Obama cripples AIPAC

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

what does this mean?

Typically, the aid we give is not simply in a form of money sent to the donee government. Rather the money is used to buy American goods and services which are then provided as aid. So our foreign aid does double duty as an American jobs project. Apparently Israel had gotten an exception to that practice.  Granted, if the sole concern of our foreign aid program was to help foreign governments and people, spending some money in the target country to buy goods and services there would generally be of more benefit to that country than spending the money here unless the goods being bought there were being imported anyway.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

AIPAC and current government strategy is all about short-term gains without thinking of the future (but Bibi obviously doesn't care, he won't be in politics anymore when that happens).

Considering Israel faces literal existential threats, I think they can be forgiven for taking a short-term view on this matter.

Literal Existential threats?  You do realize this is 2016, not 1967 or 1973, don't you?  That isn't to say that Israel doesn't face some severe threats, but to say it faces an existential threat is definitely not being literal in what one is saying.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

AIPAC and current government strategy is all about short-term gains without thinking of the future (but Bibi obviously doesn't care, he won't be in politics anymore when that happens).

Considering Israel faces literal existential threats, I think they can be forgiven for taking a short-term view on this matter.

Literal Existential threats?  You do realize this is 2016, not 1967 or 1973, don't you?  That isn't to say that Israel doesn't face some severe threats, but to say it faces an existential threat is definitely not being literal in what one is saying.

A nuclear Iran, or even a joint invasion by the Iran/Syria/Turkey axis, is definitely an existential threat for Israel.

For the entire ME, in fact.

Nuclear Iran, remotely.  I think the current regime in Iran is savvy enough to know that first use of said weapons would provoke an immediate and fatal response and that they aren't crazy or desperate enough to engage in such an act because of that.

As for the implausible idea that an Iran/Syria/Turkey axis would invade Israel, what are you smoking? Erdogan has plenty of faults, but wanting to engage in an optional war with Israel is not one of them.  For that matter, the slightly plausible joint Syrian/Iranian invasion ain't gonna happen and if it did, I have enough faith in the IDF being able to repel a conventional military assault by them. That isn't to say that doing so would be pain-free, because it wouldn't, but it wouldn't cause an existential crisis.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why is the Palestinian leadership in the west bank never pressured to have elections? Yea, I know they are planned to happen soon...but guess what? It's been well over a decade and because of the corrupt, U.N.-endorsed mess known as the PA, it is likely that Hamas will win the elections, if they even happen.

So, we either have to work with corrupt dictators like Mahmoud Abbas or terrorists who seem to have popular support. Great "partners for Israel."

The fact that Hamas would likely win the elections is no doubt the biggest reason why there is little pressure for elections.

As for the Palestinians someday being partners, perhaps when Israeli policy changes to act as if that they someday will be partners rather than modern-day Gibeonites, then they someday will be partners.  Shutting them up into arbitrary Bantustans of Israel's choosing isn't exactly conducive to long term peace. For now Israel has the luxury of military and economic superiority over its Arab neighbors, but it acts as if those conditions will always apply, and they won't.

The 90's were a wasted opportunity and both sides squandered the chance that was available then. I don't see any reasonable prospect of peace in this generation, but Israeli policy is precluding any chance of peace in the next generation as well. That's not entirely unreasonable if one thinks peace never has chance of breaking out, but it does mean that in the long term Israel is guaranteed to doom.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Israeli-Arab regional cooperation will be the only thing that will ever make peace in this region.

Here's an area we're in agreement on.  What we appear to largely disagree over is what Israel should be doing until the Arabs become interested in cooperation and whether Israel could do anything to make Arab cooperation more likely.  My own advice is largely over policies Israel has and is doing that I think are counter-productive and should cease rather than peace initiatives it could try.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm neutral on the Israel/Palestinian issue, they'll have to come to an agreement soon

Why?  The current situation, while far from ideal, is at least tolerable for the Israelis, and the Palestinians aren't likely to accept becoming Gibeonites (see Joshua 7) anytime soon, which is essentially all that current Israeli policy is willing to let them be.  Frankly, I don't see a solution ever happening unless they can settle the question of Jerusalem and neither side trusts the other to even entertain in the remotest, most hidden corners of their hearts, a plan that the other would consider acceptable concerning Jerusalem.  Jerusalem has always been the camel in the needle's eye when it comes to a long term solution.  A generation ago they were at least willing to consider possible mutually acceptable plans for Jerusalem, and it will be at least a generation before that could happen again, and probably yet another after that before it could actually be implemented.  I'm old enough that I do not expect that the Israeli/Palestinian issue will be settled in my lifetime.  Maybe in the lifetime of some of the youngs on this forum, but not in mine.