UN's security council votes against Israel's settlements, US refuses to veto...

[grumbler]

All I'm saying is:

1. It's kind of hypocritical to pussy-bleed about Israel's "illegal occupation", because a) it was the result of winning a defensive war, and b) Jordan actually occupied the West Bank for like 20 years and faced no international scorn at all. Same for Syria and Lebanon for that matter. Not to mention Russia and Crimea and East Ukraine, Transnistra, South Ossetia etc. Israel is being held to a standard no other country is being held to. Fuck, it won a defensive war and is actually willing to give up land in exchange for some territory it has seized. Most countries that have won wars and take territory take it, period. Israel isn't the heavy here like you're making it out to be.

It's kind of hypocritical to pussy-bleed for poor Israel when the basis of your comparisons are so wrong.   Israel is building settlements in the occupied territories (yeah, we've seen this "living space" argument before, and it hasn't worked in a coupla hundred years), and that's what the UN declaration is about.  Israel has never made more than a token offer to trade land for land.  The PLO has done as much.  The Taba Settlement was vetoed by Sharon even before it was by Arafat.

2. It's supremely stupid for Obama/Kerry to have gotten involved in the way they did, this Security Council resolution doesn't do anything to make Israel more willing to negotiate peace, and in fact reasonable indications are it will do the exact opposite--and they'll be supported in that position by the incoming Trump administration.

Actually, the stupidity is entirely on the part of Bibi.  Heads of government cannot afford to throw tantrums and then burst into tears.  The US Security Council resolution was symbolic, and the US symbolically didn't vote for it, which caused Bibi to pussy-bleed all over his seal of office, as though the US had voted FOR it. 

If that's saying "Israel can do no wrong" well, "okay", I guess we have different understandings of what certain phrases mean in the English language. I certainly have never said I'm in favor of expansion of the settlements outside of the boundary wall deep in the West Bank, and I don't agree with the statements Netanyahu made in 2009 where he basically said he'd agree to peace but Palestine had to accept Jerusalem as the sole possession of (and capital of) Israel and the "right of expansion" to existing settlements. That's obviously not a serious framework for peace that the Palestinians would ever agree to--and I generally don't defend Bibi's more bellicose rhetoric. But that opposite of that isn't getting on your knees and slurping up Obama and Kerry cum because you'll slavishly agree with any action they take.

How does that Bibi cum taste, and are your knees sore yet?



[Note to onlookers:  yes, I am being as juvenile in my insults as OvB, but maybe he can see how absurd his taunts sound in the mouths of others, since self-reflection isn't his strong suit]

[OttoVonBismarck]

When your own State Department lifers criticize your feckless foreign policy there's a good indication you're entering Jimmy Carter territory on foreign policy.

State department lifers have criticized the feckless foreign policy of every single SecState since Thomas Jefferson. 

Once you start to turn every little thing into a big thing, you've entered the Bismarck Zone on comparative foreign policy.

I'd question that the Jefferson era State Department had enough institutional cruft to have "State Department lifers."

But more seriously--the dissent cable signed by 51 mid and high ranking state department career bureaucrats on Obama's lack of action against the Assad regime (a position I'm not delving into here) is pretty unusual in that the State Department in most administrations is always the big advocate of soft power, it was pretty unusual for them to be pushing a President to drop bombs. It's very rare that the bureaucrats at State are more bellicose than a sitting President (particularly since Presidents often enjoy bombing things for political reasons, and it makes them look "Presidential"), without addressing the merits of either side on that issue, I was simply pointing out that when the State Department is saying you don't have any balls, that's something, because the State Department is usually not a very aggressive entity. That's not to say we haven't had some bellicose SecStates, which we have, but career officials at State basically spend their entire lives exercising soft skills and thus their default is usually to advocate for them. Much as the military top brass often tends to argue for more military solutions to problems, people naturally advocate for use of the hammer with which they are most familiar.

[dps]

I think the rational thing with the 67 borders is not that there is logically a chance in hell of Israel returning to them but that they are the legal default.
By saying they'll give back half of the settlements Israel isn't giving a concession of half of the settlements, it is  gaining the other half.
The 67 borders should be seen as the default and any of the settlements that Israel keep are gains for them that must be suitably compensated.

Though yes. Palestine has to start being willing to compromise.

If you want to get legalistic about it, the 1967 borders are not the default.  The legal default would be the lines drawn by the 1947 UN partition plan.  But the Arab rejected that, and it's a dead letter.  The 1967 border was the de facto border, but it was never a de jure border.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's kind of hypocritical to pussy-bleed for poor Israel when the basis of your comparisons are so wrong.   Israel is building settlements in the occupied territories (yeah, we've seen this "living space" argument before, and it hasn't worked in a coupla hundred years), and that's what the UN declaration is about.  Israel has never made more than a token offer to trade land for land.  The PLO has done as much.  The Taba Settlement was vetoed by Sharon even before it was by Arafat.

The fact that Israel has made any offer at all is pretty telling, how many other countries in human history have offered to give up some of their land to a defeated enemy that they defeated in a defensive war? I've again, never said Israel is a paragon of virtue. I've never said they were super enthusiastic about any peace efforts. But they have negotiated many times. Berkut's original, wrong claim, was that Israel never negotiates because we "do whatever they want" then he collapsed in a mouth-foam about treason and calling me a member of the Alt-Right (because people who voted for Clinton are obviously alt-right.)

Actually, the stupidity is entirely on the part of Bibi.  Heads of government cannot afford to throw tantrums and then burst into tears.  The US Security Council resolution was symbolic, and the US symbolically didn't vote for it, which caused Bibi to pussy-bleed all over his seal of office, as though the US had voted FOR it. 

Wrong. Trump is President on 1/20 at which point Bibi is going to have vast support for his view by the United States--unprecedented support in fact. The only achievement Obama has from this is he's divided his own party and also gotten the Republican foreign policy establishment (one of the wings of the party most suspicious of Trump) to move past the Putin/Russia stuff because of this, so he's literally done Trump a favor.

How does that Bibi cum taste, and are your knees sore yet?

[Note to onlookers:  yes, I am being as juvenile in my insults as OvB, but maybe he can see how absurd his taunts sound in the mouths of others, since self-reflection isn't his strong suit]

But you're also being unoriginal, which is a grave sin, but typical of someone as monumentally boring and humorless as yourself.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think the rational thing with the 67 borders is not that there is logically a chance in hell of Israel returning to them but that they are the legal default.
By saying they'll give back half of the settlements Israel isn't giving a concession of half of the settlements, it is  gaining the other half.
The 67 borders should be seen as the default and any of the settlements that Israel keep are gains for them that must be suitably compensated.

Though yes. Palestine has to start being willing to compromise.

If you want to get legalistic about it, the 1967 borders are not the default.  The legal default would be the lines drawn by the 1947 UN partition plan.  But the Arab rejected that, and it's a dead letter.  The 1967 border was the de facto border, but it was never a de jure border.

The 1948 Armistice line has the same sort of legality as the Korean cease fire line, there was a cease fire that ended the 1947 war. So this line (the 1948-1967 border) has some actual international law legitimacy.

[The Brain]

International law is like a frigid whore. Not very effective.

[Berkut]

It's kind of hypocritical to pussy-bleed for poor Israel when the basis of your comparisons are so wrong.   Israel is building settlements in the occupied territories (yeah, we've seen this "living space" argument before, and it hasn't worked in a coupla hundred years), and that's what the UN declaration is about.  Israel has never made more than a token offer to trade land for land.  The PLO has done as much.  The Taba Settlement was vetoed by Sharon even before it was by Arafat.

The fact that Israel has made any offer at all is pretty telling, how many other countries in human history have offered to give up some of their land to a defeated enemy that they defeated in a defensive war? I've again, never said Israel is a paragon of virtue. I've never said they were super enthusiastic about any peace efforts. But they have negotiated many times. Berkut's original, wrong claim, was that Israel never negotiates because we "do whatever they want" then he collapsed in a mouth-foam about treason and calling me a member of the Alt-Right (because people who voted for Clinton are obviously alt-right.)

You are a liar.

I called you a member of the alt-right after you decided that the best possible argument you could make would be to start discussing drinking Obama's cum. That was the summit of your debating skills, and seemed pretty much straight out of the Marty playbook. If anyone is "mouth foaming" I suggest it might be the person who felt that was their best possible argument.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It's kind of hypocritical to pussy-bleed for poor Israel when the basis of your comparisons are so wrong.   Israel is building settlements in the occupied territories (yeah, we've seen this "living space" argument before, and it hasn't worked in a coupla hundred years), and that's what the UN declaration is about.  Israel has never made more than a token offer to trade land for land.  The PLO has done as much.  The Taba Settlement was vetoed by Sharon even before it was by Arafat.

The fact that Israel has made any offer at all is pretty telling, how many other countries in human history have offered to give up some of their land to a defeated enemy that they defeated in a defensive war? I've again, never said Israel is a paragon of virtue. I've never said they were super enthusiastic about any peace efforts. But they have negotiated many times. Berkut's original, wrong claim, was that Israel never negotiates because we "do whatever they want" then he collapsed in a mouth-foam about treason and calling me a member of the Alt-Right (because people who voted for Clinton are obviously alt-right.)

You are a liar.

I called you a member of the alt-right after you decided that the best possible argument you could make would be to start discussing drinking Obama's cum. That was the summit of your debating skills, and seemed pretty much straight out of the Marty playbook. If anyone is "mouth foaming" I suggest it might be the person who felt that was their best possible argument.

I'm sorry I've offended your sensibilities, I had forgotten you represented the Emily Post Society on Good Manners @ Languish.com. I was simply using colorful language to point out that the opposite of "doing whatever Bibi and Israel want" isn't blind allegiance to whatever misguided nonsense Obama/Kerry cook up in their lame duck era.

[11B4V]

[frunk]

There has been no UN resolution against Russia (because obviously Russia would veto it) or any UN sanctions (because obviously Russia would veto it.) So Russia has not received the same level of response from the UN. This highlights the hypocrisy of the UN as an institution.

Russia has been the victim of sanctions largely by NATO members, but Israel is subject to sanctions from other groups of countries operating independently of the UN, too.

We are talking about the actions of the US, and in particular this administration.  This administration's response to Russia's actions has been sanctions.  This administration's response to Israel's actions has been to not veto a fairly meaningless UN resolution.  Where is Israel being held to a higher standard here by the US government?

[Berkut]

There has been no UN resolution against Russia (because obviously Russia would veto it) or any UN sanctions (because obviously Russia would veto it.) So Russia has not received the same level of response from the UN. This highlights the hypocrisy of the UN as an institution.

Russia has been the victim of sanctions largely by NATO members, but Israel is subject to sanctions from other groups of countries operating independently of the UN, too.

We are talking about the actions of the US, and in particular this administration.  This administration's response to Russia's actions has been sanctions.  This administration's response to Israel's actions has been to not veto a fairly meaningless UN resolution.  Where is Israel being held to a higher standard here by the US government?

Easy now, lets not fly off the handle.

[grumbler]

The fact that Israel has made any offer at all is pretty telling, how many other countries in human history have offered to give up some of their land to a defeated enemy that they defeated in a defensive war? I've again, never said Israel is a paragon of virtue. I've never said they were super enthusiastic about any peace efforts. But they have negotiated many times. Berkut's original, wrong claim, was that Israel never negotiates because we "do whatever they want" then he collapsed in a mouth-foam about treason and calling me a member of the Alt-Right (because people who voted for Clinton are obviously alt-right.)

  Tons of countries have given up conquered territory at the end of a defensive war.  But that isn't what Israel is asked to do; they are asked to negotiate the division of a territory formerly belonging to the British and they never defeated Palestine in any kind of war because Palestine has never existed to go to war with.  You really need to get the basic facts straight before you try to analyze them.

Israel and the Palestinians have negotiate the exact same number of times with each other.  Both have accepted the idea that the negotiations will be on the basis of the 1967 borders.  Israel has taken more non-negotiable position stances, but Palestinians have engaged far more in terrorism.  Israel has no moral high ground in these negotiations, nor do the Palestinians.  Israel is a better-run country than Palestine will likely ever be, but that's a separate issue.

[grumbler]

Wrong. Trump is President on 1/20 at which point Bibi is going to have vast support for his view by the United States--unprecedented support in fact. The only achievement Obama has from this is he's divided his own party and also gotten the Republican foreign policy establishment (one of the wings of the party most suspicious of Trump) to move past the Putin/Russia stuff because of this, so he's literally done Trump a favor.

You ar5e reading this the way you want to.  Trump was going to be the president on 1/20 before this kerfuffle even happened.  Obama's decision not to veto surprised no one, and changed no minds.

But you're also being unoriginal, which is a grave sin, but typical of someone as monumentally boring and humorless as yourself.

Thanks.  I can always use more examples for my classes of perfect ad hom arguments demonstrating the intellectual bankruptcy of an argument

[Fate]

Good lord, you're strawmanning like a mofo Berk. I guess so many years of being a frothy lefty have left you struggling to keep things coherent.

All I'm saying is:

1. It's kind of hypocritical to pussy-bleed about Israel's "illegal occupation", because a) it was the result of winning a defensive war, and b) Jordan actually occupied the West Bank for like 20 years and faced no international scorn at all. Same for Syria and Lebanon for that matter. Not to mention Russia and Crimea and East Ukraine, Transnistra, South Ossetia etc. Israel is being held to a standard no other country is being held to. Fuck, it won a defensive war and is actually willing to give up land in exchange for some territory it has seized. Most countries that have won wars and take territory take it, period. Israel isn't the heavy here like you're making it out to be -

Israel isn't avoiding annexation of these territories out of any good intentions. They're keeping these lands in limbo because they know finalizing the war with annexation results in the known outcomes of a one state solution - the rapid end of Israel as either a democratic or Jewish state. Option 1 is to go full South African apartheid and end democracy. Option 2 is to give citizenship to 4.2 million West Bankers / Gazan Arabs. In combination with the existing 1.7 million Israeli Arabs they'd only a be few generations away from an Arab majority Knesset.

[alfred russel]

How predictable. Michigan loses and grumbler logs on to troll people.