What now? Why Obama will be surprised on foreign policy

Posted By Stephen M. Walt Tuesday, January 20, 2009 - 4:40 PM Share

In foreign policy, the safest prediction is unpredictability. George W. Bush took office in 2000 condemning "nation-building" and intending to focus on great power politics; then along came 9/11 and he ended up occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. Bill Clinton tried to stay out of the Balkan mess during his first term but eventually found himself sending thousands of soldiers to Bosnia and bombing the Serbs over Kosovo. Bush 41 started out thinking that Saddam Hussein was a U.S. ally and ended up having to drive him out of Kuwait. In each case, these presidents devoted considerable time and attention to problems that they never saw coming. So Barack needs to be prepared for the unexpected. We already know what is on his foreign policy "to do" list -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine, Colombia, Pakistan, etc. -- but he is certain to get blind-sided by something that he's not even thinking about yet. Will it be a governmental meltdown in Mexico? The unexpected death of a key Mideast leader? A run on the dollar? Who knows? I'd love to tell him what the Big Surprise is going to be; alas, nobody's crystal ball is that good. But when it happens -- and it will -- we'll find out just how good a leader he really is.

EXPLORE:INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, DIPLOMACY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(20)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

GRAND SEN-OR

8:18 PM ET

January 22, 2009

Theories of FP

I was thinking that FP scientists(?!) develop FP theories to predict FP phenomena and explain it according to the theory they decide to use. I am really getting confused here on that issue. To say Obama "we'll see how good you are when some event FP theories cannot predict!" means that you are going to get fired as an FP advisor - I mean if I was Obama;->>
Nobody expect from you to fortune-tell, but if Obama comes to you with a likely scenario of FP, then you should be advising him predicting what might happen next - according to the Theory (lets say the SATFP).

But, don't worry Obama knows what to do even in the event that "unexpected" happened. He will follow the advice of McCain on FP "Talk sweet and carry a big bat!". I mean he doesn't need your FP theories anyway;->
Or, as a second thought perhaps I should add this as another axiom to SATFP, something like "A State talks sweet but carries a big bat peeping under her cloak as deterrant to other states." to keep the Blog in business;->

What do you think?

Grand Sen~or

BLUE13326

9:28 PM ET

January 20, 2009

The most obvious would be one

The most obvious would be one of the oil-exporting states starting a war to deflect their populace's attention away from their collapsing economy.

The ruble is already in freefall, so I probably don't get points for predicting its crash, do I?

GRAND SEN-OR

11:29 PM ET

January 20, 2009

Obvious prediction??!!

My Dear Blue13326,

May I ask: Your "obvious prediction" is according to what?
According to which FP Theory, is it according to the SATFP?

If it is not according to any "known theory of FP" then why would you expect us to understand you and make a decision based on your "obvious prediction"? In the field of FP we use theories to communicate among us FP people. Out of the Theory talks means almost nothing to us. So, to expect "points" tell us how did you reach to your "obvious prediction" according to the Theory ????

Grand Sen~or

POET

4:41 PM ET

January 21, 2009

only two arab states are in our top ten

only 2 arab states are in our top in oil consumption and one of them is saudi arabia.

http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090121/OPINION/319347384/1080/WEEKENDER

i don't suspect oil is going to be an issue.

unless canada goes islamist.

BLUE13326

1:37 AM ET

January 21, 2009

Common sense. Sorry, I got my

Common sense.

Sorry, I got my doctorate in law, not FP (something a bit more real, you know?).

In law we use something called logic. I find this to be generally more useful than FP theories (nearly all of which are logically invalid, either because they assume facts not in evidence, or assume the principle of uniformity, which is itself logically invalid).

Most of the oil-exporting states are ruled by some form of leadership that is not representative and whose leaders aim to hold onto power until death (i.e., Chavez, Putin, Khameini); these regimes are totalitarian in nature, they restrict what their populace is allowed to learn about the outside world, and demonize the 'other'. History shows it's just these types of regimes that become belligerent when times get tough.

These regimes are going to be among the worst hit, because they have no diversified economies, have little access to advanced Western technology in their main economic fields (i.e., oil extraction), have been kept in power through using high oil prices to placate their populace, and have used oil to expand their influence. Now, they are facing severe economic contraction and along with it, a severe contraction in their influence. Maybe they will accept this gracefully (along with the increasing probability of revolution), maybe not. The probabilities are not good that they will. You can call this any theory you'd like (personally, I favor labeling it the 'Broken Hearts are for Assholes Theory'; maybe you'd prefer something else?), but it should be fairly obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of history and grasp of logic.

By the way, if out of the theory talk means nothing to people here, you need to get out more. There are many other fields of knowledge just as useful in understanding the world.

GRAND SEN-OR

8:15 AM ET

January 22, 2009

Common sense. I hope you are

Common sense.

I hope you are not sending people based on "common sense" to electric chair;->>

History shows

this has nothing to do with logic either, it is out of fashion Marxist Lingo;->

So, leave History alone and you show to us;->
Infact Theories are logical structures which even yourself use it without knowing.

There are many other fields of knowledge just as useful in understanding the world.

Namely?
Is there another field of knowledge of FP which doesn't use theories?
I tell you what;->"Obviously what you are asserting is not so obvious even to yourself, otherwise you wouldn't get mad and patiently explain us how did you reach this "obvious to yoursel fact". Because the logic of our language dictates that if you cannot answer "how do you know and how can we know like you know?" it is _not_ knowledge for us yet.

So, you can't just barge in and say "Obviously this guy killed that person!" and expect us to hang him'->>
We have all the right to ask the question:
"How do you know?"
and the answer
"common sense!"
is also not an answer for us to take an action to hang the guy;->
And if you can't explain how do you know, or you explain but if using the procedure that you happened to know if we can't know, we are not going to hang the man. Because you reach the decision that thought you knew, but you don't know otherwise repeating the procedure that you claimed to know,we would also know.

What I am saying is "May God protect me to be judged by law students like yourself!";->>>Otherwise you would obviously hang me;->>

Grand Sen~or

note: when you respond to a persons message please use reply option under that message rather than filling the bottom box which post your reply on main line readers may get confused whom youare responding to. Thank you.

BRETT

2:14 AM ET

January 21, 2009

Unpredictable predictions? 1.

Unpredictable predictions?

1. The Mexican President (Calderon, or his successor after 2012) is assassinated by one of the gangs, and the military effort flags. Ultimately, the Mexican government virtually loses control over vast stretches of its territory (much like the case of Sinaloa now), and woe to any Mexican soldier or federal official that finds his self in one of those states. This causes the gang-on-gang warfare in the border cities to explode, with a major migration crossing over into the United States.

The US, naturally, backs the Mexican President with financial aid (if possible), and he starts an effort to effectively reconquer his own territory, with bloody results and death.

2. Iran unveils a nuclear weapon in late 2009 (it's just one weapon, and crude), but it causes a chain reaction in the Middle East. Qatar and Saudi Arabia start moving on a "peaceful nuclear energy program", and Iraq starts making noises about getting nukes of its own. Israel, of course, is freaking out at this point.

3. The economic situation takes a massive nose-dive, leading to a massive riot in the poor, mostly North African ethnicity suburbs of France. The French government over-reacts, and puts it down in a bad PR way. The resulting general strike is greater than that of the 1968 student riots, and unlike the 1968 riots, it brings down the Fifth Republic.

4. (Here's the real reacher)China's economic growth drops to nearly zero in one quarter, leading to a series of massive riots and murders of local officials. A particularly repugnant aspect is the use of the Internet to "stalk" particularly corrupt officials and ruin their lives, if not murder them. The Chinese government, in a desperate move to stabilize the situation, dedicates the aggregate of its currency reserves towards a stimulus package.

The result? When the US suddenly needs another massive infusion of money from sold Treasury bonds to maintain a $2 trillion deficit, China simply can not give it to them, although they try to make a small down payment and purchase some bonds. But the sheer shock of this makes newspapers worldwide with the headline "Chinese refuse US bonds", or the equivalent. The Dow (already down to nearly 6,000) drops 600 points with 20 minutes of the news, and is automatically closed.

The Obama administration, now in a deeper economic crisis than ever and in the middle of major health care reform, takes a body blow. Fiscal Republicans, suddenly re-energized by the events, manage to kill his health care reform package, and in the political fight over funds several banks aren't able to get more capital. Several major banks fail, and the financial system goes into hibernation. The dollar's value plummets, and the US bond rating is degraded.

This hurts China even more, since now even their exports aren't competitive due to the change in currency value vis a vis the US. With no alternative, they raise tariffs on key imports, and massive devalue their currency. This, occurring only a month before a major Congressional election that the Democrats were already looking towards with dismal expectations, results in a severe populist counter-reaction in the polls, and a whole bunch of protectionist Republicans and Democrats are elected. Since these guys also tend to be anti-immigration, a major bill, one that will be known in the history books as a disaster comparable to that of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, passes, cutting off all but a small quantity of legal immigration (mainly from Canada), and slapping a steep tariff and quota system on non-NAFTA countries. This causes a worldwide re-adjustment like after the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, and the global trading and economic system collapses in weeks.

KENNETH SORENSEN

9:04 AM ET

January 21, 2009

Constructive messages for those committing (state) terror

We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories

Harnessing soil?

We will not apologise for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defence..

Common misunderstanding promoted by neoconservatives: that hatred for americans way of life is motivation for terror.

He had these messages to Israel:

...and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

So there is hope after all that the plug to israel will be pulled.
And then there is another message to those who seeks conflct - intertwined with a sentence presumably adressed to somebody else, that seems to imply that the West’s meddling in their domishere has got nothing to do with developments therein:

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy[IDF]. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit [Olmert] and the silencing of dissent [the palestinian opposition], know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

So if Israel is willing to unclench its fist, a handout could be expected

As we consider the road that unfolds before us

Watch out! About time those roads and bridges are being updated, lest they unfold beneath your feet.

those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains.They have something to tell us,

[When the f….. are we going home!? And what is all this about anyway?]

KENNETH SORENSEN

11:34 AM ET

January 21, 2009

Israel is unsustainable from an ecological point of view as well

As you are probably aware, The Dead Sea is evaporating away, and the Sea of Galilei, its only tribuary, has retracted 200 meters from its previous shores, because Israel has since 1964 been pumping the majority of its drinkwater and much of its irrigationneeds, from this world-heritage lake and as far south as to the Negev, in a vain attempt to 'make the desert flourish', as Ben-Gurion put it. But like virtually all other aspects of zionism, it simply cannot be done, there is not enough water in this - from natures hand - dry area of the world.

And obviously, the 1 million + russian jews who has arrived since 1990, following af plan laid out by Sharon in a deliberate attempt to offset the greater arab population growth, - has made matters worse.

So it seems, from an ecologically point of view as well, Israel is unsustainable, a dream (that has turned into the palestinians nightmare) - a Fata Morgana.

..........Area..........Population

Israel: 20,770 km²......7,282,000
Negev*: ~ 13,000 km².......554,000

Israel
minus
Negev: ~7,770 km².......6,728,000

Zealand
(Denmark): 7.031 km².-...2,130,000

New Jersey: 22,608 km²
Connecticut: 14.371 km²
Los Angeles County: 10,517 km²
Puerto Rico: 9,104 km²
Yellowstone National Park: 8,900 km²
Delaware: 6,452 km²

___________
*)Documentation Negev

The Negev covers more than half of Israel, over some 13,000 km² or at least 55% of the country's land area. Today, the Negev is home to some 379,000 Jews and some 175,000 Bedouin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev

AHMED2864

3:40 PM ET

January 21, 2009

IR-realist Theory

The realist theory is a descriptive theory, it describes why past evens have happened the way it happened. From learning from the trends of the past we can see some patterns and plan for the future.
There are four assumptions on which the realist theory stands on;
A-International system is anarchic, no central authority to uphold "rule of law" so states are on their own.
B-States have some degree of offensive military capability.
C-States can never be certain about other states intentions.
D- Survival is the primary goal of states, the greater the balance of power in your favor the greater your chances of survival.
This explains why Europe balanced with the U.S to deter Soviet land forces which were the primary threat.
It explains why UK stood idly in 1870 as Prussia under Bismark conquered territory and formed a powerful united Germany. UK reasoned that a powerful Germany would check France and thereby allowing UK to have its empire abroad unchecked.
And these past events and many more allow us to understand why we now have so many troops in Europe, and why we are suspicious of China and why we maintain a force in the far east.
So the Realist theory can be a good predictor based on past events.

GRAND SEN-OR

7:14 PM ET

January 21, 2009

The realist theory is a

The realist theory is a descriptive theory, it describes why past evens have happened the way it happened. From learning from the trends of the past we can see some patterns and plan for the future.
There are four assumptions on which the realist theory stands on;
A-International system is anarchic, no central authority to uphold "rule of law" so states are on their own.
B-States have some degree of offensive military capability.
C-States can never be certain about other states intentions.
D- Survival is the primary goal of states, the greater the balance of power in your favor the greater your chances of survival.

Ahmed, thank you Mate. Your pointing out that the theory is descriptive explains same of Stephen's statements. But still seeing some patterns are used to predict/plan the future means Stephen is not that helpless to perdict the future according to the theory.
Why this theory called realist?
I don't see any term "real/reality/realist" as part of defined or undefined terms of the theory. Is it named for selling purpose?!
I'll refine my set of axioms as I gather/compile it from the applications of the theory on this blog. BTW, all my criticism of the theory still holds which were mainly the following:
This theory's concept of "state, nation" althougn not defined explicitely, in its application(interpretetion) are based on Constitutional states of the by-product of French Revolution. But the theory ignores the Constitution in foreign politics. According to the theory foreign politics is independent from the constitution of the state. By doing that this theory ignores the concept "will" which is closely related to the concept "politics".
Worst of all, this theory assumes there are no rule of law in International arena but yet tries to discover regularities, trends and patterns. In another words tries to discover laws. In fact this theory is based on the constitution of the US and the constitution doesn't cover international affairs;->
This theory is _useless_. One can only save the phenomena with it.
If you guys think that you can explain away Israel Lobby with this theory, you are dreaming!

Grand Sen~or

AHMED2864

9:47 PM ET

January 21, 2009

Why is called realist?

I think its called realist theory because it sets out to describes the world as it really functions with out the idealistic notions.It can predict based on past events and history and not on new and optimistic ideas that appeal to us. In essence the international structure places tight structural constraints on us as states, so regardless of what our internal politics are, our foreign policy will be shaped by the reality of the external environment not the internal environment such as constitution or party politics. For example our policies during the Cold War were pretty much the same regardless of the party that was in power and even though we are a democracy we were just as determined and aggressive as the Soviet Union which was not a democracy.
But you are partly correct that sometimes internal factors such as constitution etc can affect foreign policy and the theory cannot account for these anomalies, but in large part our policies are shaped by the external environment.

GRAND SEN-OR

8:33 AM ET

January 22, 2009

foreign policy will be shaped

foreign policy will be shaped by the reality of the external environment not the internal environment such as constitution or party politics. For example our policies

Just because you name it "real/reality/realist" doesn't make it reality related. And to say "reality of environment" means nothing according to the SATFP, because "reality" is not part of that theory, it is neither a defined nor un-defined term of the SATFP.
"not shaped by constitution of the state" is meaningless, because in a modern state if leadership of the state commit an act, take a decision which is not according to the Constitution of the state they get sued for that. Remember the first thing a leader like Obama does is to swear on constitution. So, to assume that a state's acts in FP has nothing to do with the state's constitution just further undermines your concept of state.

"you say constitution etc effects FP"
thank you,
but then you add
"these are anomalies"
I think you are joking;->
or you are really sucked into your _salvare apparentias_ such that you are picking your _phenomena_ according to their being capable to be saved or not;->
keep talking, you are really disclosing a lot;->

Excuse me but there is no state there to identify without constitution - written/or not. Or better you tell us how you identify a "state" according to your theory. How do you know that Israel is a state but Hamas is not?

Please, please don't answer "common sense!"

Grand Sen~or

AHMED2864

2:52 PM ET

January 22, 2009

Constitution???

You say that the leadership can get sued for not acting according to the constitution.
But a brief look at the recent record seems to suggest otherwise.
What accounts for all the wiretapping of phones on citizens, or the fact that we just went to war in Iraq without a declaration of war and many other violations such as the FISA and Patriot act. Yes people swear on the constitution but that doesn't mean they actually follow through on it. Just look at what the president of the U.S bar association Michael Greco had to say about our presidents, especially Bush 43 for violating the constitution.
As for FP look and see if there was any difference in behavior of Liberal Italy prior to 1922 and Fascist Italy post 1922, there was not a bit of difference. James Monroe who was a democratically elected president pursued hegemony in the Americas and Kaiser Wilhelm who was a King of Germany pursued hegemony in Europe, different internal factors such as political system yes, but different foreign policy intentions/goals no.

GRAND SEN-OR

2:26 AM ET

February 12, 2009

Constitution?!! Was fuern Konstitution?

You say that the leadership can get sued for not acting according to the constitution.
But a brief look at the recent record seems to suggest otherwise.
What accounts for all the wiretapping of phones on citizens, or the fact that we just went to war in Iraq without a declaration of war and many other violations such as the FISA and Patriot act. Yes people swear on the constitution but that doesn't mean they actually follow through on it. Just look at what the president of the U.S bar association Michael Greco had to say about our presidents, especially Bush 43 for violating the constitution.

Well, that's why I keep telling you guys change your constitution.
Are you saying that Obama's putting his hand on Lincoln's Bible asn swearing on constitution is just a Holywood show;->>
But I was thinking that the Persidents of the US are not Dictators, their actions are tightly controled by the Constitution. Or maybe what you want to say is, the leadership of a State might be observing the constitution that they sweared on but when it comes to the National Interests of the State in FP they can act as they will and they cannot be questioned for their actions.
Is that a hidden article of the Constitution of the US?

No wonder in Turkey the leadership keeps fabricating some kind of "National Interests" to suspend the secularo-fascist Constitution to act as they will, but when it comes to Internal Politics they become Mother Theresa to guard the Constitution aaginst non-so-secularo-fascists.

Guys, to interect with you here is like a _revelation_;->>
Now I really understand yoir SATFP and I am going to add the following axiom to it;->

Axiom for SATFP: A States can suspend her constitution if the National Intersts dictates so.

Which means for example a State can set up concentration camps where all human rights are suspended and make sure that no article of the Constitution sneeks into such l'oubliettes. In such places all sorts of techniques like waterboarding and nail-stripping, head-sculping can be used to make the National Interests Intruders (NII) (you may as well call them the terrorists) to confess (should I say sing) like a nightingale to scare the shit out of (deterre)the states not even think about intruding the NI of the state;->>

I love your view of Constitutions and the theory to ignore it : the SATFP.

Grand Sen~or

note: Here I go
Once again
With my SATFP
In my hand

Salvare Apparentias Theory of FP (SATFP).

1. There exist states.

2. A State composed of a nation, a national leadership, national interests and power (economic, military, population, land, etc? ..(any others? pls feel free to add).

3. There exists a competitive arena where states acts as they do.

4. There exists no central authority in that arena that can enforce moral or legal constraints.

5. States commit morally dubious acts (dubious according to what? The Blog knows) (see axiom 4)(Why this is here? Didn't the Blog declare that SATFP is essencially amoral?)

6. A State's foreign and defense policy reflects national interest of the state.

7. A State can take deterrent action against other State(s) if the Leadership of the State decides so. (see axiom 10 & 11).

8. A State seeks to increase her national interests when her existence is threatened.

9. A State's power is a potential threat to other states. A state is by definition paranoid of other states.

10. A State talks sweet but carries her power peeping under her cloak to deterre the potential threats of other states. (McCain the Presidential Candidate 2008)

11. A States can suspend her constitution if the National Intersts dictates so. Soley the Leadership decides whether the National Intersts dictates that or not and their decision is final, cannot be challenged based on the articles of the Constitution of the State. In such cases the leadership for the sake of the National Interests is not required to disclose the reasons how they reached to a certain decision.

12. Salvare Apparentias Foreign Policy is the art of keeping the threats of states in Balance besides saving the foreign policy related phenomena. (How? By shuffling and mixing nations/races/cultures?!, subjecting them to prototype secularo-fascist laws to reduce their multiplicity to singularity? the Blog knows).

End of axioms of SATFP

KALAMANDO

7:07 AM ET

January 22, 2009

Obama will be most surprised to discover WHAT IKE DID

34th US President IKE suspended AID TO ISRAEL
by kalamando on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 12:44am
“Ike” = Dwight David Eisenhower American general & the 34th President of the United States (1953-1961). As far as WAR & PEACE issues; IKE had the richest experience of all US presidents!

In WWII he was the commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force (1943-1945) he launched the invasion of Normandy (June 6, 1944) and oversaw the final defeat of Germany (1945).

Ike cared about the STRATEGIC WELL BEING of Israel because HE was aware that the creation of Israel was the ultimate answer to European anti-Antisemitism.

On October 31, 1956 Ike’s presidency was marked by SUSPENSION OF US AID to ISRAEL in protest at its invasion of Egypt in the Suez Crisis.

In an emergency session of the United Nations (UN) November 1-2 1956 General Assembly was called to consider the Suez Crisis. U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE John Foster DULLES, ATTACKED the British–French–Israeli ACTION, and the Assembly votes for a cease-fire!

Britain & France complied promptly, but ISRAEL did not; until January 22, 1957 when Israeli forces completed their withdrawal.

GRAND SEN-OR

9:04 AM ET

January 22, 2009

Can you say ...

then along came 9/11 and he ended up occupying Iraq

Stephen can you say according to SATFP:
"If 9/11 didn't happen he wouldn't end up occupying Iraq"?
Can you tell us how do you relate 9/11 to occupying Iraq according to the SATFP?
I was thinking the US occupied Iraq because Bush had been informed that Iraq had WMD, so according to SATFP to keep the Balance of Threat the US decided to occupy Iraq.

Do you know what I would say:
"Bush to distract the internal impact of 9/11 on the _nation_ ended up occupying Iraq to restore the unity of the nation by concentrating their attention from internal enemy to an external one - Iraq. And he did a good job! Now even the blacks and whites are arm-in-arm in the US against _the external enemy_ the terrorism personified as Iraq!"

You don't appriciate it but Bush performed excellently according to the Constitution of the US. You should give him a medal for that!

What do you say?

Grand Sen~or

note: I suggest you guys keep your constitution handy before you post a message to this Blog, like a priest keeps the Bible handy before he opens his mouth.
And also the SATFP.

KALAMANDO

10:10 AM ET

January 22, 2009

Grand Sen~or! Missleading

Grand Sen~or!
Missleading people "by PSYCHOLOGICAL displacement" makes NEEDLESS more enemies - BECAUSE YOU HIT THE INNOCENT!
By the same token or correlation:
Regan attacked GRANADA "after the terrorist attack on US Marin compound in Beirut" President Regan EXPLOITED American peoples ignorance of "where is Beirut? & where is Granada" NOT TO claim a victory, NOT BOOST MORAL - But to show the US citizens: Hay.. I am the COMMANDER IN CHEIF - I am doing a good job - LOVE PLEASE...!
But those days are GONE FOR EVER - Because every citizen on earth with a click of a mouse will know the difference between GRANADA & BEIRUT and can actually read the media in any place on earth - THAT'S WHY IT WON'T WORK TO BOOST MORAL of people in this manner! Bush said he'll be after Bin Laden but end up "not after Bin Laden" He did not stay the course - The entire world agreed with him to chase BIN LADEN - Including Iraq itself! But a US president or any country's president can no longer be able to use PSYCHOLOGICAL DISPLACEMENT to boost his polls - This methodology may work in places of no electricity & enternet!
Have a good day

GRAND SEN-OR

8:14 PM ET

January 22, 2009

Grand Sen~or!Missleading

Grand Sen~or!
Missleading people "by PSYCHOLOGICAL displacement" makes NEEDLESS more enemies - BECAUSE YOU HIT THE INNOCENT!

Read the Blog's SATFP - the latest version, to find out answers to your questions. According to SATFP _enemies_ are already there by definition (The SATFP axiom 9). "INNOCENT" is not a term of SATFP.

Grand Sen~or

KENNETH SORENSEN

10:12 AM ET

January 22, 2009

Post with BBC-link ,and Afterthought

Israel is unsustainable from an ecological point of view as well

As you are probably aware, The Dead Sea is evaporating away, and the Sea of Galilee, its only tribuary, has retracted 300 meters from its previous shores*, because Israel has since 1964 been pumping the majority of its drinkwater and much of its irrigationneeds, from this world-heritage lake and as far south as to the Negev, in a vain attempt to 'make the desert blossom', as Ben-Gurion put it. But like virtually all other aspects of zionism, it simply cannot be done, there is not enough water in this - from natures hand - dry area of the world.

And obviously, the 1 million + Russian Jews who has arrived since 1990, following af plan laid out by Sharon in a deliberate attempt to offset the greater arab population growth, - has made matters worse.

So it seems, from an ecologically point of view as well, Israel is unsustainable, a dream (that has turned into the palestinians nightmare) - a Fata Morgana/Mirage.

__________________
*) DOCUMENTATION

BBC NEWS 4 October 2008

VIDEO - Sea of Galilee drought threat - BBC

Drought is causing Israel's largest freshwater lake, the Sea of Galilee, to disappear and threatens the livelihoods of its local community.

Jeremy Howell reports.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7652184.stm

_____
Afterthought:

Why havent neither The Dead Sea or The Sea of Galilee been claimed UNESCO World Heritate Sites long ago? I mean, when often much more obscur places get this easily? We are talking about a lake, which means something to 2,5 billion Christians, and a good deal others as well. Well I can only say this: This country the size somewhere between Delaware and Yellowstone National Park, certainly have a lot to say - too much, if you ask me, considered its limited size.