Over the past few weeks, conventional wisdom has dictated that the current fighting in Gaza has significantly undermined chances for a two-state solution–whether Israel wins or loses. In today’s New York Times, Michael Slackman presents the latest version of this doomsday thesis, absurdly claiming that Egypt and Jordan fear that they will be forced to absorb Gaza and the West Bank, respectively.
Naturally, Slackman substantiates this position through his standard strategy: interviewing the few (and, in this case, very few) English-speaking Arab “experts” who agree with him. In turn, Slackman ignores some painfully obvious counterarguments: such as the fact that the current fighting is in Gaza, and that West Bank Palestinian institutions haven’t been affected; or that Israel isn’t actually trying “to push Palestinians from the West Bank” into Jordan, despite supposed Jordanian worries; or that the “withering criticism” that Egypt has faced hasn’t driven it towards the Iranian position on peace with Israel (actually, quite to the contrary). Meanwhile, Slackman buries another inconvenient tidbit: Egypt has rejected international monitors for the Gaza-Egyptian border, which suggests that it prefers–rather than “fears”–an active role in securing Gaza.
Yet even without Slackman’s lazy pseudo-journalism, the notion that the two-state solution is “slipping away” on account of the current Gaza war is totally baseless. Actually, there are two possibilities. On one hand, Israeli success vis-à-vis Hamas might deal a serious blow to Islamists, thereby empowering Palestinian moderates who recognize the benefits of peace with Israel. Indeed, a two-state solution is totally impossible with Hamas violently empowered–at the very least, Israeli success in the current war would preserve (if not advance) hopes for Israeli-Palestinian peace. On the other hand, the peace process might have been a bankrupt enterprise long before the current fighting in Gaza began–and perhaps long before Hamas ever controlled Gaza in the first place.
Either way, it’s hard to see how a two-state solution had a better chance of success immediately prior to the current fighting, when–aside from refusing to recognize Israel–Hamas refused to even extend a short-term truce and instead renewed its rocket firings. Slackman should know better. Regrettably, he never does.
Why is Senator McCain shocked by the President’s actions? Obama has been true to form and he is not about to change now.
Recall how McCain was “deeply hurt” by attacks on his record during a debate. How did Obama respond: “I don’t think the American people are concerned with our feelings.”
Does anyone think Obama cares about McCain’s views? After all, it’s “I won.” End of discussion.
As much as I support McCain’s crusade against earmarking and pork, ummmm. . . hasn’t he noticed we just spent a gazillion dollars? And we’re spending a gazillion more?
It’s like complaining that eating pork will give us a heart attack while chugging paint thinner. Bigger near-term problems to worry about, Senator.
3.
Back to the midterms;How many Senate/House seats are targeted-possible to win back? What do the Repubs have to say to win in 2010? If we’re in a Depression then, The Dems might be happy to let the Repubs back in for some fun.
who cares about earmarks? they are like .0001 percent of the budget
Obama’s letting these earmarks slide because the economy needs all the spending it can get right now and because both parties negotiated this bill last year. In December Republicans signed off on this budget, and they have 40% of the earmarks.
Your majority leader is one of the top 10 earmark porkers in the Senate. As long as that is the case, you have no business throwing stones.
And Obama’s already signaled that future bills will be different, with strict limitations on earmarks.
So this issue is going away.
McCain needs to stop listening to Limbaugh.
“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) … lectured Obama for failing to do more to stand up against the thousands of spending earmarks in the 1,132 pages.”
It sounds as if the Fabulous Flyboy does not discriminate very carefully between wicked earmarks and noble nutritious pork. But God know best.
Happy days.
Strict limitations on earmarks = Special projects requested by Republicans are earmarks and therefore banned; special projects requested by Democrats aren’t earmarks so they’re okay.
Is that so hard to figure out?
It’s long been the Democrats tagline: Tax and Spend; now, it can be expanded to Tax and Spend, Throw and Stick.
Well, the time for McCain to be mad was during the campaign, not as a Senator.
Too late, sir.
But, of course, this is still FY 2009, meaning this is money being allocated from last year’s budget. It’s already “spent,” it’s just being directed as part of the comprehensive budget process. It’s, I believe, the final regular appropriations bill for FY 2009.
So the only question is; Is John McCain (and by extension Jennifer Rubin and everyone else touting the same line) completely ignorant of the way the overall budget process works, or are they fully aware of it and deliberately attempting to mislead people?
For the record, I suspect that McCain is genuinely an idiot and hasn’t figured any of this out over the last 26 years, and that Rubin is a lying hack.
And yet the vast majority of earmarks go to red states –
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/red-states-gobble-up-omni_n_171186.html
Why doesn’t John McCain start his fight with Congress, and his own party?