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

[The Minsky Moment]

The Israel-Palestine situation is so weird to me because it's been so indecisive. Israel is by no means the only country to win a war and basically seize territory in the UN era. In fact Israel's actions are a lot less egregious than China's in Tibet or Russia's in Crimea (or even Georgia or Moldova, albeit it didn't annex land there.)

That glosses over the issue.  Israel didn't annex the WB.  That's the problem.  They won't shit but they won't get off the pot either.  The first two decades it could be glossed over but now we are closing in on 50 years.  Kerry's comments about democracy aren't "controversial" it's a statement of a truism.  There cannot be a one-state solution where Israel is Jewish and a democracy.  It's an impossible trinity.

The intra-Jewish infighting about this has been revealing.  Any Jew who dares to question the Bibi line on this can expected to be accused of self-hating treachery and worse. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm too lazy to re-read my long posts, but I don't believe I said Israel could annex the West Bank as easily as Russia or China did their annexations. I was simply pointing out that (maybe not clearly enough) that Kerry and Obama, and the "liberal West" is pretty hypocritical on this issue. They ignore shit as unjustified or moreso when done by countries that are powerful autocracies, but protest across Europe against Israel's behavior. I think it's a two fold issue--one is the realpolitik that China and Russia are simply too powerful (and have a security council veto) so nothing will ever meaningfully be done about their most egregious actions, and the temporary penalties they may face (like the current Russia sanctions) will never be enough to move their hand. The other aspect, I think, undeniable--there's a strain of latent antisemitism across the European West, and some weird love of Muslims. I think a lot of it maybe is misplaced thought processes on Imperialism (so it goes back to being "self-hating", they see Israel as a Western Imperialist power in a sense, while Muslims are the oppressed aborigine pipples.)

@Minsky, I'm aware the problem is the West Bank hasn't been annexed, but there's lot of territories held in "inequitable" manners, as well as territories held in "vague status", some for a long damn time. I'd argue that Israel's smart move back in the 60s/70s would've been to create a legal entity under Israeli law akin to how we hold American Samoa--people born in American Samoa are "U.S. Nationals" but not birthright U.S. citizens. Henceforth Israel should've just repeatedly stated that its management of its protectorate is an "internal matter" and not subject to international input.

Now, the question is what would the U.S. have done back then if Israel had taken this route, and obviously Israel's fear would've been that the U.S. would go ape shit over it. But I have a suspicion the U.S. would've condemned it but continued to support Israel. I think the unambiguity of this path would have, with time, made the situation more of a "fait accompli."

The protectorate would have its own democratic system of self-government, but would be subordinate to Israel in various ways. This would get the protectorate probably put on this list, and I don't doubt that Israel would still receive flak for it, but I think a solution with unambiguity would be more useful than the current interminable and ambiguous status.

Now, that's what I'd say would've been smarter had Israel a time machine. But in the modern era, I think it's less obvious that a one state solution couldn't be Jewish and Democratic. The demographic question isn't all that settled now (as it once was), there are more Jews today in the "one state" if it included all of WB and Gaza than there are Muslims (albeit it's close) and while the Palestinian high birth rate is a concern, Israeli birth rate is also pretty high, and I believe at the moment Arab and Jewish birth rates in Israeli are both almost identical (around 3/woman.) Plus, my proposal would be to not annex Gaza (which for better or worse is more or less self-governing now), but only the West Bank. The West Bank's population is about 1.7m, so I think Israel could absorb that and remain Jewish--especially the more breeder Orthos they pump out, who themselves have tremendously high birth rates.

[DGuller]

Whether Israel can absorb the West Bank demographically is irrelevant, I would think.  You cannot have a sustainable democracy in a country where factions of significant size are in a state of total war with each other.  Even in US the dominant demographic group seems to prefer losing democracy compared to losing power to other demographic groups.

[Eddie Teach]

Whether Israel can absorb the West Bank demographically is irrelevant, I would think.  You cannot have a sustainable democracy in a country where factions of significant size are in a state of total war with each other.  Even in US the dominant demographic group seems to prefer losing democracy compared to losing power to other demographic groups.

I hardly think voting in a party promising more restrictive immigration is "losing democracy".

[DGuller]

Neither do I.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think to get back to the discussion of the UN resolution itself, I think it's going to prove to be a major problem (for Israel and for any theoretical chance of a peace deal.) It actually now means that the UN officially believes land that everyone involved in prior peace discussions acknowledged would ultimately have to either go to Israel (settlements near the 1967 border), or have some form of Israeli jurisdiction (East Jerusalem) in any peace deal, is in fact, legally 100% Palestinian. This now means the Palestinians will have little motivation to ever consider a "workable" peace deal (i.e. deals along the lines Israel has previously offered.) Instead Palestine will hope to slowly paint Israel as a new South Africa, and will have a hope that it can do this now through ICC actions, boycotts and etc, albeit it's unlikely to see Israel face UN sanctions since it's unlikely the U.S. will ever again have such an anti-Israel, pro-Muslim President as Obama.

Now, being honest--I don't see any meaningful "peace deal" ever happening. Part of me suspects where this ultimately ends up is Israel just treats the West Bank like Gaza, disengages from it while controlling its air space and such. It'll probably legally declare annexed at some point the settlements near the 1967 borders of Israel, and we'll just see interminable fighting and occasional international bitching about the situation. Some time far in the future if Palestine is ever less of a shit hole they may choose to focus more on improving their lot versus lobbing missiles, and only then will you see any sort of "nice" ending. Since Palestine now has no incentive to accept a feasible peace in the current reality, the chance, albeit small, of a peace accord along previous negotiating lines is likely ended permanently because of Obama's personal dislike for Netanyahu.

[Berkut]

anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim.

Right. You are fucking insane.

[Berkut]

It is just crazy that abstaining from a vote, which by definition is a compeletely neutral action, is seen as "anti-Israeli" on a subject as cut and dried as settlements, which the entire international community universally condemns Israel on...it's not like Obama is going out on a limb or pushing something that only he has a stake or opinion on.

The attitude that NOT vetoing a largely symbolic vote that 100% of the international community outside of Tel Aviv agrees is a completely reasonable demand on Israel is some sort of betrayal is what actually is making Israel feel like they don't have to compromise at all when it comes to peace. The idea that the US will always do whatever Israel demands, even it if is clearly against US interests, is what empowers Israel to simply refuse to negotiate.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think the primary barrier to peace is Israeli - it is the Arab world who wants that conflict to never end. But this attitude that unless we do *exactly* as Israel wants, unless our entire policy around Israel and Palestine is always moved to be in perfect alignment with whatever Israeli policy demands, no matter how extreme, then we are "pro-Muslim, anti-Israeli" is frankly borderline treasonous to the US. We are not Israel's lapdog.

[OttoVonBismarck]

anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim.

Right. You are fucking insane.

Dude have you ever actually read Obama's book? Listened to his speeches from his pre-Presidential days? The dude is absolutely pro-Muslim. I'm assuming you're weak-mind is focusing on things like "oh man he's killed tons of Muslims so you're fucking stupid", but the issue isn't nearly a simplistic as that. The Presidency incurs a lot of security/defense actions that you more or less have to take, Obama can have a pro-Muslim world view but also wage war on terrorists.

Where it's most obvious, if you actually delve into Obama's thinking (as written down by him), he really is a European lefty style "anti-Imperialist", and he really does blame a lot of the world's problems from the west "interfering in the affairs" of developing world nations. My suspicion is you believe I'm saying Obama is pro-Muslim out of some ideological support for Islam, which is not the case. But instead Obama views global Islam as a large element of the "oppressed indigenous underclass" akin to his father's side of the family in sub-Saharan Africa.

I think Obama absolutely goes into the Israel-Palestine issue viewing Israel as an occupier/imperialist, and the Palestinians as "misguided but oppressed victims of Western imperialism." I mean, he shit his pants pretty early in 2009 with his aborted efforts at peace and chastising Israel over settlements (which really are not the impediment to any peace deal that people make them out to be--and hey, Netanyahu actually did restrain settlements in 2009 to try to work with Obama, as much as Bibi gets criticized there was a time he worked with Obama.) When Obama realized Israel was a losing issue politically he quit saying anything about Israel other than "I've got Israel's back" in the 2012 era, and once he got reelected into his term-limited second term he largely went back to his 2009 ways of ineffectually berating Israel. Both in actions and words it's obvious Obama has a position that Israel is "in the wrong" and Palestine is "in the right", and I absolutely believe it's because of his liberal college-boy ideals about imperialism and etc, the same kind of noxious thinking that makes Palestinians the cause célèbre among campus warriors all over the West.

The typical Obama Administration obfuscation around this is to say things like "we continue to give large amounts of support to Israel" and things of that nature--but that's just nonsense talk. Obama is first and foremost a politician, and actually ending financial support to Israel is a complete political non-starter in the United States, he'd have the backing of about 40% of Democrats for that and 0% of Republicans. So the fact that he "hasn't done things that are politically impossible in the United States, like tear up the established financial support package for Israel" is no counter point to the claim he is "anti-Israel."

[Berkut]

Right - there is exactly one concrete policy decision you can point to, and that is him abstaining from a vote that otherwise passed 12-0.

That is it - that is the sum total of the actual things he has done that is "pro-Muslim".

In the "anti-Muslim" camp you have more attacks on Muslims than any President in US history. Continued support for Israel in all things other than NOT voting in one vote in eight years.

You are fucking insane to characterize that as "anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim".

I don't doubt that there is a kernel of truth to your general observation that amounts to "ZOMG OBAMA IS A LIBERAL!!!!!".

But being a liberal and thinking something other than "Israel is 100% right no matter what in all things" is not "anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim".

I make no bones about where I stand - I am firmly pro-Israel. I think it is very clear who is right in this conflict overall, and I think it is pretty obvious what the Muslims would to do the Jews if the power balance were exactly reversed. But I think it was long overdue that the US made it clear to Israel that our support is not unconditional.

So I guess I am "anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim" as well. Even though I am actually the exact opposite.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It is just crazy that abstaining from a vote, which by definition is a compeletely neutral action, is seen as "anti-Israeli" on a subject as cut and dried as settlements, which the entire international community universally condemns Israel on...it's not like Obama is going out on a limb or pushing something that only he has a stake or opinion on.

Except it's not at all so cut and dry. For one, the United States has officially said Israel should stop building new settlements, but it's never taken the position that Israel should have to return to its 1967 borders. In fact, in basically every peace deal we've "almost had" where the United States has brought both sides to the table, it's been understood that Israel is going to keep its settlement blocs near the 1967 border. It's also been understood Israel is not giving up the entirety of East Jerusalem under any circumstance. UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is notable in that the U.S. has allowed a resolution to go out that:

1. Re-affirms anything outside the 1967 borders (which everyone fucking knows Israel will never go back to) is illegal, which while it doesn't change the broad legal status quo, it reaffirms it in the meaningful form of a modern day UN Security Council resolution that international bodies like the ICC will almost certainly give significant weight to, it also emboldens the Palestinian hardliners who want peace to be a return to the 1967 borders.

2. Basically says Israel has no place in East Jerusalem--again, this is a non-starter. In every peace deal the Israelis and the Palestinians have negotiated it has been understood that Israel will probably retain jurisdiction over the Jewish populate areas of East Jerusalem.

So while you may be right that the reality is the 1967 borders are the "legal borders", that's like saying Crimea is legally part of Ukraine. There's a reality that exists on paper that no one really cares about, and the reality we've actually seen since 1967--and that is broad U.S. support for a bargaining position in which Israel retains some claims in East Jerusalem, its settlement blocs near the 1967 border, and in which it would give unambiguous Israeli territory to the Palestinians in exchange for annexing the settlement blocs. There's also been a reality that official U.S. foreign policy has been that the UN basically isn't to be involved in this process, that's why we've blocked these resolutions for generations, because we view it an issue for Palestine and Israel to negotiate, with U.S. working as mediator as necessary. Part of the reason for that is in the UN there's a lot of bad actors like all the Arab states that will promulgate a lot of troublesome shit if we let this business be negotiated by the UN (a body that largely fails anytime it tries to solve any political problem.)

The attitude that NOT vetoing a largely symbolic vote that 100% of the international community outside of Tel Aviv agrees is a completely reasonable demand on Israel is some sort of betrayal is what actually is making Israel feel like they don't have to compromise at all when it comes to peace. The idea that the US will always do whatever Israel demands, even it if is clearly against US interests, is what empowers Israel to simply refuse to negotiate.

So you think's it's reasonable for Israel to go back to the 1967 borders? That's what the resolution is basically endorsing--and that puts you basically pretty far hardliner for a Palestinian,  because there have been Palestinian fucking leaders willing to concede that isn't reality. Now, you at least aren't as far hardline as the Palestinians who still believe there shouldn't be a Jewish state in the region at all.

And what the fuck, "Israel to simply refuse to negotiate"? Did you take your blackout pills for the last 20 years? I don't know how anyone can conclude that the nearly two year talks between Olmert and Abbas in 2006-2008, in which Olmert offered: 5.8% of Israel's land in exchange for the West Bank settlements near the 1967 border (which constituted 6.3% of Palestinian territory), a territorial link between Gaza and the West Bank, and reverting Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem to Palestinian authority. Or the Clinton era Camp David summit in which Arafat was famously offered "95% of the West Bank" and turned it down. Note that when Arafat rejected that offer he proposed no alternative of his own. That's actually been fairly typical of Palestine's intransigence on this matter, compared to Israel which has actually negotiated some dozen times, and periodically made actual concessions unilaterally in an attempt to ease tensions. I'm just curious what world you live in where Israel "refuses to negotiate" and is "empowered to do so" by a U.S that does "whatever Israel wants."

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think the primary barrier to peace is Israeli - it is the Arab world who wants that conflict to never end. But this attitude that unless we do *exactly* as Israel wants, unless our entire policy around Israel and Palestine is always moved to be in perfect alignment with whatever Israeli policy demands, no matter how extreme, then we are "pro-Muslim, anti-Israeli" is frankly borderline treasonous to the US. We are not Israel's lapdog.

We aren't Israel's lap dog but we probably should have continued along previous paths to peace which came pretty close to working, instead of dramatically asserting the Palestinian position (100% return to the 1967 borders.) The U.S.'s main interest is in a) making sure Israel doesn't get destroyed by Arabs and b) seeing the conflict end at some point. We get no closer to B by basically telling the Palestinians "you were right in 2000 when you rejected out of hand a good offer, you were right to elect Hamas in 2006, you were right to launch rockets for years at Israel during periods of cease fire, keep on doing it and concede nothing because you are in the legal right" we do nothing to advance peace, and in fact are legitimizing positions like the one Arafat had in 2000.

The biggest hindrance to peace is political dysfunction in Palestine that makes it so they have no leadership that can firmly negotiate any agreement that their people will actually follow. Israel has some blame for that, and should do more to normalize conditions inside WB and Gaza because political normalization in the PLA won't happen when the country is in the state it is in now. Olmert and Abbas were pretty close to an agreement but it was largely not possible because Abbas never had enough power to actually sign off on an agreement, because he was simply not powerful enough to back down the hardliners. And of course near the end of all this is when the civil war between Fatah and Hamas broke out, and the Gaza War between Israel and Hamas, which obviously blew up any work on peace talks.

Netanyahu is certainly a hindrance to peace, but he honestly just represents what I view as a reactionary Israeli response to failed peace talks in which it negotiated in good faith being followed up with things like the Gaza War, rocket attacks, kidnappings of Israeli soldiers and etc. While Netanyahu himself made demands in 2009 that will never happen, and has been pretty clearly uninterested in serious peace negotiations, the election of Netanyahu and the mood of the country is pretty reasonable. How many times does someone get spit on when trying to negotiate with someone before they get a little hot under the collar about it? Israeli politics has ebbs and flows just like America's, and the current right-wing era in Israeli politics will almost certainly subside at some point, and even still right wing Israelis are more reasonable in terms of being willing to negotiate than pretty much anyone in power in the PLA has ever been, which goes back to how ridiculous it is to paint Israel as the heavy in this.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Right - there is exactly one concrete policy decision you can point to, and that is him abstaining from a vote that otherwise passed 12-0.

During the Arab Spring I think his actions clearly showed he had a lot of sympathy for Islamist populist movements sweeping the region, which in itself was pretty dangerous.

In the "anti-Muslim" camp you have more attacks on Muslims than any President in US history. Continued support for Israel in all things other than NOT voting in one vote in eight years.

Sure, more drone attacks, whatever.  Bush actually invaded two Muslim countries, so he certainly killed more Muslims than Obama ever did. Not that either I think means anything in terms of establishing "pro/anti" Muslim credentials. I think Bush II had beefs with Afghanistan and Iraq which is why he invaded, he didn't do it because he disliked Muslims. Similarly Obama's world view of not being involved militarily conflicted with his responsibilities as commander in chief to kill terrorists, so he became a big supporter of the drone program because it allowed him to kill terrorists without "interfering" in the affairs of sovereign states. (That's not really what it does, but that's the illusion Obama has sold himself.) That has lead to a record number of targeted killings of Muslim terrorists under Obama, but I don't think it shows how he's particularly anti-Muslim.

But being a liberal and thinking something other than "Israel is 100% right no matter what in all things" is not "anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim".

Except no one has said Israel is 100% right. What I've said is there's a prior status quo, that has gotten us fairly close to peace in the past, and Obama basically took a big shit on all of this. Don't play coy with stuff like "durrrr it's just an abstention" you know how the UN works.

I make no bones about where I stand - I am firmly pro-Israel. I think it is very clear who is right in this conflict overall, and I think it is pretty obvious what the Muslims would to do the Jews if the power balance were exactly reversed. But I think it was long overdue that the US made it clear to Israel that our support is not unconditional.

Except he did it in the last month he was in office--when the next President has said "ignore it, just hold on until 1/20", in fact--what Obama has succeeded in doing is energizing the Republicans on this issue--they are basically 100% pro-Israel now. Not to mention, if you've been reading the pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, and other mainstream liberal media, while there are some applause for Obama there's some condemnations as well, suggesting that at the same time he's united Republicans lock step on the other side of this, he's divided his own party. That means that he's actually guaranteed that in about a month Israel is going to be told our support for them is unconditional.

This was a political and strategically stupid decision, and that's something someone should see regardless of where they stand on the larger Israel-Palestinian issue.

So I guess I am "anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim" as well. Even though I am actually the exact opposite.
[/quote]

[DGuller]

  Something tells me OvB doesn't tweet much.

[dps]

meaningful form of a modern day UN Security Council resolution

Bwa ha ha.  That's hilarious.

[garbon]

May continues to look silly.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/29/theresa-may-john-kerry-comments-israel-palestine-un-resolution

Theresa May's criticism of John Kerry Israel speech sparks blunt US reply

Theresa May has distanced the UK from Washington over John Kerry's condemnation of Israel, in comments that appear to be designed to build bridges with the incoming Trump administration.

Kerry, the outgoing secretary of state, delivered a robust speech this week that criticised Benjamin Netanyahu's government as the "most rightwing coalition in Israeli history" and warned that the rapid expansion of settlements in the occupied territories meant that "the status quo is leading toward one state and perpetual occupation".

The prime minister's spokesman said May thought it was not appropriate to make such strongly worded attacks on the makeup of a government or to focus solely on the issue of Israeli settlements.

"We do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally," he said. "The government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community."

The UK backed the UN resolution passed last week that condemned the continued expansion of settlements. But May's spokesman said she was concerned about the language Kerry had used.

"We continue to believe that the construction of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is illegal, which is why we supported UN security council resolution 2334 last week.

"But we are also clear that the settlements are far from the only problem in this conflict. In particular, the people of Israel deserve to live free from the threat of terrorism, with which they have had to cope for too long."

However the US state department last night reacted with some bluntness to May's statement.

A spokesperson said: "We are surprised by the UK Prime Minister's office statement given that Secretary Kerry's remarks—which covered the full range of threats to a two state solution, including terrorism, violence, incitement and settlements—were in-line with the UK's own longstanding policy and its vote at the United Nations last week."

The statement also said: "We are grateful for the strongly supportive statements in response to Secretary Kerry's speech from across the world, including Germany, France, Canada, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and others."

Barack Obama, who will hand over to Donald Trump in January, has taken a series of steps in his final days in the White House to secure a foreign policy legacy, including backing the UN resolution which the White House hopes could give legal grounds for future action by other governments. Kerry made resolving the deadlocked Israeli-Palestine conflict a central aim of his tenure as secretary of state, but has made little progress.

Trump, who made stridently pro-Israel comments during the election campaign, responded angrily to the resolution, claiming: "The big loss for Israel in the United Nations will make it much harder to negotiate peace. Too bad, but we will get it done anyway!" Israel reacted furiously to Kerry's comments, with Netanyahu calling them "skewed".

May is known to be keen to kindle a close relationship with the Trump White House. The UK's ambassador, Sir Kim Darroch, has even said he hopes it will emulate the rapport between Margaret Thatcher and her US counterpart Ronald Reagan.