2016 elections - because it's never too early

[celedhring]

As a leftie Euro, my overall view on this is that Israel is the less ugly of a bunch of very ugly dates. And the less likely to murder me in my sleep.

[frunk]

I agree completely. While the overall calculus is pretty trivial to evaluate, that doesn't excuse Israel from particular criticism about particular policies.

But even then, one has to understand the context that those policy decisions are made in - I think the "settlement" policies are terrible, but on the other hand...I totally understand why the political situation within Israel is such that they are going forward with them anyway. This is overly simplistic I am sure, but when you have a situation where reason and moderation consistently fail, the extremists inevitably come to power. The examples of this are everywhere, and it is why I despair at people who savage the moderates because they lack the "purity" if their (usually) partisan positions. It simply leads to the further polarization and demonization of the groups.

We see this in the extreme of the rampant violence in the Middle East, and we see it in the less violent but no less radical polarization of the political parties in the US.

I agree, but I think this is where Mihali does have a point, we should be trying to moderate rather than allow the extremists to push the situation.  The US could take a harder line on Settlements, but generally we haven't apart from the every 4-8 year "new president is gonna get peace in the Mid-East" flurry.  It hardly ever lasts long.

[Malthus]

I mostly agree with this, although I think the current government of Israel and its policy of continued settlement of the West Bank weakens the argument.  They are deliberately provoking the situation and making it a worse and more violent situation for both Israelis and Palestinians.  If they continue doing this I'm not sure how it can end in anything other than wholesale removal of Palestinians from the West Bank or mass killings.

I agree that the settlement policies of Israel are terrible, counter-productive to peace, and deplorable. I disagree that it will all end in mass deportations or mass killings.

[frunk]

I agree that the settlement policies of Israel are terrible, counter-productive to peace, and deplorable. I disagree that it will all end in mass deportations or mass killings.

What do you see the end result being?

[derspiess]

Apparently urban sass and attitude only works for Oprah. 

Oprah is country.  You need to learn more about black folk.

[Barrister]

I agree that the settlement policies of Israel are terrible, counter-productive to peace, and deplorable. I disagree that it will all end in mass deportations or mass killings.

What do you see the end result being?

What we have now.  The status quo has been going on pretty much since 1967.  To the extent it has changed it has been Israel withdrawing from areas (Sinai, southern Lebannon, Gaza).

[Capetan Mihali]

As a leftie Euro, my overall view on this is that Israel is the less ugly of a bunch of very ugly dates. And the less likely to murder me in my sleep.

Thanks, faggot.  

[derspiess]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/273012-clinton-we-didnt-lose-a-single-person-in-libya

She was obviously talking about the intervention.

That's what I assumed the context was, but by omitting any clarification to that statement she committed a gaffe.  You'd think she'd be smart enough to choose her words carefully when discussing anything about Libya.

[frunk]

What we have now.  The status quo has been going on pretty much since 1967.  To the extent it has changed it has been Israel withdrawing from areas (Sinai, southern Lebannon, Gaza).

Israel can continue to settle an indefinite number of people in the West Bank?  Impressive.

[Valmy]

That's what I assumed the context was, but by omitting any clarification to that statement she committed a gaffe.  You'd think she'd be smart enough to choose her words carefully when discussing anything about Libya.

Eh it is not something that is going to resonate much in the Democratic Primary though.

[Valmy]

Israel can continue to settle an indefinite number of people in the West Bank?  Impressive.

Eventually the land behind the Green Line will be completely deserted.

[Malthus]

I agree that the settlement policies of Israel are terrible, counter-productive to peace, and deplorable. I disagree that it will all end in mass deportations or mass killings.

What do you see the end result being?

I don't think the settler types, or the RW government that supports them, have unlimited goals of total displacement - they are opposed within Israel by a faction hostile to them. I suspect they are nibbling away all they can steal without the heat being turned up against them too much. They react opportunistically, to political opportunities, to grab more and more, it is true. But killings/deportations would go too far.   

If they tried for total displacement, the political pressure domestic and foreign would be too severe. To date, they haven't shown that sort of chutzpah. Indeed, Israel has reacted pragmatically to withdraw from areas it has taken in wars, where the heat was too great, or where there was an opportunity - such as pulling out of the Sinai or Gaza. Though neither of those were exactly successes, which has added to the RW clout.

I suspect the 'end result' is an Israel with bits of the WB successfully stolen and added to it, and a lot of ill-will and political damage as a result. Not a mass clearance of the WB, either by deportations or murders.

[derspiess]

That's what I assumed the context was, but by omitting any clarification to that statement she committed a gaffe.  You'd think she'd be smart enough to choose her words carefully when discussing anything about Libya.

Eh it is not something that is going to resonate much in the Democratic Primary though.

I understand that as a hardcore Hillary supporter you would like to minimize the impact of that horrible gaffe, but it'll be red meat for her opponents in the general.

[Duque de Bragança]

I guess we have to "agree to disagree."  The despicable stance, for me, is that supposed "liberal" parties and governments are entirely complicit in Israel's outrageous conduct.  The Democratic Party is merely the most extreme, the French Socialists have been totally ineffective at extricating France from support of the current Israeli regime, for example. (Though that may just be an extension of their total ineffectiveness, while the US Democrats actively court extreme Zionists.)

While most people would agree on the total ineffectiveness of French socialists, the one thing they managed, namely Valls, to do abroad was precisely equating support of Netanyahu with support for Israel. Sarkozy in the end had a fallout with Bibi, though they started in not so bad terms (cue banlieue votes about Sarko the Jew). Of course, this is hardly surprising, since the socialists dating back to Guy Mollet have always been more pro-Israeli and atlantist, though not very well rewarded in the latter (Suez Crisis and Obama conceding a red line).

[Valmy]

That's what I assumed the context was, but by omitting any clarification to that statement she committed a gaffe.  You'd think she'd be smart enough to choose her words carefully when discussing anything about Libya.

Eh it is not something that is going to resonate much in the Democratic Primary though.

I understand that as a hardcore Hillary supporter you would like to minimize the impact of that horrible gaffe, but it'll be red meat for her opponents in the general.

Hardcore?

I doubt something that happened in March will be red meat in the general. Maybe a rotting dead horse corpse.