Would Palestinian state stymie Iran's plans?

People from Europe have been invading, conquering and subjugating Muslims for the past few centuries. To a large extent Muslims have been able to reverse this trend and expel their foreign captors and, understandably, the subject of Muslims being exploited and humiliated by Westerners is very sensitive to them. The fact that the US has largely made it possible for Israel to continue its oppression is painful to them. Removing this Western island of oppression would calm things down considerably.

As long as even one single Arab/Muslim country remains in a state of war against Israel. There are 57 Muslim countries in the OIC and only 2 have peace treaties with Israel. The "Palestinian conflict" is window dressing--an excuse to dominate their countires. The remaining 55 countries of the OIC will not miraculously cease their self-declared states of belligerency against Israel after a peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis. The US went to war against the Barbary Pirates in the early 19th century because they stole American ships and made American sailors galley slaves. THIS is the root of the Arab grudge against the US. Even if the US were to remove Israel from the face of the earth, Muslims wouldn't "like" the US any better than they do today.

Petreaus is a gifted US general, born with military genes, doing in my opinion what McArthur so often did, namely figuring out how to win a war. The Israeli/Jewish-Pal/Arab conflict is a recruting force for worldwide terror jihad, not seeing that is not naif but plain stubborn and foolish. And I also thought, though we do not agree on the subject of an attack on Iran, you did favor a Pal state more or less by 1967 lines. or did you change your mind on that and have you become a goyim-zelot?

As I recall my history, at one time Muslim pirates were seizing hostages from US and European ships, sometimes enslaving them and demanding huge ransoms or blackmailing the nations to prevent such acts of piracy. I guess that was the fault of Israel too. Oh no, it couldn't have been. It happened in the 18th and 19th centuries long before the existance of Israel

Watching the humble and obedient US Senators tell AIPAC that an Iran attack "may be nearing the discussion phase by this time next year" was as funny as it could get for me. I have been reading about THE imminent attack since 2005. Guys and gals, AIPAC, Likud, etc... just give it up. You will look more professional. Learn to live in a new world where there are more than one or two centers of power. The sooner you learn this - absolutely inevitable future - the safer, happier, and wealthier you will be.

most arab leaders are united in one thing: keeping theur masses in check. israel has been a major boon to them, enabling them to do so by using it as a pretext: "israel is trying to infiltrate us" which allows constant secrecy and the use of the magic words of national security on everything they do we treat the masses a lot better than the palestinians are treated by the israeli's & this is allright with the west & they call israel a democracy, so don't come telling us you want democracy to name but two the US wants the arabs to denounce iran. the US is their patron, they would not exist in power if it were not for the US (much like israel would not exist without backing from outside the region, the arab leaders would not exist as they are without backing from outside their countries) but arab leaders cannot whip up the masses against iran-what danger? israel which is closer has never even set it's borders, is allready dominating us... so what of the future? who cares?

....for me, than no longer be able to tell Israelis what they should do. My life would become rather useless by then...:)

Oh Kitty, I never knew he had a Palestinian friend as well! I feel quite ashamed :)

Now, now Roo.....Morris also has a good Palestinian friend whom he shares his Thanksgiving Turkey with, right next to the good Jewish friend and his own nephew..... You see Roo, we are the world afterall....

They make a convenient excuse for Iran and its hostility towards Israel. If Israel made peace with palestinians gave them a state etc Iran would want to make peace with Israel. The reality is Iran cares about Iran and only Iran. They wouldn't care if Israel round up all of them and shot them all they would care about is Irans interests. The don't even care about Syria. Iran can manage fine without Syria because they dictate to Assad, not the other way around. If Syria deserted Iran it wouldn't matter to Iran they would continue their own political ideals. If Iran wanted nukes and it had lost Syria it would build nukes, if it wanted to support terror then it would support terror. The only country Iran really needs is Russia to buy weapons from & provide a UN Security Council veto. To a lesser degree North Korea & China because both countries sell it weapons and China is a back up in the UN if Russia can't be relied on. In the Middle East Iran doesn't need or care about anybody.

"The hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors, he said, pose a challenge to U.S. interests in the region. This conflict enflames Arab anti-American feelings because the United States is perceived as supporting Israel." General Petraeus I inferred the meaning of the General's statement. We literally support Israel with tax money. $17 billion on settlements alone? Where does a beggar nation come up with this money? We have been giving $1000 per Jew for decades. We have supplied advanced weaponry. We have vetoed outcries against Israeli behavior at the UN. We have invaded Iraq, illegally, thanks to Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith, all pro Israel. Hell, even Winston Churchill, the drunk, espoused using gas on Iraqi's. The Arab has been abused by the West for over 100 years. Israel shares half of the bullshit. Even-handedness? It's this preferential treatment that has to, and will, end. Soon. Thank our lucky stars. Salaam/Shalom

Arab relation with U.S.A will improve dramatically once Israeli/palestinian crisis resolved. These are peace loving people influenced by Islam.

And that means that Iran will continue to be the dominant player in the region, given its industrial base, its entrepeneurial advantages, and its population base. About the only way to keep Iran from becoming a major world player would be to carpet bomb it, and that would get those who did it cut off from the international community (and might even get it bombed in return).

The Strategic Needs of the United States and the National Desires of Israel are at odds and are rapidly becoming internecine. Israel believes it doesn't need the world and the USA has to cope with the world. Israel believes it deserves anything it demands from the USA and need not consider the immense problems that causes for the USA. America needs to cool things down in the Mideast and Israel's government wants things inflamed. Israel wants everything for nothing, and the USA can't afford that. Possible solutions are few. Israel can moderate it's stance. Or the two nations will need a divorce. The USA cannot continue to sacrifice it's foreign policy for the dreams of the Israel right.

An independent Palestinian state would attract a number of bad elements into its territory. Iran would be the first or one of the first countries to recognize that state and immediately set up shop on the West Bank. Israel would have to give up more proposed corridors between the WB and Gaza. And with a peace treaty all hostilities would cease, but Hamas has declared that any treaty signed by the PA would not bind Hamas. Hamas would continue the fight against the occupation of all of Palestine until the Jewish state is destroyed. So who is exactly bond by this treaty being pushed by the US?

"The current people in that party cannot stand Eisenhower or any past general except Grant, maybe." - Mark of Lewiston Nope, they want Grant off the $50 bill and Reagan's picture on it. Also, don't forget Grant won the Civil War for the 'wrong' side.

Originally Walt's paper bore the logo and name of Harvard and the Kennedy School on the Kennedy School's Web site. The logo was removed and a strongly worded disclaimer added only 'after' a furor from faculty members, a Congressman and Jewish leaders including Harvard's own Dershowitz! Somewhat adding to the evidence that Walt and Mearsheimer brought to bear on the issue of the 'lobby'. Of course these guys would never have attempted to write such a paper had they not had security of tenure. Had they done so, they would have surely got the same treatment as Finklestein. Chomsky [who critiqued the paper and rejects its premise] after all admitted that he only got away with his own comments and wrtings on Israel because he was not part of the Political Science faculty at MIT. He also, whilst recognizing the good scholarship of Finklesteins own work, advised him not to pursue it for the sake of his career. Advice Finklestein chose to ignore of course.

Iran was very calm before 2003. Since then, its influence is rising by the minute not to mention that Iran is now the leading powers in Mid-Eastern affairs. Its rhetoric to get on the good side of the Arab street is by denouncing the "Temporary Regime" (Israel in Iranian tongue). Should Israel concede the least selfish deal (1967 Borders + East Jerusalem), the Arabs would regard the Saudis as the main broker of Palestinian salvation... not Iran. Hence, the Arab street would no longer pay attention to Iran or the main threat to the region (Israel). The street would now point at the Arab leaders to explain the misery of the region... This is a win-win for Israel: It would keep more 75% of 1948 Palestine, and would see its greatest influential threat being forced back to the Persian highlands. Will it happen? No, as Israel's answer to diplomacy is to take all and give nothing...

saying that? Are you going to duck for cover as usual when you are challenged?

First of all nowhere in Petraeus' comments does he state what you acribe to him. ie:`"solving` the Palestinian question - no doubt at Israel`s expense - the Arab street and Tehran`s mullahs will suddenly drop their hatred of America and the West". So that can be easily dismissed as a straw man argument. As for 'his' being naive. Well it isn't Petraeus who changes his mind like a weather vein in a tornado. eg. Carter is a good friend of Israel to "anti-Israel tripe he`s[Carter] been spewing for the last several years" all in space of one year?! In any case, not only is he a vastly experienced military man with extensive experience IN the Mid East[unlike yourself, who lived in Israel for a bit] but he gained a Ph.D. in international relations in 1987 from Princeton. Now apart from living in Israel for a bit and having a good Jewish friend in the US, what makes you think he is naïve and you're on the button?

YOU have nothing to lose if it all goes pear shape except for your hobby of telling Israelis what to do.

I know very little of early US Presidents, so many thanks. Mind you, part of the reason for my lack of knowledge is the fact that our own political history is so dead-set boring: apart from the 1940s and early 1970s it a march of the nonentities. Indeed, so boring that we even managed to LOOSE a Prime Minister in 1967 when no-one was looking, which must be some sort of record in apathy. There must be more than a few Israelis who are wish, wish, wishing that if they only look the other way......

say about peace?Ever?

With Iranian clients Hamas calling the shots just as Iranian client Hezballa does.

Obama is making the huge and unforgivable mistake of putting his head into the sand: concentrating on the peace process,instead of stopping Iran's nuclear aspirations,will only bring trouble:the Iranians won't be stopped AND the peace process will,once again,be mired.I'm not saying that once Iran will be stopped, the peace process will advance.I'm saying that, once Iran is stopped, Abbas won't have any official excuse to make peace with Israel.The real issue is the lack of real palestinian leadership: Abbas' PA is inept and corrupt, while hamas only exists as Iran's proxy, without wanting to improve the lives of the pals.Any real advance in the peace process will be immediately stopped by the PA's inertia and Iran's proxies,i.e.Syria,hamas and hizbollah.It's not with declarations that Obama will stop Iran.There's a good reason why he has both Israel and Saudi Arabia worried:these two countries will be a nuclear Iran's first victims.Obama just doesn't want to pay the price to stop Iran.

The Obama Administration knows very well there is no link between Iran's nuclear aspirations and the Israeli-palestinian issue.Clinton only uses this as an excuse: she wants Israel to pay the unbearable price of making one-sided concessions, while she won't even publicly criticise the PA for their incitement against Israel, nor for naming one of the Ramallah squares after a suicide bomber, who massacred 35 Israeli civilians.This policy will blow up in the face of Obama, since putting only pressure on Israel cannot work.Why? Abbas is waiting on the side for Obama to put pressure on Israel, while the PA is powerless against hamas.As long as hamas is in power in Gaza and tries to undermine the PA, there cannot be any progress in the so-called peace process.But, even if this were not the case, this would only eliminate one of Abbas' excuses to make real peace with Israel.Abbas' inept and corrupt regime only encourages the pals root for hamas.This is the real issue here.

Only one in the 20th Century, Eisenhower. But a whole bundle of General Officers served as President in the 19th and 18th Centuries - 11 starting with Washington. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_military_service

How distinguished is that? Tenured accademics have a lot of leeway its very hard if not impossible to fire them for what they write or say. How many congressmen should one interview on a book about lobbying congress to get a statistically valid survey? My understanding is he interviwed none.Feel free to correct me on any of the above. Just straight replies will do,not riccocheting all over the place.

And the rest of the article is typical of the Israeli attitude of 'We don't want peace', 'There will never be peace', 'Peace won't solve anything' etc, etc, with no evidence presented by the author to supports those claims, only his personal belief, which he seems to consider a sufficient argument.

the are more deaths now in iraq in little time than in the entire era of Saddam.you can be proud of it and say you leave iraq with the head high!!!!

feelings exsist through the world not only in the middle east you find them in south america in asia in africa even in europe.remember during vietnam war, korean war , invasion of grenada, etc.....Petraeus analysys is very false and not brillant

Did you read the bible?????did you read history of the region?. weeks ago he wanted to place plo territory under US centcom control.It was like if he wanted to confront US military to IDF .As i always say it US military is a very rich army but IDF is the best army in the world.It is a very big mistake for Petraeus or to try to get more credibilty under Israelo-arab problem when ignoring the realty and history of the region

How many US Presidents were ex-generals? Eisenhower and Grant, sure. Washington, of course. Andrew Jackson? Or was he a colonel? Anyone else?

Why would the Saudis subsidize Israel's occupation of Palestine? Only the EU and US do that regularly. And what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China, anyway?

Obviously you were never a Marine! EVERY Marine knows it's "From the Halls of Montezuma, to the SHORES of Tripoli." Everything you said is now null and void. If you don't even know a song, how can we be sure you know much of anything else. Plus you really don't make sense in your posting anyways. Petaeus may be an Army man but he along with Gates helped us pull out of Iraq with our heads held high and is bringing the hurt in Afghanistan. If this man says something, we (Americans) listen! SEMPER FI!

if usa or israel or both attacks iran then the whole region is in grave danger .iran.s proxies in iraq will strike us forces with ferosity . hizballah ,hamas and most likely syria will unleash thousands of rockets into israel . moderate arab regimes will be in danger and people might revolt and create turmoil .if war is not done shortly then the inferno will consume the region and surely will affect usa interests in the middle-east .the biggest loosers will be usa and israel and moderate arab regimes .

....and Abe Foxman etc., who just "can't let go from the land" will continue to feverishly dispute General Petraeus assumptions. The whole rest of us, that is not blinded by irrationality, and therefore still capable of logical thinking, will fully agree with the U.S. General. It really doesn't take a genius to understand the connection between Israel/Palestine and Iran/Al Kaida/general Muslim hatred against the United States....

solving fairly the IP-conflict will help strengthen the moderate moslems,the vast majority and isolate the extremists,a tiny minority.The ME needs peace and cooperation, not tension and enmity.PEACE.

How much of the billions of USD the Palestinians get as transfers, are coming from other Muslim countries? Close to zero. The other Islamic countries in the region don't give a damn about the Palestinians. This is just leftist propaganda.

I can't imagine voting for the guy. Some say he might be a Republican. But that can't be true. He's not insane enough to win a primary in today's iteration of that party. The current people in that party cannot stand Eisenhower or any past general except Grant, maybe. They think Teddy Roosevelt was a commie-pinko. Besides, Petraeus thinks gays have a right to serve in the military. Any Republican political aspirations are shot by that alone.

G144: "Guess who was the thesis advisor to General Petraeus? The infamous Proffessor Stephen M. Walt" And in what way is Stephen M. Walt "infamous", Gilad? He is a distinguished academic who has published a book on a topic that makes zionists squirm. That certainly doesn't make him "infamous". Maybe "contraversial" would be an apt word to use, but not "infamous". After all, Walt continues to be employed in a senior academic position in a very prestigeous University, and if you want to refute his book then by all means go out and write your own. I'm sure you can find SOMEONE in the Israeli Lobby who will publish it for you.....

I strongly agree with General David Petraeus, America must demand from Israel to end the conflict with the Palestinians based on the two states for two people formula or a binational state. Ending the Israeli/Palestinian conflict means the end of America's conflict with the Muslims and Arabs.

...Mark of L. BTW, look what Gilad 144 discovered!

The "Arab Street" which you claim is inimical to Western democracy is in fact a lot more hostile to Western incursions. For the past two centuries the West has been invading, subjugating and exploiting any locals they can get at. What is going on now is largely a reaction to all those invasions and harassment. Looked at in those terms, there is no way they could not hate another such invasion by Europeans.

MV: "Petraeus is therefore terribly naïve to think that by `solving` the Palestinian question - no doubt at Israel`s expense - the Arab street and Tehran`s mullahs will suddenly drop their hatred of America and the West." Petraeus couldn't give a stuff about either the "Arab street" nor "Tehran's mullahs". His COMMAND needs assistance in fighting islamic terrorism, and the leadership of all the Arab countries are telling him that CENTCOM can not have that assistance while America continues to behave like Israel's glove-puppet. MV: "US military types historically have not proven themselves to be incisive political and social thinkers." Petraeus does not care about either the "political" nor the "social" aspects of this, Morris. This is strictly business i.e. CENTCOM needs **military** help to achieve its **military** goals, and Petraeus understands that CENTCOM can not - and will not - get that vital help while America continues to behave as an Israeli toady.

To those criticizing Petraeus: Have you been to the Arab and Muslim countries he has? Have you talked to Iraqis and Saudis and Bahranians and Qataris and Afghans, etc.? US AOR Commanders don't play politics while in office. Politicians do. Unlike in Israel and some other countries, US policy is made by our politicians, not our military. Would advancing peace emasculate Iran? NO But it would stymie their use of the Israel-Palestine conflict. They might even have to look to satisfying their own population's economic and human rights concerns. And Shmuelshachor, it "Shores" of Tripoli. We made peace with Mexico and with Libya and we're making it with Iraq, too. And Bahrain gives us basing rights, just like Kuwait and Qatar.

Guess who was the thesis advisor to General Petraeus? The infamous Proffessor Stephen M. Walt (re Walt & John Mearsheimer and the Israeli Lobby). Anyone who is really pro-Israel, but more importantly, anyone who is not scared of the truth and not willing to destort history, should be concerned as Petraeus could one day be president and the Walt lie has yet to be exposed.

years? He claims that Petraeus "...came up with a significant insight." Wow! Thank you, Ephraim. Lots of people have been saying this very same thing for years and years. So, how come you now discover this? Pray, explain to us, less sophisticated folks, why it took you so long to discover it and express it?

And how much does Petraeus gauge that US bungling in the ME has compromised Israel. He is off his skull.

And the goniffs laugh at us and keep stealing and building. Are we nuts. C'mon Mr. President, let change this, yes we can. Salaam/Shalom

What is relevant here is that General Petraeus is even more popular in the American Circles which support Israel, than Israel itself. Thus even though Ephraim Kam is technically correct about the clear limits that an Israel-Palestinian peace would have in alleviating anti-Americanism on the Arab and Muslim street, that fact will not matter in terms of how much support an Israel which resists the current American initiative will receive from pro Israel Americans who are even more pro Petraeus than pro-Israel. So throwing this limitation in the face of the American administration has limited value in protecting Israel from its present squeeze by the Obama administration.

With or without a Palestinian state, the Muslim populations of the Mid-East are inimical to Western democracy, and to Israel. Their hostility existed long before there was a call for an Arab Palestine. Petraeus is therefore terribly naïve to think that by 'solving' the Palestinian question - no doubt at Israel's expense - the Arab street and Tehran's mullahs will suddenly drop their hatred of America and the West. US military types historically have not proven themselves to be incisive political and social thinkers. Petraeus shows himself to be no different. MV

" The Arab street does not support America, even in those countries whose governments are friendly with Washington.There are several reasons for this, and the American attitude to Israel and the Palestinian question is only one of them" The Other reasons are because of America involvement in Iraq and interfering in other Arab countries on behalf of the Zionist lobby.

The good General is an Army Man.If he would be a Marine,he would remember ther USMC anthem..."From the Halls of Montezuma,to the sands of Tripoly" that celebrates the war the USA had with the moslem pirates trying to extort fees from American Trade Ships passing the coasts of Tripoly during the THOMAS JEFFERSON GOVERNMENT...AT THE TIME,1812,ISRAEL EXISTED ONLY IN THE HEART AND MINDS OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE...

world's political decisions is intended to perpetuate Israel's policies towards the Palestinians. Settle the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and you will have Arab/Israeli entrepreneurs crossing borders to conduct business. This will be followed by the gradual establishment of trade agreements, etc. Israel would actually benefit from settling the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, Israel's objectives are to accumulate more land rather than be at peace with its neighbors.

a peace deal with palestine...you can forget about ever being part of the ME w/o a peace deal.....start and end of story...in 300 yrs if there is no peace deal you will still have no friends in ME, and be isolated.....it is in your best interest to make a peace deal and have friends in the neighborhood

in a fair and equitable manner for all sides (Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine) would 1) render Israeli UN violations moot 2) allow the US to enforce other UN resolutions without looking like a hypocritical buffoon, and 3) seriously erode a prime recruitment tool for jihadists. Lastly, does anyone know how much money could be made in religio/archaeological tourism if the region were stable? Regional stability will raise everyone's economic boats.

Only goes so far but AFIK they all want to emigrate to America and find the American dream. No moslim goes to Mauritania, with its tribal wars and persistent slavery. Israel is far more popular with the Arabs

Ascendant Islamic revolutionary hegemonism, as taught by the Iranian synthesis of traditional and post-modernist radicalized fascist strains of theocracy needs no pretext to confront the West apart from its own self-confident will. But the West dreads military confrontation and wishes to convince itself that its own weakness can somehow, anyhow, be the seed for Iranian beneficence. The "axis of resistance" leaders now directly insult the United States and the President, mocking him, proclaiming not that America is a mighty Great Satan, but a great deflating decadent Satan, what the Chinese used to call a "paper tiger". The President's meaningless and empty promises of and shifting deadlines for sanctions that never come, followed, ludicrously, by fresh attempts at "engagement" after each Iranian step towards nuclear weaponization, are, as with the French and English to Hitler, gestures evoking not appreciation but utter and dire and grimly ironic contempt.