More Than Just a Chirade

in response to the Economist article “More Than Just a Chirade”

NorthLost, you live in a fatasy land if you believe a greater Israel with Jews, Muslims and Christians living in harmony will emerge out of this mess as equal partners. The Jews will never give up the primacy of the Jewish homeland and the dominance of Jews in that homeland.

More likely, this intransigence and outrageous treatment of the US will see the region descend into even greater chaos, with the most likely winner being a nuclear armed Iran, supported by the Arabs (remarkable when you consider the Persians and Arabs are historical enemies and rivals) because they no longer can rely on the US and they basically have nowhere else to go.

If this accured, over time the Israeli state will be doomed by its own intransigence and stupidity, and by the overwhelming demographics of the region. They only have themselves to blame. Is the radical settler movement really worth this cost?

More Than Just a Chirade

in response to the Economist article “More Than Just a Chirade”

How the apologists for Israel can bare-faced say Israel wants peace when this sort of behavior is not only tolerated but encouraged is beyond me. Why doesn’t the US use the undoubted economic muscle over the Israeli state to extract more acceptable behavior. Obama must surely now see that his softly softly approach has not worked in Health care, in climate change, on Iran or on Afganastan.

Nor will it work on a middle east settlement. Sure the Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill will bluster and carry on, but Obama at the moment on a lot of these issues seems to be expending political capital for very little political gain. Better to be decisive and accept you will cause a melt down with the vested interests, at least you will then be seen as being decisive, as well as right on your side in standing up to those who wish to thumb their noses at the US to America’s and the Administration’s considerable cost.

Reasonableness will not work with either side in the Middle East. The attitudes are too well entrenched, and the behaviors too extreme. Strong decisive action backed up with the full use of political and economic power is the only way to achieve a breakthrough. And all sides need the understand that this sort of outrageous behavior as outlined in this article will not be tolerated and will have consequences for those who perpetrate it.

The US would not tolerate this sort of “two figures in the air” to it from ANYONE else. They should not from Israel, otherwise others will decide they can do what they like to the world’s superpower with considerable cost to American power and prestige, and indeed to the safety of the entire Western world.

Flowering Friendliness

Comment in response to Economist article “Flowering Friendliness”

China is playing a game when it comes to growth rates. All the independent think tanks I have seen recently have them above 10% growth pa over the next five years. Indeed only at the weekend, Australian numbers compiled by the private sector, particularly the resources sector, has demands for raw materials returned to pre GFC number by mid year and thereafter exceeding them by 10% or more per annum.

IS China playing these numbers down to justify their misleading projection on military spend, and/or to frighten their population into lessening the demands for social and economic reforms?

Does Mossad really make Israel safer?

Comment in response to Economist article “Does Mossad Really Make Israel Safer?

Oh and by the way Tzatz, the so called Clinton solution for the Middle East settlement was no solution at all. The Arabs could simply not accept such an arrangement where it was so biased towards Israel, kept a lot of the settlements in place, and had no real solution to the dilemma about Jerusalem. If that is what you call a comprehensive settlement, then you really are condemning yourself to continuing hostilities.

A Deadly Raid

Comment on Economist artcle (31 May, 2010) “A Deadly Raid”

Until both sides realise that incidents like this will continue until there is a peace deal, this situation is unavoidable. Israel continues to believe that a country with a population of 5 million can use military force to suppress 100m plus around its borders.

The only solution is to stop the settlements, withdraw to the pre 1967 borders, and make peace with the whole of the Arab world. Then have this supported by a million plus troops from UN peace keepers paid for largely by petro dollars, and allow Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank) to develop peacefully into a low cost economic haven right in the middle of the middle eastern powers.

Heaven forbid, Israel may well get on with their neighbours very well, share a common prosperity, even eventually participate in a middel eastern common market. The region could then become a force for good in the world rather than be the reason for most of the world’s conflicts between islam and the West.

How Israel Plays into Hamas’s Hands

Comment on the Economist article (4 July 2010) “How Israel Play’s into Hamas’s Hands”

Very interesting article. Why does Israel seemingly never understand that people will always eventually find a way around repression. If you repress them for long enough, and often enough, you will never get their cooperation and support. Repressing the people of Gaza is causing the opposite effect to what they presumably want. As the article points out, it is not only funding Hamas, but it is allowing them to rebuild the Gaza in their own image which will make it very difficult to un-wind. Without the cover of the blockade, and from it the thriving Hamas controlled black-market, this would not be possible. They are driving the Gazans into the hands of Hamas by their own actions – where else can they go?

Signs of Recovery

Resp0nse to Economist article “Signs of Recovery” 21 July 2010

Yes, advertising expenditures have been relatively durable GFD, but I think the far more interesting question for such an august journal as the Economist to contemplate is what the future of the current advertising agency model is. Alternative media is changing so quickly, and consumer taste with it, that the mass media, television driven model of the past in my view is unsustainable. The question for the Avertising industry, and traditional media if it comes to that, is what if anything will replace it. There is not currently an obvious answer to this question, but what we can say is that old style ad agencies and media companies have not yet worked out how to use the new social media outlets, and are a long way from integrating them fully into their overall media mix. Perhaps the finger is still fully in the dyke as they work out how to make money from them. It deserves an Economist think piece for which they are so famous.