Wow. What a nice change of pace, to hear such a different perspective on things. Great diavlog, even filtering out how overjoyed I am to hear that one of the main reasons I supported Obama is bearing fruit.

Yilmaz's explaining the sheer value of Obama's "trip to Turkey" optics reminds me of William F Buckley's great line in defense of the young Ronald Reagan:

They say that his accomplishments are few, that it is only the rhetoric that is conservative. But the rhetoric is the principal thing. It precedes all action. All thoughtful action.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da8_1239137290 hey, wtf?

Was Megan McCardle too busy to do this diavlog?!! I kid. Looks good. Can't wait to watch. [update] great diavlog. Daniel Levy is a great interviewer. Speaking of which when are we gonna see Steve Clemons again?

What a great, interesting diavlog! This kind of diavlog with these types of guests is exactly why BlogghingHeads is so great. I wish Turkey well. I am not religious and am an agnostic but I am very curious, and even hopeful, on the concept that a country, any country, can incorporate religiosity into their being without subjegating women or violating human rights to become a vibrant, democratic, and modern society. It would be quite ironic for the West if a Muslim country managed to be the first to do this succesfully. On the "G" word as Mr. Yilmaz calls it. I do not know the details of this matter but, I think that ultimately, this might become the albatross around Turkey's neck and has a good chance of becoming an excuse to deny Turkey any good will, no matter its accomplishments. The human rights groups probably have their hands full with Israel/Palestine and Africa right now, but I suspect that if it really can be classified as genecide, then they will be more vocal with condemnation and urge others to follow suit. If Turkey feels so confident that it was not a genicide, why not have each side lay

I disagree with you. Turks, irregardless of who is President, still recognize America as the world Hegemon who is fighting two wars in predominantly Muslim countries, and who is openly supporting the Kurdish peoples in Iraq. The status quo is no different than from when Bush was in office. Understandably, President Obama is very popular and people are drawn to him, but with regards to Turkey U.S. foreign policy will not change one iota. Eventually the Turkish people will understand this, and that 51% poll number you threw out will deteriorate. That's my guess anyway.

You mean the policy where we let Turkish armed forces in to certain areas of Iraq to peruse the Kurdish freedom fighters that terrorize parts of Turkey. Or that since we began sharing aerial surveillance intelligence with them they have actually been able to find some of these guys and kill them. I suppose that they are upset that Saddam is no longer in charge and there appears to be a developing democracy for a neighbor. They may not be so happy with an accommodation to Iran though as the Persians while well remembered are not remembered fondly, where memories are so long.

No, I meant in general. I know we're helping the Turks against the Kurdish Communists or whatever group they are, however, the Turkish population sees us as helping them out because we are supporting the Kurds in Kurdistan (because some of them support the KPP or whatever it is, and there is the whole idea of a Greater Kurdistan). Generally, Turkey has become more religious of late and many Turks are simply sympathetic to other Muslims (like with Hamas and the Palestinians, as mentioned in the diavlog). So as long as the U.S. is in Iraq and Afghanistan, there will be a few Turks who won't like it. That's really what I was getting at.

The heart of the matter is not that Obama will negotiate with Iran with the help of Turkey. I sincerely hope it works as a negotiated solution is always preferable to force. The real question is what will happen if negeotiations are a failure. Will the Obama administration commit to force to stop Iran from getting the bomb if negotiations fail or will they acede to an Iranian bomb? If the latter, then Iran has absolutely no incentive to negotiate. Now some may think Iran getting the bomb is a good thing, not necessarily a threat, or simply better than using force. That's fine to have those or any opinion, but that's not Obama's official stance.

Can anyone give a link to any time Hamas has said this or evidence it has come close to this position as Nuh stated.

Quoting gwlaw99: Can anyone give a link to any time Hamas has said this or evidence it has come close to this position as Nuh stated.

Your dingalink runs from 00:00 to 48:35, so it's hard to know what you're referring to.

Quoting bjkeefe: Your dingalink runs from 00:00 to 48:35, so it's hard to know what you're referring to.

Fixed

Quoting gwlaw99: Fixed

Thanks. In answer to your original question ...

Quoting gwlaw99: Can anyone give a link to any time Hamas has said this or evidence it has come close to this position as Nuh stated.

... this is not something I follow closely, but it looks like you can find some examples starting here.

Quoting bjkeefe: Thanks. In answer to your original question ...

... this is not something I follow closely, but it looks like you can find some examples starting here.

Most of those links are other people saying Hamas should recognize Israel's right to exist, not Hamas saying Israel has a right to exist. None of them mention any Hamas statement that Israel has a right to exist. There was one instance a few months ago in which Jimmy Carter stated after his meeting with Hamas that a Hamas leader said Israel has a right to exist, but it was immediately repudiated by Hamas. And, of course, none of them mention Hamas excepting Israel as a Jewish state.
These links, however, are all news reports of Hamas saying it will never recognize Israel or destroy Israel. 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 (5 days ago)

who cares? Israel makes statements and participates in "processes" etc. but continues in every action to expand their occupation and increase the misery of palestinians. would it satisfy you if Hamas was as hypocritical as Israel? what would that achieve?

Quoting popcorn_karate: who cares?

Well, obviously I do. If you bothered to read the thread, I was responding to something said by one of the diavlog participants and asked a question.

Quoting popcorn_karate: who cares?

Israel makes statements and participates in "processes" etc. but continues in every action to expand their occupation and increase the misery of palestinians.

would it satisfy you if Hamas was as hypocritical as Israel?

what would that achieve?

Quite possibly peace. Likud is now governing Israel - the biggest possible disaster regarding any chance for peace in the near term. Israelis react to Hamas actions and rhetoric with fear and loathing. Those emotions are the bedrock of right-wing governance. If Hamas had any interest in actual peace, they would allow room for the Israelis to breathe. Instead they do everything possible to enable the Israeli Right. The worse the Palestinians are treated, the better off Hamas is politically. Hamas and Likud are two sides of the same coin - each equally responsible for the misery of the people of both nations.

Quoting AemJeff: Likud is now governing Israel - the biggest possible disaster regarding any chance for peace in the near term. Israelis react to Hamas actions and rhetoric with fear and loathing. Those emotions are the bedrock of right-wing governance. If Hamas had any interest in actual peace, they would allow room for the Israelis to breathe. Instead they do everything possible to enable the Israeli Right. The worse the Palestinians are treated, the better off Hamas is politically. Hamas and Likud are two sides of the same coin - each equally responsible for the misery of the people of both nations.

mostly agree, you just forgot to include this sentence - "if Israel had any interest in actual peace, they would allow room for the Palestinians to breathe." Likud w/Lieberman may actually move the situation forward. now the Israeli rhetoric matches their actions. hopefully this makes it easier for the US to pressure Israel into actually seeking peace instead of paying lip service to it while continuing all the policies that make it impossible. and, as an aside, when has Israel recognized Hamas' right to exist? Didn't Hamas win an election at some point? and

Quoting popcorn_karate: mostly agree, you just forgot to include this sentence - "if Israel had any interest in actual peace, they would allow room for the Palestinians to breathe."

Likud w/Lieberman may actually move the situation forward. now the Israeli rhetoric matches their actions. hopefully this makes it easier for the US to pressure Israel into actually seeking peace instead of paying lip service to it while continuing all the policies that make it impossible.

and, as an aside, when has Israel recognized Hamas' right to exist? Didn't Hamas win an election at some point? and then didn't the US and Israel refuse to recognize the results of the election they demanded?

My part in this argument has always been to suggest viewing the "other" side's behavior as equally culpable for the evil and horror in this dispute. The question you asked was about the Palestinians, toward whom I think the Left has a tendency to view with a great deal of condescension. I actually hope you're right about Lieberman - I'm far from objective about Likud, but the "only Nixon could go to China" argument could possibly apply, as well as your valid point about the US relationship.

"if Israel had any interest in actual peace, they would allow room for the Palestinians to breathe."

Maybe if they did something like remove thousands of settlers from Gaza and give the gazans multimillion dollar green houses to grow food, Hamas would respond with a peaceful gesture.

Quoting AemJeff: I actually hope you're right about Lieberman

He's being indicted and will probably be out of the government and in jail within in a month.

Quoting gwlaw99: He's being indicted and will probably be out of the government and in jail within in a month.

Wow, quite so. This news has hardly received any domestic (American) coverage at all; which, considering Lieberman's fairly explicit opposition to Obama's stated goals in the region, ought to be surprising - though I guess, really not.

He's being indicted and will probably be out of the government and in jail within in a month.

Don't bet on it. Olmert (and Sharon before him) were charged with multiple felonies. These guys are all basically crooks, and the investigations drag on for years. Former President Katsav (another Likudnik) was charged with rape in July 06 and is just going to trial now. The criminal probe of Olmert started in Jan. 07 and he was still Prime Minister until a few days ago. Also, even if Lieberman resigns his position in the cabinet will be given to another member of his radical racist party, Yisrael Beiteinu. The real news is not that the buffon Lieberman is in the government, but WHY he's in the government -- because the country has lurched to the right and the radical racist party won 15 seats in the Knesset (Parliament). That makes it the third largest party in Israel after Kadima (28 seats) and Likud (27). Labor, the party of Rabin, Barak, Golda Meir, Peres, Moshe Dayan, Abba Eban is now a virtual fringe minority.

Quoting Wonderment: because the country has lurched to the right and the radical racist party won 15 seats in the Knesset (Parliament).

The reason he won so many votes is that he is the representative of the one million Russian immigrants not his clearly racist proposals. Most of these immigrants are attracted to his secularization policies.

Most of these immigrants are attracted to his secularization policies.

A) Which will not advance because Netanyahu also brought the "religious" parties into the coalition B) If they were concerned with secularization they could have voted with the left bloc ("New Movement", formerly Meretz). C) The idea that Lieberman leads a secularization movement is like saying Barack Obama leads the immigrants rights movement. D) Notice that Lieberman did not get (or ask for) a ministry in which he would have influence on secularization. He asked for (and got) the Foreign Ministry, where his racist anti-Arab policies will represent Israel all around the globe.