridiculous to discuss but as a starting point so far as I'm aware Israel wasn't threatened with military action by the US anymore than France and Britain were. Here's a summary of the exchanges between Israel and the US from an extremely pro Israel source and nothing of the sort is mentioned.

There's a long list of reasons why this sort of imperialist approach from Britain and France and it's timing was more of an issue for the US and it is pretty obvious that the focus of it's response was on those two countries. Again I don't think this is even a subject that I've ever seen considered worthy of debate.

I don't see why you would term this discussion rediculous. The US had far less to lose from going head to head with Israel, which was even more tiny and insignificant then than today, compared to its greatest European allies (France and Brittain). It did not directly threaten Israel with military action, but its terminology was very harsh, indeed harsher than towards GB/Fr..

[ljkeane]

I don't see why you would term this discussion rediculous.

Because I thought the point I was making originally was fairly innocuous, and I still do to be honest.

The US had far less to lose from going head to head with Israel, which was even more tiny and insignificant then than today, compared to its greatest European allies (France and Brittain).

That's a fair point but that also meant that when they acted against US interests it was rather more significant to the US.

Just as an abbreviated list of why the actions of Britain and France were an issue to the US because, it went against the US interest in decolonisation, it threatened the American desire to supercede Britain as the pre eminent power in the Mediterranean, it caused serious problems in NATO, it gave the USSR a cover for several aggressive acts, it pushed Egypt towards the possibility of requesting aid from the Soviets and it weakened the US position with several allies in the region.

It did not directly threaten Israel with military action, but its terminology was very harsh, indeed harsher than towards GB/Fr..

It fairly clearly threatened to cripple their economies unless they complied with American wishes.

[Galactus]

I have to admit ignorance here. Can you name a few?

He's been taking some tentative steps towards resolving the kurdish issue (mostly linguistic stuff)

I don't see why you would term this discussion rediculous. The US had far less to lose from going head to head with Israel, which was even more tiny and insignificant then than today, compared to its greatest European allies (France and Brittain). It did not directly threaten Israel with military action, but its terminology was very harsh, indeed harsher than towards GB/Fr..

That's *precisely* why the US reacted so harshly towards GB (especially) they wanted to prove a point: You're no longer top dog, we are, and you'll follow our lead from now on.

The US caused sever economic problems and threatened to do much worse to the UK, for instance. The message was very clear: Shut up and play by our rules.

[Lark the Sisterman]

He's been taking some tentative steps towards resolving the kurdish issue (mostly linguistic stuff)

That's it?