...and diplomatic shitstorm ensues. Apologies if it had been posted already.
QuoteUS abstention allows UN to demand end to Israeli settlements
Donald Trump and Israel had urged Washington to use its veto to stop historic security council resolution
The United Nations security council has adopted a landmark resolution demanding a halt to all Israeli settlement in the occupied territories after Barack Obama's administration refused to veto the resolution.
A White House official said Obama had taken the decision to abstain in the absence of any meaningful peace process.
The resolution passed by a 14-0 vote on Friday night. Loud applause was heard in the packed chamber when the US ambassador, Samantha Power, abstained.
All remaining members of the security council, including the UK, voted in support. Egypt, which had drafted the resolution and had been briefly persuaded by Israel to postpone the vote, also backed the move.
Friday's vote was scheduled at the request of four countries – New Zealand, Malaysia, Senegal and Venezuela – who stepped in to push for action a day after Egypt put the draft resolution on hold.
Israel recalled its ambassadors to New Zealand and Senegal in protest on Saturday.
Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas's office said the vote was "a big blow" to Israeli policy and a show of "strong support for the two-state solution".
The resolution says Israel's settlements on Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, have "no legal validity" and demands a halt to "all Israeli settlement activities," saying this "is essential for salvaging the two-state solution".
The resolution reiterated that Israeli settlement was a "flagrant violation" of international law.
The United States vetoed a similar resolution in 2011, which was the sole veto cast by the Obama administration at the security council.
The abstention decision underlined the tension between Obama and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who had made furious efforts to prevent such a move.
A resolution requires nine votes in favour and no vetoes by the United States, France, Russia, Britain or China in order to be adopted. Among those who welcomed the resolution was UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon.
"The secretary general takes this opportunity to encourage Israeli and Palestinian leaders to work with the international community to create a conducive environment for a return to meaningful negotiations," said his spokesman, Stephane Dujarric.
Explaining the US abstention, Power said the Israeli settlement "seriously undermines Israel's security", adding : "The United States has been sending a message that the settlements must stop privately and publicly for nearly five decades."
Power said the US did not veto the resolution because the Obama administration believed it reflected the state of affairs regarding settlement and remained consistent with US policy.
"One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict. One had to make a choice between settlements and separation," Power said.
The US decision to abstain was immediately condemned by Netanyahu's office as "shameful" which pointedly referred to Israel's expectation of working more closely with Donald Trump.
"By voting yes in favour of this resolution, you have in fact voted no. You voted no to negotiation, you voted no to progress and a chance for better lives for Israelis and Palestinians, and you voted no to the possibility of peace," Danon told the council.
The vote will, however, be seen as a major defeat for Netanyahu, who has long had a difficult relationship with the Obama administration.
Netanyahu had tried to prevent the vote by appealing to Trump, who will not be sworn in until late January, and to the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatal al-Sisi.
While the resolution is largely symbolic, it will be seen as empowering an increasingly tough UN over Israel and will give pause to international companies who have interests in the occupied territories.
Originally drafted by Egypt, the original version of the resolution had been supposed to go to a vote on Thursday night, but was withdrawn by Sisi under pressure orchestrated by Israel.
Following the vote Trump, tweeted: "As to the UN, things will be different after Jan 20."
Commenting on Trump's attempted intervention, a White House official insisted that until Trump's inauguration on 20 January there was one US president - Obama.
Pro-Israel senators and lobby groups also weighed in following the vote. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most influential lobby groups, said it was "deeply disturbed by the failure of the Obama administration to exercise its veto to prevent a destructive, one-sided, anti-Israel resolution from being enacted by the United Nations security council".
It also pointedly thanked Trump for his attempts to intervene: "AIPAC expresses its appreciation to president-elect Trump and the many Democratic and Republican members of Congress who urged a veto of this resolution."
The United Nations maintains that settlements are illegal, but UN officials have reported a surge in construction over the past months.
About 430,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank and a further 200,000 Israelis live in east Jerusalem, which Palestinians see as the capital of their future state.
The resolution demands that "Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem".
It states that Israeli settlements have "no legal validity" and are "dangerously imperiling the viability of the two-state solution".
Netanyahu's charm offensive came afterwards.
QuoteIsrael summons ambassadors for dressing down over UN resolution
Benjamin Netanyahu issues 'personal reprimand' to diplomats from security council nations who voted for settlements rebuke
Benjamin Netanyahu has summoned the ambassadors of all UN security council members which backed a resolution condemning Israeli settlements to "personally reprimand" them.
According to Israeli media reports the ambassadors summoned on Sunday for the Israeli prime minister's dressing down include all those from security council members with permanent missions in Israel: Russia, China, Japan, Ukraine, France, Britain, Angola, Egypt, Uruguay and Spain.
The resolution, which passed on Friday with 14 votes in support and only the US abstaining, condemned Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories as constituting a flagrant violation of international law.
It also demanded that states "distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the state of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967".
Netanyahu also accused the US president, Barack Obama, of directly coordinating the resolution at the morning cabinet meeting. "We have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated its versions and insisted upon its passage," he said. Washington has denied this.
The rebuke came as Israel continued to retaliate against countries that supported the motion, cutting aid to Senegal, cancelling forthcoming official visits – including by the Ukrainian prime minister – and recalling two of its ambassadors.
Netanyahu also ordered the Israeli foreign ministry to "re-evaluate all of our ties to the UN within a month".
Netanyahu is under renewed political pressure to bring forward controversial legislation to legalise dozens of currently illegal outposts in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Significantly, the US ambassador was not summoned, despite the Obama administration's decision not toveto the resolution – an abstention described by Netanyahu as an "underhanded and anti-Israel manoeuvre".
Later on Sunday, however, the US state department said its ambassador would meet the Israeli prime minister.
"We can confirm Ambassador Shapiro will meet with PM Netanyahu this evening," the state department said in a brief statement to Agence France-Presse.
A senior diplomat quoted by the Haaretz newspaper suggested irritation in the diplomatic community with Netanyahu's Christmas Day summons. "What would they have said in Jerusalem if we summoned the Israeli ambassador on Yom Kippur?" the diplomat told the paper.
The ambassadors' dressing-down comes amid mounting criticism of Netanyahu from Israeli politicians and the media. Some prominent columnists have blamed Netanyahu's poor relationship with Obama and his prioritisation of Jewish settlers for the UN resolution.
Israel has continued to condemn Obama and Friday's resolution, which demanded a halt to settlements in Palestinian territory – the first UN resolution since 1979 to condemn Israel over its settlement policy.
By deciding not to use its veto, the US deeply angered Israel, which has accused Obama of abandoning its closest Middle East ally in the waning days of his administration.
The text was passed with support from all other members of the 15-member security council. Applause broke out in the chamber when the vote results were read out.
The landmark vote came despite intense lobbying by Israel and calls from the US president-elect, Donald Trump, to block the text.
While the resolution contains no sanctions, Israeli officials are concerned it could widen the possibility of prosecution at the international criminal court. They are also worried it could encourage some countries to impose sanctions against Israeli settlers and goods produced in the settlements.
Netanyahu called the resolution a "shameful blow against Israel at the United Nations".
"The decision that was taken was biased and shameful, but we will withstand it," the Israeli leader said on Saturday evening. "It will take time, but this decision will be annulled."
Singling out New Zealand and Senegal, he added: "Two countries with which we have diplomatic relations co-sponsored the resolution against us at the UN; therefore, I ordered yesterday that our ambassadors be recalled from Senegal and from New Zealand. I have ordered that all Israeli assistance to Senegal be halted, and there's more to come.
"Those who work with us will benefit because Israel has much to give to the countries of the world. But those who work against us will lose – because there will be a diplomatic and economic price for their actions against Israel."
Netanyahu said Obama had broken a longstanding US commitment not to "dictate the terms of peace to Israel" at the UN. The resolution, Netanyahu said, was "part of the swansong of the old world that is biased against Israel, but, my friends, we are entering a new era", referring to Trump's imminent presidency.
Trump reacted after the vote by promising change at the UN. "As to the UN, things will be different after Jan 20th," he tweeted, referring to the date of his inauguration.
"The big loss yesterday for Israel in the United Nations will make it much harder to negotiate peace. Too bad, but we will get it done anyway!" Trump tweeted later.
The US has traditionally served as Israel's diplomatic shield, protecting it from resolutions that Israel opposes. It is Israel's most important ally, providing it with more than $3bn (£3.1bn) a year in defence aid. That number will soon rise to $3.8bn per year under a new decade-long pact – the biggest pledge of US military aid in history.
The Obama administration has grown increasingly frustrated with settlement building in the West Bank, which Israel has occupied for nearly 50 years. There have been growing warnings that settlement expansion is fast eroding the possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the basis of years of negotiations.
Settlements are built on land the Palestinians view as part of their future state and seen as illegal under international law.
"We cannot stand in the way of this resolution as we seek to preserve a chance of attaining our longstanding objective of two states living side by side in peace and security," said Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN. "The settlement problem has gotten so much worse that it is now putting at risk the very viability of that two-state solution."
After the vote, Israel's justice minister, Ayelet Shaked, of the far-right Jewish Home said Israel needed "to talk about annexation" of the West Bank.
About 430,000 Israeli settlers currently live in the West Bank, and a further 200,000 Israelis live in annexed East Jerusalem, which Palestinians see as the capital of their future state.
QuoteIsrael to 'reassess' ties with UN, says Benjamin Netanyahu
Prime minister stops funding to some UN bodies, after security council resolution demanding end to Israeli settlement building in occupied territories
Israel will reassess its ties with the UN following the adoption by the security council of a resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlement building, the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has announced.
The vote was able to pass the 15-member council on Friday after the US broke with a longstanding approach of diplomatically shielding Israel and did not wield its veto power as it had many times before – a decision that Netanyahu called "shameful".
"I instructed the foreign ministry to complete within a month a re-evaluation of all our contacts with the United Nations, including the Israeli funding of UN institutions and the presence of UN representatives in Israel," Netanyahu said on Saturday.
"I have already instructed to stop about 30m shekels (£6.3m) in funding to five UN institutions, five bodies, that are especially hostile to Israel ... and there is more to come," he said.
The Israeli leader did not name the institutions or offer any further details.
Defying heavy pressure from longstanding ally Israel and the president-elect, Donald Trump, for Washington to use its veto, the US abstained in the security council decision, which passed with 14 votes in favour.
QuoteNetanyahu snubs May over UN settlements vote, Israeli media says
Israeli PM said to have told ministers two will not meet at Davos, but his office denies a meeting was ever scheduled
Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has apparently snubbed Theresa May over the UK's support of a highly critical UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement building.
The move is the latest in a series of diplomatic retaliations by Israel against the countries that supported a UN security council resolution describing Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories as a "flagrant violation" of international law and an obstacle to peace.
Reports in the Israeli media said Netanyahu had told ministers at his weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday that he did not intend to meet May in Davos at the forthcoming World Economic Forum.
Responding to the reports, the UK's deputy ambassador, Tony Kay, said he regretted the decision. "It is a disappointment that the Israeli government has announced that Prime Minister Netanyahu does not want to have a conversation with Theresa May," Kay told Israel Army Radio on Monday.
Kay had been called in with other ambassadors and senior diplomats of the other members of the security council who voted for the motion or abstained, including the US ambassador Dan Shapiro, to be reprimanded for supporting a resolution that reiterated the view of the international community that Jewish settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace.
"I'm sure there will be many conversations between the two prime ministers moving forward and we look forward to having those conversations, and we'll certainly continue to have those conversations in Tel Aviv," Kay said.
In response to the reports, Israeli officials said no meeting had been scheduled with May. "No meeting with the UK prime minister had been set therefore no meeting was cancelled," a spokesperson said.
However, the Israeli media later reported that – despite the official denial – there had been discussions about May and Netanyahu speaking in Davos, although Britain had not been officially informed of the cancellation.
The prime minister is regarded as one of the most pro-Israeli leaders in Europe, recently describing it as "a remarkable country" and "a beacon of tolerance".
Kay's comments came as the fallout from Friday's vote continued to reverberate, amid growing fears in Israel that the US and the security council may be considering further moves against Israel before Donald Trump is inaugurated as US president on 20 January.
That has included speculation over a second security council resolution and reports that the US secretary of state, John Kerry, may be considering a speech outlining potential parameters for a two-state solution in the dying days of the Barack Obama administration.
The moves come against the background of reports that Israel is to approve hundreds of new houses in occupied Jerusalem.
The moves by the Obama administration, including the abstention in the security council vote on Friday, appear designed to leave a legacy of acts that can be used by the EU, the international criminal court and other institutions to continue to pressure Israel over settlement and the moribund peace process even if Trump – as appears highly likely – pursues a one-sided and vigorously pro-Israel foreign policy.
The comments came as Israel continued to warn of further retaliation against the UN and countries that supported the resolution. That includes the emergence of further details on the UN agencies Israel is considering sanctioning as part of its diplomatic blitz, including cutting funding.
Among the reported targets is the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which has long been in Israel's sights and runs schools and provides housing and facilities in refugee camps in the occupied territories.
It is also being suggested that Israel will promote its own UN resolution that would set rules of conduct for UN employees so they would be made accountable for any statements regarded as being anti-Israel – although it is unclear what support if any that could muster given last week's uncontested vote.
Despite the loud noises from Netanyahu it remained unclear how much of it was bluster, designed to placate rightwing sentiments within his own Likud party and far-right coalition partners such as Jewish Home, and how much would have concrete consequences.
In contrast to the recent harsh statements, Netanyahu has also reportedly warned ministers to avoid making calls for annexation of the occupied territories for fear of promoting further moves aganist Israel.
The latest planned reported moves also come amid evidence of a mounting backlash against Netanyahu's handling of the situation.
On Monday Yesh Atid, the party of one of Netanyahu's biggest rivals on the right, Yair Lapid, urged the Knesset to summon Netanyahu to explain the "dangerous deterioration in Israel's foreign relations" following the vote.
Israeli columnists also continued to damn Netanyahu's handling of the fallout with Ben Caspit, of the Maariv, describing his "campaign of chastisement" as the "most unwarranted and looniest in the world of diplomacy in modern history".
It's not common, but not out of the realm,to abstain on a vote, for a number of reasons.
QuoteAs to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 23, 2016
Skerry!
Ted Cruz: Cut US funding to UN until reversal of Israel vote (http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Ted-Cruz-No-US-funding-for-UN-until-reversal-of-Israel-vote-476471)
We should support our ally Israel.
Nah, cut 'em loose.
I have no problem with supporting Israel, but it shouldn't be unconditional. We should have done this a long time ago. The settlements in the West Bank are not inline with our goals.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2016, 03:23:19 PM
Nah, cut 'em loose.
The U.S.S. Liberty agrees.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/USS_Liberty.jpg/300px-USS_Liberty.jpg)
I have no idea what this means from a diplomatic perspective, but for Israelis to expect super unconditional support from Obama after treating him with unconditional disdain for 8 years seems a bit rich.
Quote from: DGuller on December 26, 2016, 04:33:27 PM
I have no idea what this means from a diplomatic perspective, but for Israelis to expect super unconditional support from Obama after treating him with unconditional disdain for 8 years seems a bit rich.
This is Trump approach to international relations. Serious people don't make it personal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2016, 04:45:19 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 26, 2016, 04:33:27 PM
I have no idea what this means from a diplomatic perspective, but for Israelis to expect super unconditional support from Obama after treating him with unconditional disdain for 8 years seems a bit rich.
This is Trump approach to international relations. Serious people don't make it personal.
Maybe they don't, but you probably shouldn't treat serious people you rely on like shit and bank on them not taking it personally.
Quote from: DGuller on December 26, 2016, 04:33:27 PM
I have no idea what this means from a diplomatic perspective, but for Israelis to expect super unconditional support from Obama after treating him with unconditional disdain for 8 years seems a bit rich.
Forget Obama. Their settlement policy is just plain counterproductive and not in line with US interests.
Yeah. Every American administration has grumbled about the settlements and made their wishes known to Israel.
The striking thing is that Israel is less than a month away from getting an American administration that may finally back them on this. Then this happens. Not sure how much this changes things over the next four years.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2016, 03:27:25 PM
I have no problem with supporting Israel, but it shouldn't be unconditional. We should have done this a long time ago. The settlements in the West Bank are not inline with our goals.
Yes. It has been pretty embarrassing to be supporting this country and they just keep flaunting our interests and forcing us to go further and further out on a limb for them.
Without Israel as an ally the Middle East might become a mess.
Quote from: The Brain on December 26, 2016, 05:15:23 PM
Without Israel as an ally the Middle East might become a mess.
Agree. Let's get real. Israel is the best partner that America has and the most progressive, stable country in the Middle East. The people of the Golan Heights are super happy that they are no longer part of Syria and its war/genocide. The Palestinians (and Arabs) lost. They will never get Palestine back this century.
How is Israel a partner? When have they had our back?
They used to be wonderfully progressive, but now they're turning into a country of millennial crackpots and head cube wearing welfare cases.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2016, 06:12:17 PM
How is Israel a partner? When have they had our back?
They used to be wonderfully progressive, but now they're turning into a country of millennial crackpots and head cube wearing welfare cases.
The furtherance of health, wealth, and happiness. The Arab countries export economic and social suffering. I see no Jewish terrorists coming out of Israel anytime soon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2016, 06:12:17 PM
They used to be wonderfully progressive, but now they're turning into a country of millennial crackpots and head cube wearing welfare cases.
One the one hand, I can't help but think that the Western left has really scored an own goal with Israel. By refusing the consider the possibility that maybe standards for acceptable behavior should be different in a war zone as opposed to college campuses, they discredited the very notion that progressiveness is something to aspire to rather than a mortal danger.
On the other hand, it's hard to disagree with where we are. Whatever the original reason, a really virulent strain has taken root in Israel, based on my personal observations, more so there than anywhere else. I wonder whether the world is due for some radical realignment, with all the long-festering conflicts about to burst open and be settled with force. In Israel, there will certainly be a "now or never" window to act decisively, if Trump proves to be as much of a madman as he promises to be.
My support for Israel is pretty damn significant, but at some point Israel needs to figure out that they don't just get to take US support for granted.
They've basically told us to go fuck ourselves time and time again when it comes to listening to us on any substantive issues. So...well, fuck 'em. It sucks that they had to push it this far, but they did - they thought we would NEVER call their bluff.
Not that this is really calling much of a bluff, basically refusing to veto a rather perfectly reasonable UN resolution.
Basically, Israel is saying that the US should let them do literally anything they like, and we should protect them politically no matter what they do, or how we feel about the things they do, under basically all circumstances.
Quote from: Phillip V on December 26, 2016, 06:22:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2016, 06:12:17 PM
How is Israel a partner? When have they had our back?
They used to be wonderfully progressive, but now they're turning into a country of millennial crackpots and head cube wearing welfare cases.
The furtherance of health, wealth, and happiness. The Arab countries export economic and social suffering. I see no Jewish terrorists coming out of Israel anytime soon.
Not sending terrorists after us is a pretty low bar for "having our back".
Abstain from this resolution? We should have joined everybody else in voting for it. As Ambassador Power said, we've been telling the Israelis that the settlements are both illegal and counterproductive basically ever since they occupied the West Bank.
Fuck Israel on the settlements issues, and fuck President-Elect Trump and his foreign policy.
Quote from: dps on December 26, 2016, 06:48:39 PM
Quote from: Phillip V on December 26, 2016, 06:22:11 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 26, 2016, 06:12:17 PM
How is Israel a partner? When have they had our back?
They used to be wonderfully progressive, but now they're turning into a country of millennial crackpots and head cube wearing welfare cases.
The furtherance of health, wealth, and happiness. The Arab countries export economic and social suffering. I see no Jewish terrorists coming out of Israel anytime soon.
Not sending terrorists after us is a pretty low bar for "having our back".
Abstain from this resolution? We should have joined everybody else in voting for it. As Ambassador Power said, we've been telling the Israelis that the settlements are both illegal and counterproductive basically ever since they occupied the West Bank.
Fuck Israel on the settlements issues, and fuck President-Elect Trump and his foreign policy.
What is "having our back" and why/when does America need it.
Quote from: Phillip V on December 26, 2016, 06:51:00 PM
What is "having our back" and why/when does America need it.
You're the one who claimed Israel is a partner. If by partner you mean they don't send terrorists over, we can move on to other points.
If Israel were smarter, they'd have used the Russian/Crimea strategy back in '67. Invade/occupy/formally annex, and let everyone forget about it within a few years.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 26, 2016, 07:32:39 PM
If Israel were smarter, they'd have used the Russian/Crimea strategy back in '67. Invade/occupy/formally annex, and let everyone forget about it within a few years.
Soon. China and Russia's land grabs the next four years will provide plenty of cover and distraction.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 26, 2016, 07:32:39 PM
If Israel were smarter, they'd have used the Russian/Crimea strategy back in '67. Invade/occupy/formally annex, and let everyone forget about it within a few years.
Like everyone forgot about South Africa? It's a terrible idea. You just speed up the ethnic cleansing/apartheid/no more Jewish state issue.
Quote from: Phillip V on December 26, 2016, 06:51:00 PM
What is "having our back" and why/when does America need it.
Not blowing up our ships, and not selling our top-secret technologies to our enemies, would both be a good start.
Israel is generally friendly with the US and has graciously agreed to suck up $4+ billion a year in US aid (thus reducing the danger of a balanced US budget), but it does not have our back and never will, because it has some fundamental interests that clash with those of the US.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 26, 2016, 07:32:39 PM
If Israel were smarter, they'd have used the Russian/Crimea strategy back in '67. Invade/occupy/formally annex, and let everyone forget about it within a few years.
That worked so well for them in the Baltic States that all the Baltic States are members of a military alliance hostile to Russia.
I don't think "everybody" forgets about things as quickly as you do.
It's for Israel's own good.
QuotePost Politics
Trump calls U.N. 'just a club for people' to 'have a good time'
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post
December 26 at 9:42 PM
Three days after the United Nations adopted a resolution calling on Israel to halt Jewish settlement activity on Palestinian territory, President-elect Donald Trump tweeted that the international body "is just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time."
The harsh criticism, which Trump made Monday while vacationing at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, signaled he would likely challenge more than just the 71-year-old institution's approach to the Middle East once he takes office.
The United Nations has such great potential but right now it is just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad! :lol:
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 26, 2016
While Trump did not elaborate on why he considered the United Nations ineffectual, he made it clear both before and after the Security Council adopted the resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that he believed the United States should have blocked the move. President Obama instructed U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power to abstain from voting, on the grounds that the Israeli government's continued support for expanding Jewish settlements could undermine any prospect of eventually reaching a two-state solution to the simmering conflict.
After the Security Council voted Trump tweeted, "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th," which is the day he will assume the presidency.
The United Nations has come under fire for years from critics on both the right and the left. Conservatives have attacked it for infringing on individual nations' sovereignty as well as wasting resources, while many developing nations argue that most major decisions remain dominated by a handful of countries that were influential when the United Nations was established decades ago. In recent years, some of its peacekeeping troops have been repeatedly accused of raping civilians they were sent to protect, and this August the office of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon formally acknowledged that Nepalese peacekeepers sent by the United Nations to Haiti six years ago contributed to a cholera outbreak there even as U.N. officials maintained they have legal immunity in connection to the epidemic.
But the United Nations continues to play a key role in helping deliver humanitarian assistance across the globe, brokering cease-fires during conflicts and serving as a forum for sprawling issues such as how best to address climate change. Obama has worked doggedly during his time in office to support multilateral institutions such as the United Nations. He has used his speech each year before the U.N. General Assembly as a way to lay out his vision for foreign affairs and has convened summits there to tackle questions that include the global refugee crisis and the fight against terrorism.
Earlier this month, the president stopped by to personally thank Ban for his work when the secretary general, who is stepping down at the end of the month, was meeting with national security adviser Susan Rice at the White House.
During a new conference last month, Obama emphasized that the United States must continue to play the leading role in maintaining "the basic framework of the world order" that was established after World War II.
"And I've said before, that's a burden that we should carry proudly," Obama said. "And I would hope that not just the 45th president of the United States, but every president of the United States understands that that's not only a burden, but it's also an extraordinary privilege. And if you have a chance to do that right, then you should seize it."
The Jews Obama did it!
QuoteIsrael threatens to give Trump 'evidence' that Obama orchestrated UN resolution
Netanyahu allies claim 'iron-clad information' from Arab sources reveals Obama administration drafted document to end settlements, which US abstained from
Israel has escalated its already furious war with the outgoing US administration, claiming that it has "rather hard" evidence that Barack Obama was behind a critical UN security council resolution criticising Israeli settlement building, and threatening to hand over the material to Donald Trump.
The latest comments come a day after the US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, was summoned by Netanyahu to explain why the US did not veto the vote and instead abstained.
The claims have emerged in interviews given by close Netanyahu allies to US media outlets on Monday after the Obama administration denied in categorical terms the claims originally made by Netanyahu himself.
However, speaking to Fox News on Sunday, David Keyes – a Netanyahu spokesman – said Arab sources, among others, had informed Jerusalem of Obama's alleged involvement in advancing the resolution.
"We have rather iron-clad information from sources in both the Arab world and internationally that this was a deliberate push by the United States and in fact they helped create the resolution in the first place," Keyes said.
Doubling down on the claim a few hours later the controversial Israeli ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, went even further suggesting it had gathered evidence that it would present to the incoming Trump administration.
"We will present this evidence to the new administration through the appropriate channels. If they want to share it with the American people, they are welcome to do it," Dermer told CNN.
According to Dermer, not only did the US not stand by Israel's side during the vote, it "was behind this ganging up on Israel at the UN".
On Monday, Trump tweeted his displeasure with the UN, dismissing it as "just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time".
Dermer is a controversial figure in Washington, blamed by the Obama administration for organising the invitation for Netanyahu to address the US Congress in the midst of Israel's campaign against the Iran nuclear deal.
His comments on CNN seem to represent an even more egregious breach of protocol, not least over the vague sourcing of the evidence alluded to by Keyes and Dermer.
Indeed, Israel was accused by unnamed US officials in a Newsweek article two years ago of "very sobering ... alarming ... even terrifying" levels of espionage targeting the US refuted as a " malicious fabrication aimed at harming relations" by then foreign minister Avigor Lieberman.
Last year, however, US officials again accused Israel of spying, this time on the Iran nuclear talks, with one telling the Wall Street Journal: "It is one thing for the US and Israel to spy on each other. It is another thing for Israel to steal US secrets and play them back to US legislators to undermine US diplomacy."
Dermer's threat on CNN to hand information to Trump would seem to replicate some of those concerns.
Israel's threat to present "evidence" on a sitting president, and one of Israel's closest ally, to an incoming presidential team – and to do it so publicly – appears almost unprecedented.
The moves appear part of a high risk – and even more highly partisan strategy – on Netanyahu's part, tying the future of Israel to a highly unpredictable Republican president-elect with no experience of public office and who comes from the very fringes even of the party he stood as candidate for.
The US has already denied the claim made by Israel in the strongest terms.
"We did not draft this resolution; we did not introduce this resolution. We made this decision when it came up for a vote," said Obama's deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said in a statement on Friday.
But because of its opposition to settlement activity and concern for what it could mean for the region, the US "could not in good conscience veto", he added.
Quote from: Phillip V on December 26, 2016, 07:35:58 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 26, 2016, 07:32:39 PM
If Israel were smarter, they'd have used the Russian/Crimea strategy back in '67. Invade/occupy/formally annex, and let everyone forget about it within a few years.
Soon. China and Russia's land grabs the next four years will provide plenty of cover and distraction.
False. Israel will be destroyed.
I think the politics of the settlement issue have failed to keep up with changing realities. There are now so many settlers it is not feasible to remove them from the west bank. Also there has been a lot of out migration of palestinians.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 27, 2016, 09:18:10 AM
I think the politics of the settlement issue have failed to keep up with changing realities. There are now so many settlers it is not feasible to remove them from the west bank. Also there has been a lot of out migration of palestinians.
C'mon,history has shown us time and time again, it's quite feasible to move a large number of Jews out of their homes.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 27, 2016, 09:18:10 AM
I think the politics of the settlement issue have failed to keep up with changing realities. There are now so many settlers it is not feasible to remove them from the west bank. Also there has been a lot of out migration of palestinians.
That was the whole point to dragging their asses on the issue. Get it filled with so many settlements that there would be no going back.
It's not like we haven't been dealing with this issue or the Israelis haven't been promising to pull out of the territories or anything. Oh wait, there it is, right there in black and white in the Camp David Accords from, oh, 1979.
Everybody excoriated Yasser Arafat--and rightfully so, at times--for being offered 95% of what the Palestinians always demanded and still turned it down at Oslo, and yet the Israelis can't be criticized for their part in stonewalling the peace process.
Quote from: grumbler on December 26, 2016, 08:03:37 PM
a military alliance hostile to Russia.
not anymore. Well, ok, for less than a month.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 27, 2016, 11:58:11 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 27, 2016, 09:18:10 AM
I think the politics of the settlement issue have failed to keep up with changing realities. There are now so many settlers it is not feasible to remove them from the west bank. Also there has been a lot of out migration of palestinians.
That was the whole point to dragging their asses on the issue. Get it filled with so many settlements that there would be no going back.
It's not like we haven't been dealing with this issue or the Israelis haven't been promising to pull out of the territories or anything. Oh wait, there it is, right there in black and white in the Camp David Accords from, oh, 1979.
Everybody excoriated Yasser Arafat--and rightfully so, at times--for being offered 95% of what the Palestinians always demanded and still turned it down at Oslo, and yet the Israelis can't be criticized for their part in stonewalling the peace process.
Yeah, that's one of the areas where Israel's interests see them acting contrary to US national interests - I don't think Israel has been serious about negotiating a settlement to the Palestine issue since Taba. They see no reason to compromise on the issue, because they know the US will back them if it comes to the crunch, and Israel can get everything it wants be simply refusing to allow any progress. It's a model the republicans in Congress have followed since Obama got elected: block progress and hope the other side just gives up.
Frankly, this Israelis would be dumb to seek
de jure peace;
de facto peace gives them everything they want without any of the cost.
Israel will never have to shit or get off the pot, unless we disentangle from them.
They were more fun when they were the punky Little Nation That Could, hanging on by a thread and beset on all sides by enemies yet kicking their asses over and over, and in the meantime pulling off great feats of derring-do like Operation Bayonet, Entebbe and Osirak.
But since Lebanon '82, they've been the neighborhood bullies and completely tone-deaf about it, as if it's still '48. And screaming about our support, like that's ever going to go away. :rolleyes: i mean, c'mon.
But things like abstentions in the UN is necessary if we're going to at least appear to be an impartial participant in the peace process.
Quote from: Scipio on December 27, 2016, 02:44:16 PM
Israel will never have to shit or get off the pot, unless we disentangle from them.
As long as we give them unconditional backing, they're more likely to double down than anything else. Trump is probably going to give them a move of our embassy to Jerusalem, which will be a huge symbolic thing.
Quote from: dps on December 27, 2016, 03:06:16 PM
As long as we give them unconditional backing, they're more likely to double down than anything else. Trump is probably going to give them a move of our embassy to Jerusalem, which will be a huge symbolic thing.
Yep, and he's promised to move the embassy without getting anything in return. You can kinda understand why he's gone bankrupt so many times. Still can't understand why anyone voted for him, but that understanding may come.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 27, 2016, 09:18:10 AM
Also there has been a lot of out migration of palestinians.
Where to?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 27, 2016, 06:42:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 27, 2016, 09:18:10 AM
Also there has been a lot of out migration of palestinians.
Where to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians#Demographics
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.) But I'd argue even Crimea is already significantly "more resolved" than the Palestinian lands have ever been.
I think in part the reason is, despite frequent criticisms Israel has behaved with a lot more restraint in Palestine than any major power ever would've. Probably in part because the US has always bought into a misguided policy that we should use our status as Israel's greatest benefactor to push for Israeli restraint. Probably out of a misguided view that we could ever be friends with most of the Middle Eastern Islamists.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 28, 2016, 12:12:12 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on December 27, 2016, 06:48:00 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 27, 2016, 06:42:22 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 27, 2016, 09:18:10 AM
Also there has been a lot of out migration of palestinians.
Where to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians#Demographics
Half a million in Chile!? :o
From my little bit of Googling, it appears that population mostly stems from the Christian Palestinians, starting from the mid-19th century through the creation of Israel.
Nuance doesn't seem to be en vogue at Bibi's cabinet...
QuoteNetanyahu 'told New Zealand backing UN vote would be declaration of war'
Israeli PM reportedly warned that support for motion on settlements would 'rupture relations' between two countries
Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told New Zealand's foreign minister that support for a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement-building in the occupied territories would be viewed as a "declaration of war".
According to reports in Israeli media, the Israeli PM called Murray McCully, the foreign minister of New Zealand, before Friday's resolution, which was co-sponsored by Wellington. Netanyahu told him: "This is a scandalous decision. I'm asking that you not support it and not promote it.
"If you continue to promote this resolution, from our point of view it will be a declaration of war. It will rupture the relations and there will be consequences. We'll recall our ambassador [from New Zealand] to Jerusalem."
McCully, however, refused to back down, telling Netanyahu: "This resolution conforms to our policy and we will move it forward."
A western diplomat confirmed that the call took place and described the conversation as "harsh".
The details of the call – disclosed in Haaretz – suggest a mounting sense of panic on the part of Netanyahu in the run-up to the UN security council resolution that passed on Friday demanding an end to settlement building.
As well as the Netanyahu call, a senior official in Israel's foreign ministry called New Zealand's ambassador to Israel, Jonathan Curr, and warned that if the resolution came to a vote, Israel might close its embassy in Wellington in protest.
Israel responded furiously to the vote, threatening diplomatic reprisals against the countries that voted in favour. Diplomatic ties with New Zealand were temporarily severed and ambassador Itzhak Gerberg was recalled.
But in a sign that the international pressure may be being felt by the Netanyahu administration, scheduled plans to consider for approval 600 new settlement houses in occupied east Jerusalem were abruptly removed from the agenda of the city's municipality on Wednesday.
Netanyahu's language and behaviour – which has resulted in ambassadors being reprimanded and consultations with foreign leaders, including the UK's Theresa May, cancelled – has raised eyebrows among foreign diplomats, who point out that the UN resolution does no more than confirm the longstanding view of the international community on Jewish settlements.
Can Israel deliver warheads to NZ?
I look forward to Trumpette giving Bibi a blank cheque and then going on holiday. It's worked well before. :)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 27, 2016, 11:50:25 PM
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.) But I'd argue even Crimea is already significantly "more resolved" than the Palestinian lands have ever been.
I think in part the reason is, despite frequent criticisms Israel has behaved with a lot more restraint in Palestine than any major power ever would've. Probably in part because the US has always bought into a misguided policy that we should use our status as Israel's greatest benefactor to push for Israeli restraint. Probably out of a misguided view that we could ever be friends with most of the Middle Eastern Islamists.
Chinese actions in Tibet and Russian actions in the Crimea are of a completely different kind than Israeli actions in Palestine (though the former is closer than the latter). Tibet has historically been a part of China, as Crimea has historically been part of Russia. Israel has historically been part of Palestine, not the reverse.
I agree with the idea that the US cannot ever be "friends" with the countries of the Middle East; their motivations are too Middle-Eastern to ever conform to US interests. And I'd agree that the indecisive nature of the conflict is the worst of all possible words for the US; whether the Israelis eliminate Palestine, or the Palestinians eliminate Israel, both outcomes are similar in terms of US interests (an Israeli victory being slightly preferable, probably), and both are better than the present situation from the standpoint of US interests.
The best outcome for US interests would be a two-state solution, but that simply isn't possible.
Quote from: The Brain on December 28, 2016, 08:00:34 AM
Can Israel deliver warheads to NZ?
No, but they might be able to undercut NZ's prices on winter avocados delivered to France.
I would give Bibi Andersson a blank check.
Hilarious. As if the settlements are a suddenly new thing. Poppy Bush took it on the chops when he withheld loan guarantees over the settlements in, what, 1990?
Curious how, after over 40 years of diplomacy, a lousy UNSC vote that Israel would ignore anyway about these settlements are suddenly a linchpin in Israel's right to exist. Since when did Netanyahu morph into Rudy Bibilani?
Well, I'm not surprised if Israel is stepping up their settlement project, considering their population has grown by 2/3, or over 3 million since 1995: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/israel_palestine_pop.html
And the territory is smaller than New Hampshire.
Quote from: Syt on December 28, 2016, 10:24:01 AM
Well, I'm not surprised if Israel is stepping up their settlement project, considering their population has grown by 2/3, or over 3 million since 1995: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/israel_palestine_pop.html
And the territory is smaller than New Hampshire.
That is really amazing. The Jewish population is growing at an amazing rate, completely insane and unsustainable. Yet somehow the non-Jewish population is growing even faster. Those people do realize they have limited supplies of water over there right?
Quote from: Valmy on December 28, 2016, 10:30:48 AM
Quote from: Syt on December 28, 2016, 10:24:01 AM
Well, I'm not surprised if Israel is stepping up their settlement project, considering their population has grown by 2/3, or over 3 million since 1995: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/israel_palestine_pop.html
And the territory is smaller than New Hampshire.
That is really amazing. The Jewish population is growing at an amazing rate, completely insane and unsustainable. Yet somehow the non-Jewish population is growing even faster. Those people do realize they have limited supplies of water over there right?
Both sides are filling up their stockpiles for the upcoming genocidal conflict.
Quote from: grumbler on December 28, 2016, 08:28:27 AMChinese actions in Tibet and Russian actions in the Crimea are of a completely different kind than Israeli actions in Palestine (though the former is closer than the latter). Tibet has historically been a part of China, as Crimea has historically been part of Russia. Israel has historically been part of Palestine, not the reverse.
I don't really see how history has much to do with it, and I'd contest your "part of Palestine" argument in the first place. Palestine hadn't been a meaningful politically independent entity for like 2000+ years before the 1948 lines were drawn. It's always just been part of some greater empire, or a protectorate or etc. So I frankly don't really know what you're talking about there. The Zionist movement saw tons of Jews immigrate to the region--legally, and buy large amounts of land from Ottoman absentee land lords. This pissed off Arab tenants and Arab bedouins who had historically "felt the land was theirs" but under the actual laws of the country in which they lived (the Ottoman Empire) it wasn't. The Jews certainly weren't blameless and did some nasty shit in all of this, but if we're going to make the argument that Israel doesn't have a right to exist (which is one that could be reasonably drawn from what you've said about Israel), then neither does Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, North/South Korea, the list is basically endless. Most countries were previously part of some other country at some point.
But like I said, I don't find the historical argument all that interesting. Such arguments, as we know, have nothing to do with anything. Karelia has no business being Russian, Kaliningrad either. And the Crimea argument is even a difficult one, because Russia only acquired that in the 19th century, and the problem with historical arguments is you can always go back and forth on who owned/should own what.
What we do know is that under the international laws and norms of behavior laid out in the UN, Russia
does legally own Kaliningrad, but its acquisition of Crimea is against international norms. Its behavior in Georgia and Moldova is outside international norms. China invading Tibet is outside international norms--and has been the subject of several UN resolutions over the years. What's also true is no one seems to care at all about these territories to the degree they care about Israel's occupation of "Palestine." The way I've always seen it, there's an ancient right in war called "right of conquest." We've tried to cover it up with legalese and other stuff, but when you see the international community "tacitly" accepting such things, like with Russia taking Crimea or China taking Tibet, or even for that matter the WWII peace treaties which saw Germany stripped of lands in the east that had been part of Germany for centuries, the reality is we still have the right of conquest.
Now, obviously the international community wasn't all that "cool" with Crimea at the time, but it's still fresh. I predict in thirty years the Crimean annexation will be forgotten by most as a footnote to history (much as Tibet is outside of people who use the phrase "Free Tibet" and sing Kumbaya), yet for some reason Israel won a war 50 years ago and took land and people are still butthurt about it. I can only guess that's because Israel has kept most of that land in a quasi-legal state of "occupation" instead of simply annexing it.
It's obvious to a point that Israel wants to avoid making its country majority Muslim. But I think we're probably at a point where Israel could just annex the West Bank and grant all the ragheads there Israeli citizenship. If they don't also annex the Gaza strip (which is generally better governed anyway, and more suited to independence), with the high Jewish birthrate in Israel, I don't think the Jews will become a minority. Although the demographic question is a complex one--I've read some who believe it is "obvious" that the Arabs will outpopulate the Jews, but I've seen other projections that show Jewish birthrate is high enough that in this scenario it is unlikely the country ever becomes majority Arab muslim. The rump state of Gaza would be furious at the West Bank annexation, but Israel could just unilaterally declare it an independent country and they'd be able to assume the international memberships of Palestine itself. Israel would be condemned for annexing the West Bank, but not much differently than Russia is being condemned for Crimea. Over time, the fuss would pass. Israel might fight in a constant low level war with Gaza, but if it's not an occupying power it's arguably freer to just blow shit up and kill even more people there any time they provoke stuff--since they would view the attacks no longer as terrorism but acts of war by a neighboring sovereign state.
I don't believe that solution would be clean or unmessy, but I at this point think the two-state solution proposed in the past where Israel abandons settlements is basically not going to ever happen, and a total one state solution puts too much demographic risk in play for the Jews (right now if it was all one state there would be about 6 million Jews and 5.7m Arabs.) It goes without saying if it ever ends up majority Arab there will be genocide and murder of all Jews in Israel, since Muslims cannot tolerate anyone but Muslims having political power.
QuoteI agree with the idea that the US cannot ever be "friends" with the countries of the Middle East; their motivations are too Middle-Eastern to ever conform to US interests. And I'd agree that the indecisive nature of the conflict is the worst of all possible words for the US; whether the Israelis eliminate Palestine, or the Palestinians eliminate Israel, both outcomes are similar in terms of US interests (an Israeli victory being slightly preferable, probably), and both are better than the present situation from the standpoint of US interests.
The best outcome for US interests would be a two-state solution, but that simply isn't possible.
Right, I think we're in agreement on that. Israel is a pretty shitty country, largely supported because we have a lot of rich Jews in America and evangelicals who have various crazed reasons for supporting Jews in the Levant. But Palestine is probably worse, and I'll take Israeli Jews over Arab Muslims basically any day of the week. In Israel proper we do see a pretty free country, where Arab Israelis have full political rights, have seats in the Knesset and etc. Just in terms of our national worldview I think the opposite--if Arabs take over and slowly start to squeeze out the Jews (which almost absolutely will happen), would be a "worse" outcome.
Quote from: Syt on December 28, 2016, 10:24:01 AM
Well, I'm not surprised if Israel is stepping up their settlement project, considering their population has grown by 2/3, or over 3 million since 1995: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/israel_palestine_pop.html
And the territory is smaller than New Hampshire.
What I've often said about Israel is it's a shame the greater West didn't just step up after the Holocaust and say "we're going to jointly find an area of land to give you" I have no idea where the ideal place would be, but maybe they could've taken it from Germany (the greatest criminal in WWII by a vast margin), and we'd already stolen a lot of German land anyway. Plus since Germany was under division/occupation for a long time after WWII we basically could've forced the issue. [I've joked in the past we should've just given them 8500 sq. mi. in Montana or something, it's mostly depopulated and Montana would only be losing like 5% of its territory] I understand the historical/Zionist argument for establishing Israel in the Levant, but it's ultimately a really shitty place to build a "Jewish homeland."
Stalin created an "Autonomous Jewish Oblast" in Eastern Siberia. Not many Jews wanted to move there. I think it still sort of exists.
Btw a Facebook friend of mine said he bought Israeli Savings Bonds this morning in an apparent gesture of defiance at Obama's 'slap in the face' of Israel. He's an interesting guy. Kind of like a rightwing Seedy.
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2016, 12:16:07 PM
Stalin created an "Autonomous Jewish Oblast" in Eastern Siberia. Not many Jews wanted to move there. I think it still sort of exists.
Yes I am aware of it. Shockingly Eastern Siberia was not that appealing :P
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2016, 12:18:24 PM
Btw a Facebook friend of mine said he bought Israeli Savings Bonds this morning in an apparent gesture of defiance at Obama's 'slap in the face' of Israel. He's an interesting guy. Kind of like a rightwing Seedy.
I don't get it. We have never been in favor of the settlements.
Ah well. He should be happy enough soon.
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2016, 12:18:24 PM
Btw a Facebook friend of mine said he bought Israeli Savings Bonds this morning in an apparent gesture of defiance at Obama's 'slap in the face' of Israel. He's an interesting guy. Kind of like a rightwing Seedy.
:lol: Your friend is a moron, hence not much like Seedy at all. Bibi slaps the US (and pretty much the rest of the world) in the face and then bursts into tears, and your friend buys bonds to reward him.
Nope, not much like Seedy. Except the whining part...
HEY NOW
i'll stop whining when I have a reason to stop whining.
It's never hard to find a reason to whine.
Or a reason to stop, for that matter.
It's the quiet ones you really need to worry about.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2016, 01:18:23 PM
It's the quiet ones you really need to worry about.
:yes: It's not the loud blowhards you have to worry about, those make it obvious to everyone what deplorable human beings they are. It's the quiet ones that slip by unnoticed and get elected.
Quote from: grumbler on December 28, 2016, 12:56:49 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2016, 12:18:24 PM
Btw a Facebook friend of mine said he bought Israeli Savings Bonds this morning in an apparent gesture of defiance at Obama's 'slap in the face' of Israel. He's an interesting guy. Kind of like a rightwing Seedy.
:lol: Your friend is a moron, hence not much like Seedy at all. Bibi slaps the US (and pretty much the rest of the world) in the face and then bursts into tears, and your friend buys bonds to reward him.
Nope, not much like Seedy. Except the whining part...
I was thinking more along the lines of donating (and I consider savings bonds a form of donation) as a means of revenge against political enemies. Like how Seedy gives the finger to teh man by donating to PP. But there's more to it than that. Confirmed bachelor, always uses unnecessarily strong language, sorta-kinda into conspiracy theories, and way into his cats.
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2016, 03:23:42 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of donating (and I consider savings bonds a form of donation) as a means of revenge against political enemies. Like how Seedy gives the finger to teh man by donating to PP. But there's more to it than that. Confirmed bachelor, always uses unnecessarily strong language, sorta-kinda into conspiracy theories, and way into his cats.
Donating the PP is not revenge. It is helping by enabling you guys to cut all government funding.
Crimea is different than Palestine because, AFAICT, most of the inhabitants self-identify, at least to some extent, as Russians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2016, 03:58:35 PM
Crimea is different than Palestine because, AFAICT, most of the inhabitants self-identify, at least to some extent, as Russians.
Yeah, as much as I hate the way the Russians went about it and as much as I support Ukraine, I don't see any going back.
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2016, 04:25:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2016, 03:58:35 PM
Crimea is different than Palestine because, AFAICT, most of the inhabitants self-identify, at least to some extent, as Russians.
Yeah, as much as I hate the way the Russians went about it and as much as I support Ukraine, I don't see any going back.
The problem we have now is not about going back, it is how do we check Putin going forward.
He has played the West for fools for a couple decades now, gotten away with everything he could imagine, and has now gotten his BFF elected President of the only country capable of standing up to his aggression.
The Crimea? Who the fuck cares about the Crimea anymore?
And you have a rather bizarre way of supporting the Ukraine.
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2016, 03:23:42 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of donating (and I consider savings bonds a form of donation) as a means of revenge against political enemies. Like how Seedy gives the finger to teh man by donating to PP.
My $20 donation to the World Wildlife Fund for that badass tote with the tiger kittens on it is exactly the the kind of machinations I put in motion to bring Red China to its knees. The 2017 Calendar is only the beginning!
Quote from: The Brain on December 28, 2016, 08:00:34 AM
Can Israel deliver warheads to NZ?
They'll deliver US designed weapon systems pretty much anywhere for the right price.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2016, 03:58:35 PM
Crimea is different than Palestine because, AFAICT, most of the inhabitants self-identify, at least to some extent, as Russians.
And Tibet is also different because at least as many Tibetans welcomed re-integration with China as opposed it. Tibet's experiment with independence was not a success.
Quote from: grumbler on December 28, 2016, 07:24:54 PM
Tibet's experiment with independence was not a success.
And they never got their second Tibet of equal or lesser value, either.
Quote from: Valmy on December 28, 2016, 12:26:23 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 28, 2016, 12:18:24 PM
Btw a Facebook friend of mine said he bought Israeli Savings Bonds this morning in an apparent gesture of defiance at Obama's 'slap in the face' of Israel. He's an interesting guy. Kind of like a rightwing Seedy.
I don't get it. We have never been in favor of the settlements.
Ah well. He should be happy enough soon.
We haven't been on paper, but there are several settlement areas that basically all parties have previously acknowledged are never going away, and whose annexation will be necessary for any peace deal. The vast majority of settlement growth Obama's Administration has been talking about has exclusively been in those, only something like 20,000 new people have gone into settlements Israel has previously said are in areas it will likely vacate in a peace arrangement. In past failed peace deals Israel has agreed to give other territorial concessions to make up for the "presumed to be annexed settlement area." The US has been on board with all of that in the past, Kerry's shameful and frankly stupid speech ignored all of this and actee like Israel is a one sided bad actor that needs reigned in. I think the Obama Administration's actions here have likely seriously worsened the situation.
Now, Bibi is an idiot and Obama appears to hate him on a personal level (not entirely unreasonable), but Obama preaches "going high" and I honestly sense that this was an angry lame duck President taking his dick out and slapping a foreign leader he despises and that his successor (whom he hates) likes.
As much as it wasn't wise for an Israeli PM to make things personal with a US President, it was probably worse for an American President to respond in kind. It just empowers the worst behaviors of both the Palestinians and the Israelis, not to mention given the incoming administration and the strong public support in America for Israel gives Trump an almost guaranteed "PR win" when he comes in and does a bunch of pro-Israeli stuff.
Word is even a lot of Democrats in Congress are struggling to support Obama on this, which also erodes any power he might have post-Presidency as a "unifying figure" in helping the Dems fix their house.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 28, 2016, 07:44:43 PM
As much as it wasn't wise for an Israeli PM to make things personal with a US President, it was probably worse for an American President to respond in kind.
Heebs hate darkies, film at 11.
QuoteWord is even a lot of Democrats in Congress are struggling to support Obama on this, which also erodes any power he might have post-Presidency as a "unifying figure" in helping the Dems fix their house.
As much as the GOP evangelicals and their apocalyptic end-of-days Revelations fetish drives support for the Israelites in time to play Left Behind: The LARP, it's the Democrats that still have the edge when it comes to the Jewish donor class. Of course they don't want to talk about it.
In my experience Heebs are about the least darkie hating group in the US.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2016, 08:20:13 PM
In my experience Heebs are about the least darkie hating group in the US.
I guess all the slumlords out in Iowa are cheerful Calvinists.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 28, 2016, 08:22:38 PM
I guess all the slumlords out in Iowa are cheerful Calvinists.
No such thing as a cheerful Calvinist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2016, 08:20:13 PM
In my experience Heebs are about the least darkie hating group in the US.
I would say that's true when it comes to typical secular American-born Jews. That's probably not true when it comes to typical religiously regressive ones. And when it comes to typical Soviet immigrant Jews, they would make American white supremacists go "dude, you gotta ease up on that politically incorrect shit :o".
If Obama had been smart, he'd've said not a word. He doesn't need to even comment on a non-action.
If Bibi had been smart, he'd not have indulged in the tears and war rhetoric. He knows that the US will be surrendering its foreign interests to Russia and Israel in less than a month. Who cares what New Zealand does if Bibi controls US Middle Eastern policy?
"Surrendering" should be "selling."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2016, 03:58:35 PM
Crimea is different than Palestine because, AFAICT, most of the inhabitants self-identify, at least to some extent, as Russians.
Yeah, all the ones who didn't have been purged.
Yeah, I think the entire "ethnic Russian" claim is complete bullshit.
There cannot possibly be a precedent set that says a nations sovereignty is dependent on them maintaining a minority of other ethnicities or language speakers in some given region, otherwise the "parent" ethnic nation has carte blanche to invade and grab that chunk of your country, if not all of it. Or engage in destabilization activities to put into into open conflict.
Obviously Putin, Trump, an Trumps loyal followers feel differently.
Quote from: Berkut on December 29, 2016, 09:39:24 AM
Yeah, I think the entire "ethnic Russian" claim is complete bullshit.
There cannot possibly be a precedent set that says a nations sovereignty is dependent on them maintaining a minority of other ethnicities or language speakers in some given region, otherwise the "parent" ethnic nation has carte blanche to invade and grab that chunk of your country, if not all of it. Or engage in destabilization activities to put into into open conflict.
Obviously Putin, Trump, an Trumps loyal followers feel differently.
I think you are countering an argument no one has made.
Quote from: grumbler on December 29, 2016, 09:42:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 29, 2016, 09:39:24 AM
Yeah, I think the entire "ethnic Russian" claim is complete bullshit.
There cannot possibly be a precedent set that says a nations sovereignty is dependent on them maintaining a minority of other ethnicities or language speakers in some given region, otherwise the "parent" ethnic nation has carte blanche to invade and grab that chunk of your country, if not all of it. Or engage in destabilization activities to put into into open conflict.
Obviously Putin, Trump, an Trumps loyal followers feel differently.
I think you are countering an argument no one has made.
Yi said there was a difference with the Crimea because most of the people there self identified as Russian. I am saying I don't think that matters at all to the evaluation of whether or not Russia annexing the Crimea was something that the international community ought to accept.
I don't think it matters if there was 1 ethnic Russian in the Crimea or 5 million. I don't think it makes any difference. Borders mean something in the post-WW2 world, or they do not. If they do, then the existence of ethnic minorities or majorities in other countries should not matter.
And I think the ethnic minorities or language speakers being a justification for some kind of intervention and then annexation is in fact an argument being made, and has been made, by Putin and his propaganda machine for some time.
Isn't that a fairly standard argument for nationalists?
Quote from: Berkut on December 29, 2016, 09:48:01 AM
Yi said there was a difference with the Crimea because most of the people there self identified as Russian. I am saying I don't think that matters at all to the evaluation of whether or not Russia annexing the Crimea was something that the international community ought to accept.
I don't think it matters if there was 1 ethnic Russian in the Crimea or 5 million. I don't think it makes any difference. Borders mean something in the post-WW2 world, or they do not. If they do, then the existence of ethnic minorities or majorities in other countries should not matter.
And I think the ethnic minorities or language speakers being a justification for some kind of intervention and then annexation is in fact an argument being made, and has been made, by Putin and his propaganda machine for some time.
Yi was arguing about what the international community was going to get worked up about (which was my argument, also) and arguing against Otto's position that Israel could get away with annexing Palestine as easily as China got away with reconquering Tibet and Russia with repossessing the Crimea. If you want to argue that Israel is in the same relationship to the West bank as Russia is to the Crimea, feel free. Otherwise, you are arguing against a position no one is taking.
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2016, 04:38:57 PM
And you have a rather bizarre way of supporting the Ukraine.
It's complicated. I was certainly not in favor of the Russians seizing Crimea, but there's no practical way to get it back. Plus, the will of the people living there should carry *some* weight. I think Crimea is just a case where it's best to cut your losses and hold fast to what you still control (or can control).
Quote from: derspiess on December 29, 2016, 02:43:28 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 28, 2016, 04:38:57 PM
And you have a rather bizarre way of supporting the Ukraine.
It's complicated. I was certainly not in favor of the Russians seizing Crimea, but there's no practical way to get it back. Plus, the will of the people living there should carry *some* weight. I think Crimea is just a case where it's best to cut your losses and hold fast to what you still control (or can control).
Supporting the guy who Putin wanted elected and then supporting him while he nominates Putin's choices for key cabinet positions is probably the very best way we can "hold fast", I am sure.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 27, 2016, 11:50:25 PM
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.
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 (http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml) 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.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on December 29, 2016, 10:08:42 PM
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".
Neither do I.
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.
anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim.
Right. You are fucking insane.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2016, 12:15:55 AM
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."
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.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2016, 12:24:11 AM
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.)
QuoteThe 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."
QuoteNow 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.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2016, 12:37:49 AM
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.
QuoteIn 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.
QuoteBut 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.
QuoteI 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]
:hmm: Something tells me OvB doesn't tweet much.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 12:56:03 AM
meaningful form of a modern day UN Security Council resolution
Bwa ha ha. That's hilarious.
May continues to look silly.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/29/theresa-may-john-kerry-comments-israel-palestine-un-resolution
QuoteTheresa 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.
Well at least she didn't elect Trump.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 12:56:03 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2016, 12:24:11 AM
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.
But everything outside the '67 borders IS illegal by international law. That is just a fact that is recognized by everyone other than Israel. This resolution doesn't change anything, nor does it mean that if there were a peace deal there would be no negotiation over those lands.
The resolution states some facts, like this, and then makes some demands. Those demands are that Israel STOP BUILDING MORE SETTLEMENTS. Not that Israel return to the '67 borders. That is the meat to the resolution, if there is any meat, and it is what is pissing Israel off - not that it says they should not have built settlements to begin with, which of course is just rather obvious from a legal standpoint.
Quote
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.
It basically says nothing of the kind. This is your attempt to make it out to be something it is not, so you can call someone who declined to vote against an "anti-Israeli, pro-Muslim".
Quote
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.
This resolution changes none of that.
Quote
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.)
We block them because we have been uncritically supporting Israel, and we claim that the UN has no place because that is a handy justification for doing that. The idea that the UN has no place in resolving a dispute like this is arguing that the UN should just be dissolved, since it's core purpose is in fact to provide a means and forum to resolve exactly this kind of dispute.
Quote
QuoteThe 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?
Not really, but this is your strawman, not my argument.
Quote
That's what the resolution is basically endorsing
Except that it isn't.
Quote
--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.
If your interpretation of the resolution leads you to conclude that the resolution is ridiculous, even for a Palestinian, then perhaps you might consider that your interepretation is somehow rather wrong. Or you can conclude, I suppose, that all 13 security council member nations that signed it are similarly more hardline than even the Palestinians? Seems unlikely.
Quote
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.
Basically, I think this is true. Bibi is Israels Trump - a predictable reaction to events.
That doesn't mean we should support him though - that is how diplomacy works. You don't look at Hitler and say "Gosh, I can see how the Germans might support such a guy....we should not oppose him, because it is understandable why he came to power..."
Quote
While Netanyahu himself made demands in 2009 that will never happen, and has been pretty clearly uninterested in serious peace negotiations,
Thanks for conceding my point.
Quote
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.
I think I pretty clearly and unambiguously stated that I put the lions share of the blame on the lack of a deal on the side of the Palestinians.
Don't let that stop you from creating your army of strawmen though....GO GO ISRAEL! RAPTURE FOR ALL!
the disputed areas seem pretty worthless, economically and demographically, to israel. supporting israel on this just isn't worth it
I can't believe our own Berkut has turned anti-Israel. So sad!
He went off the kibbutz.
Re returning to the 1967 borders: I would agree that going back to the '67 borders would be a non-starter for Israel when they were at a conventional disadvantage, but they have possessed regional military primacy for several decades now. The days of getting attacked by surprise and by combined forces larger than their own have been over for quite some time.
Sure, the Golan provides a mildly tactical edge, but the West Bank isn't the weak spot it once was.
Berk is clearly living in a different historical reality than I am. Israel fought and won a defensive war in 1968 and it is never going back to the indefensible borders from 1967. The Middle East's Arabs shouldn't have tried to destroy Israel and maybe none of this would have ever happened.
The US has long benefited from and been the chief promoter of the post-WW2 internationalist order, under which territorial acquisitions like this are "wrong", and the US has had little choice but to say so. But the reality is in both deed and word we as a country have largely supported the five large settlement blocs near the 1967 border. The other reality is this internationalist world order appears to me to be failing, it establishes ruled that we only apply on democracies or autocracies that are weak enough to be toppled by a moderately sized expeditionary source while the powerful play by different rules. From any moral or strategic perspective the U.S. should be dropping 50 years of pretense and make it clear there are parameters to the peace agreement that Palestine has to agree to if it ever wants all of this to end.
Berkut can continue to live in the fantasy word where Kerry's terrible speech condemning Israel is just status quo, a position reject led by several of our allies (including Britain which even voted for the resolution.)
At the end of the day there are two undeniable facts about Obama's actions here:
1. They have made peace less, not more, likely.
2. They have politically divided Democrats and united Republicans--many of whom were skeptical of Trump foreign policy, this thing has taken a lot of focus away from Trump's "cozying" up to Putin and shifted foreign policy wonk talk to an issue in which the GOP is 100% united.
Obama has been a terrible President when it comes to foreign policy, and this is the last gasp of a man who while was a decent guy and good political organizer never understood the game of nations nearly as well as he did domestic politics. Kerry has been an ineffectual and vapid Sec State and I suspect Exxon's Tillerson will almost certainly be an upgrade.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2016, 11:32:09 AM
He went off the kibbutz.
Re returning to the 1967 borders: I would agree that going back to the '67 borders would be a non-starter for Israel when they were at a conventional disadvantage, but they have possessed regional military primacy for several decades now. The days of getting attacked by surprise and by combined forces larger than their own have been over for quite some time.
Sure, the Golan provides a mildly tactical edge, but the West Bank isn't the weak spot it once was.
Israel only has to fuck up once, or lose enough of a technological advantage for its numerical inferiority to start to matter. I can understand them being a bit conservative with what they give up defensively. The world can change quickly.
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.
There's been at least two deals on the table where Israel offered just that--territorial concessions in exchange for annexed West Bank land.
FWIW I don't remember us giving Germany territorial concessions after they started and lost WW2 and portions of Germany were given to Russia and Poland, but I guess starting and losing a war was seen as objectionable in the 40s, and by the 60s winning a war regardless of who started it was seen as wrong.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 11:33:24 AM
Obama has been a terrible President when it comes to foreign policy, and this is the last gasp of a man who while was a decent guy and good political organizer never understood the game of nations nearly as well as he did domestic politics. Kerry has been an ineffectual and vapid Sec State and I suspect Exxon's Tillerson will almost certainly be an upgrade.
You have a 401k; so yeah, you would suspect that.
And if you thought Obama's academic detachment and deference to long-game diplomacy was bad, enjoy the unilateralist isolationism of the Trumphammer 40K universe. Party like it's 1899.
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. About the only FP win I see in eight years is the Iranian nuclear deal, which it's still too early to say if they're going to comply with long term.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 12:07:52 PM
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. About the only FP win I see in eight years is the Iranian nuclear deal, which it's still too early to say if they're going to comply with long term.
Feckless? Jimmy Carter? Oh come now. Save the hyperbole for Hansmeister. The only time you worry about a State Department is when it stops crying.
And TPP would've been a resolute victory for the US and the west, but noooo...knuckledragging wrench-turners that still wear their high school varsity jackets had to cry. Hope all those VHS copies of
Gung Ho were worth handing the Pacific Rim economy over to the godless yellow communist heathens.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2016, 12:17:48 PM
And TPP would've been a resolute victory for the US and the west, but noooo...knuckledragging wrench-turners that still wear their high school varsity jackets had to cry. Hope all those VHS copies of Gung Ho were worth handing the Pacific Rim economy over to the godless yellow communist heathens.
Yeah I try not to think about it.
Seedy hates the American worker.
Quote from: derspiess on December 30, 2016, 12:29:03 PM
Seedy hates the American worker.
If Trump and Sanders are what it means to love the American worker then fuck the American worker. Their lot will only get worse under this kind of idiocy.
Quote from: Valmy on December 30, 2016, 12:39:17 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 30, 2016, 12:29:03 PM
Seedy hates the American worker.
If Trump and Sanders are what it means to love the American worker then fuck the American worker. Their lot will only get worse under this kind of idiocy.
:o
Anyone else here hate the American worker?
Quote from: derspiess on December 30, 2016, 12:53:14 PM
:o
Anyone else here hate the American worker?
Says the guy that only eats one flavor in Neopolitan ice cream.
Quote from: derspiess on December 30, 2016, 12:53:14 PM
:o
Anyone else here hate the American worker?
They broke my heart Spicey, they broke my heart :P
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 11:53:54 AM
There's been at least two deals on the table where Israel offered just that--territorial concessions in exchange for annexed West Bank land.
FWIW I don't remember us giving Germany territorial concessions after they started and lost WW2 and portions of Germany were given to Russia and Poland, but I guess starting and losing a war was seen as objectionable in the 40s, and by the 60s winning a war regardless of who started it was seen as wrong.
Damn, you've convinced me. WW2 was so similar to the Middle East conflict, it is clear that anything Israel does is to be applauded, and any disagreement with any policy they might have is clear anti-Semitism.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2016, 01:19:12 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 30, 2016, 12:53:14 PM
:o
Anyone else here hate the American worker?
Says the guy that only eats one flavor in Neopolitan ice cream.
For ice cream or practically any dessert item, it's chocolate or GTFO.
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.
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.
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.
I think sanctions against a government (such as those against Russia) are a much stronger reaction than a rather empty declaration from the UN. So to claim that Israel is held to a higher standard than Russia seems weird considering we had a much stronger reaction to Russia for its actions.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 02:49:21 PM
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.
Your argument is strong.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2016, 02:59:22 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 02:49:21 PM
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.
Your argument is strong.
You're low energy these days. Sad.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 03:05:07 PM
This highlights the hypocrisy of the UN as an institution.
It was a necessary hypocrisy to get it started. The League of Nations pretended like there were no Great Powers and that didn't go well.
Quote from: derspiess on December 30, 2016, 02:46:47 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 30, 2016, 01:19:12 PM
Says the guy that only eats one flavor in Neopolitan ice cream.
For ice cream or practically any dessert item, it's chocolate or GTFO.
Goddamn. Anti-diversity even with dessert.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 03:05:29 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2016, 02:59:22 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 02:49:21 PM
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.
Your argument is strong.
You're low energy these days. Sad.
You are apparently an alt right douchebag these days. Even more sad.
Alright Berky, when you feel like coming out of your play pen we can continue this discussion.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 12:07:52 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 02:49:21 PM
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.
Quote2. 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.
QuoteIf 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]
Quote from: grumbler on December 30, 2016, 04:45:01 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 12:07:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2016, 11:46:48 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on December 30, 2016, 04:55:07 PMIt'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.)
QuoteActually, 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.
QuoteHow 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.
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2016, 05:06:54 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2016, 11:46:48 AM
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.
International law is like a frigid whore. Not very effective.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 05:07:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 30, 2016, 04:55:07 PMIt'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.
Quote from: Berkut on December 30, 2016, 05:15:41 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 05:07:19 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 30, 2016, 04:55:07 PMIt'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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reactiongifs.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F05%2Fpopcorn_yes.gif&hash=91c6e0ae6a72c25e6446fae8865ca3a9125f3b9a)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 03:05:07 PM
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?
Quote from: frunk on December 30, 2016, 08:39:40 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 03:05:07 PM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 05:07:19 PM
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.)
:huh: 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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 05:07:19 PM
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.
QuoteBut 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
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 02:49:21 PM
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.
How predictable. Michigan loses and grumbler logs on to troll people.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 31, 2016, 12:55:20 AM
How predictable. Michigan loses and grumbler logs on to troll people.
How predictable. Dorsey logs on just to troll people even when his team
doesn't lose. How did Notre Dame's bowl go, again?
Quote from: Fate on December 31, 2016, 12:16:44 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 02:49:21 PM
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.
Luckily that's the first time anyone has mentioned that in this thread--but there's nothing stopping them from annexing the parts of the West Bank on the Israeli side of the boundary wall (which is probably all they'd ever really want to annex anyway, due to the reasons that have been mentioned multiple times before your superfluous post.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 31, 2016, 01:29:06 AM
Quote from: Fate on December 31, 2016, 12:16:44 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 30, 2016, 02:49:21 PM
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.
Luckily that's the first time anyone has mentioned that in this thread--but there's nothing stopping them from annexing the parts of the West Bank on the Israeli side of the boundary wall (which is probably all they'd ever really want to annex anyway, due to the reasons that have been mentioned multiple times before your superfluous post.)
Obviously anything behind the current barrier is going to get included in a future Israeli state. But I take it you've seen circa 2016 West Bank settlement maps (ex. http://peacenow.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/settlements_map_eng-2016_new.pdf ). There's a shit ton of settler activity building up on any open land between Arab villages in the West Bank. Something like 80-100k Jews with 40% of all new construction happening beyond the barrier.
What Israeli government is going to surrender built up areas beyond the barrier? Netanyahu? His even more ultra-right wing friends like Lieberman? I think they're continuing to build up these areas to make a two state solution untenable. Unless you seriously think there's a future peace plan that results in the Arabs signing onto a state which consists of 10-20 non-contiguous enclaves with all entry/exit points controlled by a foreign power. Alternatively, you have to devise a universe where ultra right wing jewish government forces 100k Jews from their homes beyond the wall. Gaza only had like 8k Jews and that relocation cost Sharon a hell of a lot.
Speaking of Israel and the West Bank
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.763074
QuoteAnalysis // Hebron Shooter Elor Azaria Is Indeed The Norm
Over the past year and a half, dozens of Palestinian men, women and children have been killed, even though they could have been overpowered while they were still alive. The difference between them and Azaria is that he was videotaped.
...
Oddly enough, I am not subscribed to Haaretz.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 05, 2017, 12:13:11 AM
Speaking of Israel and the West Bank
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.763074
QuoteAnalysis // Hebron Shooter Elor Azaria Is Indeed The Norm
Over the past year and a half, dozens of Palestinian men, women and children have been killed, even though they could have been overpowered while they were still alive. The difference between them and Azaria is that he was videotaped.
...
Ethnic conflict is an ugly thing.
For Israel, Energy Boom Could Make Friends Out of Enemies
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/14/world/middleeast/israel-energy-boom.html
http://www.dw.com/en/israel-approves-566-new-homes-in-east-jerusalem-settlements/a-37229751
QuoteIsrael approves 566 new homes in east Jerusalem settlements
"The rules of the game have changed with Donald Trump," the city's mayor declared after approving the homes. Benjamin Netanyahu had delayed a vote on the homes until the end of Barack Obama's presidency.
Israeli authorities approved building permits for 566 new homes in east Jerusalem settlements, city officials announced on Sunday.
The approvals came just two days after the inauguration of US President Donald Trump, who had vowed during his election campaign to provide strong support for Israel .
"The rules of the game have changed with Donald Trump's arrival as president," the city's deputy mayor Meir Turjeman told the AFP news agency.
"We no longer have our hands tied as in the time of Barack Obama. Now we can finally build."
Turjeman said plans for 11,000 other homes in East Jerusalem were also being processed, but he did not say when they would move forward.
In December Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu postponed a Jerusalem city council vote on issuing the permits after the US allowed the passing of a highly critical resolution by the United Nations Security Council.
It demanded "Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem." Netanyahu refused to back down from settlement construction, despite the December resolution, and issued a series of diplomatic retributions.
Trump chastised then-US President Barack Obama's administration for abstaining from the vote, and the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bipartisan measure declaring unwavering support for Israel and condemning the UN stance on Jewish settlements.
Trump's new ambassador to Israel had close ties to West Bank developments and was reportedly hostile to a two-state solution.
President Trump and Netanyahu spoke later on Sunday to discuss an invitation to the prime minister to visit the White House in early February, which Netanyahu announced he had accepted. Ahead of the call, Netanyahu had said he also planned to discuss the conflict with the Palestinians, Syria and "the Iranian threat."
Netanyahu had strongly opposed the nuclear deal between Iran and global powers, including the US, which Trump had also been critical of in his campaign.
Chairman of Jerusalem city hall's Planning and Building committee, Meir Turgeman, told Israel Radio the permits had been delayed until Obama left office.
It wasn't immediately clear whether the new homes needed further approvals before construction could begin.
The approved homes were in the neighborhoods of Pisgat Zeev, Ramot and Ramat Shlomo, according to Turjeman, who also headed the planning committee that approved them.
"We've been through eight tough years with Obama pressuring to freeze construction. Although the Jerusalem municipality has not frozen plans, many times we did not get government approval because of American pressure," Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat said Sunday.
"I hope that era is over and we now we can build and develop Jerusalem for the welfare of its residents, Jews and Arabs alike."
Nabil Abu Rdeneh, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, condemned the plans and called on the UN to take action.
"It is time to stop dealing with Israel as a state above the law," he said.
Earlier in January more than 70 countries, including the US, gathered in Paris to discuss the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Netanyahu slammed the meet as "rigged" against his country.
Quote"We no longer have our hands tied as in the time of Barack Obama. Now we can finally build."
LOL fuck you guys.
Quote from: Phillip V on January 15, 2017, 12:16:50 AM
For Israel, Energy Boom Could Make Friends Out of Enemies
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/14/world/middleeast/israel-energy-boom.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/14/world/middleeast/israel-energy-boom.html)
Cool, they named a ship after Malthus.
Catching up on the last month in this thread is something else. OvB's dedication to the cause is truly exceptional. :lol:
Curious. I guess we don't want anyone to like us?
http://thehill.com/policy/international/317655-white-house-warns-israel-on-settlements-report
QuoteWhite House warns Israel on settlements: report
The White House on Thursday warned Israel to stop settlement announcements that could undermine a two-state solution with the Palestinians, according to the Jerusalem Post.
The surprising statement comes as President Trump signaled he would depart from former President Obama's Israel policy and forge a close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a strong proponent of settlements.
But Trump was reportedly blindsided by Israel's announcement of 5,500 new housing units to be built in the West Bank, which would have been the first new settlement in around 20 years.
"As President Trump has made clear, he is very interested in reaching a deal that would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is currently exploring the best means of making progress toward that goal," an official told the paper.
"With that in mind, we urge all parties from taking unilateral actions that could undermine our ability to make progress, including settlement announcements," the official added. "The administration needs to have the chance to fully consult with all parties on the way forward."
Trump's election is believed to have emboldened Netanyahu's government, which has moved aggressively to expand its settlement activity.
Netanyahu is set to meet with Trump at the White House on Feb. 15.
Trump signaled during the transition he would make moves to align the U.S. closer with Israel's government.
He announced his intent to nominate David Friedman, a strong settlement supporter, as ambassador to the Jewish state.
In December, Trump's team reportedly pressured Obama to scuttle a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction. But the previous administration allowed the controversial measure to pass, abstaining from the vote.
But since entering the White House, Trump has backed off some of his more aggressive promises, including a plan to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Trump repeatedly said during the campaign he wants his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to help broker a Middle East peace deal.
Quote from: garbon on February 02, 2017, 05:44:39 PM
Curious. I guess we don't want anyone to like us?
http://thehill.com/policy/international/317655-white-house-warns-israel-on-settlements-report
The headmaster lectures, he doesn't teach.
I'll admit, I'm not surprised that Trump was blindsided. :D
Would be funny if Trump managed to bring peace to the Middle East by being such an asshole to everyone that they unite in hatred against him. :P
in a sweeping reversal, democrats nationwide now support israel
Quote from: Solmyr on February 02, 2017, 06:06:57 PM
Would be funny if Trump managed to bring peace to the Middle East by being such an asshole to everyone that they unite in hatred against him. :P
If he achieved this it would all have been worth it.
Anyway interesting that Trump is taking this approach. A totally normal approach. Huh.
Quoteincluding a plan to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Damn. Well admirable restraint Mr. President.
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2017, 07:26:05 PM
Quoteincluding a plan to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
Damn. Well admirable restraint Mr. President.
It's funny that I just heard about this this afternoon, after hearing Putin's spokesman, earlier today, explain how the Kremlin was going to educate Trump about, among other things, the unwisdom of moving the embassy. Trump was for moving it until the Russians were against moving it, and then Trump was against moving it. Coincidence?
word is trump issued the statement for netanyahu's benefit -- so he could take it to the hardline elements in his camp and say, "see we can't do it, sorry guys"
so, basically
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Graf_Clemens_Metternich.jpg)
Word is from where?
Quote from: Valmy on February 02, 2017, 11:15:35 PM
Word is from where?
The voices in LaCroix's head, maybe?
https://twitter.com/YousefMunayyer/status/827318873347219456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
QuoteWhite House nixed Holocaust statement naming Jews
The State Department wrote a message that recognized Jewish victims, but the White House used its own that didn't.
By Josh Dawsey, Isaac Arnsdorf, Nahal Toosi and Michael Crowley
02/02/17 07:33 PM EST
Politico.com
The State Department drafted its own statement last month marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day that explicitly included a mention of Jewish victims, according to people familiar with the matter, but President Donald Trump's White House blocked its release.
The existence of the draft statement adds another dimension to the controversy around the White House's own statement that was released on Friday and set off a furor because it excluded any mention of Jews. The White House has stood by the statement, defending it as an "inclusive" message that was not intended to marginalize Jewish victims of the Holocaust.
According to three people familiar with the process, the State Department's Office of the Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues prepared its own statement for International Holocaust Remembrance Day that, like previous statements, commemorated Jewish victims.
Instead, the White House's own statement drew widespread criticism for overlooking the Jews' suffering, and was cheered by neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer.
A White House official said there was no ill intent, adding that the White House didn't see State's draft until after issuing its own statement and told State not to release its version because it came after 7 p.m. And the official said the White House didn't ask the State Department to craft their own statement.
Officials at the State Department, however, believed the statement was being drafted for the White House to use, people familiar with the matter said.
An official with the Office of the Special Envoy on Holocaust Issues referred a request for comment to the State Department's spokeswoman, who referred the request to the White House.
The White House's explanations for omitting Jews in its statement haven't quelled the controversy and in some cases made it worse. Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks originally defended the omission to CNN saying, "we are an incredibly inclusive group and we took into account all of those who suffered." Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said he didn't regret the wording.
"Everyone's suffering in the Holocaust, including obviously all of the Jewish people affected and the miserable genocide that occurred is something that we consider to be extraordinarily sad and something that can never be forgotten," Priebus said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
White House press secretary Sean Spicer on Monday accused critics of "nitpicking" over the statement. He said it was written "with the help of an individual who is both Jewish and the descendent of Holocaust survivors." A source with knowledge of the situation told POLITICO that person was Trump aide Boris Epshteyn.
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) likened Trump's statement to Holocaust denial. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum implicitly rebuked the White House on Monday, saying, "Millions of other innocent civilians were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis, but the elimination of Jews was central to Nazi policy."
The Republican Jewish Coalition and the Zionist Organization of America, both funded by influential donor Sheldon Adelson, each also scolded the White House for its Holocaust message.
"The lack of a direct statement about the suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust was an unfortunate omission. History unambiguously shows the purpose of the Nazi's final solution was the extermination of the Jews of Europe," the Republican Jewish Coalition's Fred Brown said in the statement. "We hope, going forward, he conveys those feelings when speaking about the Holocaust."
"Especially as a child of Holocaust survivors, I and ZOA are compelled to express our chagrin and deep pain at President Trump, in his Holocaust Remembrance Day Message, omitting any mention of anti-Semitism and the six million Jews who were targeted and murdered by the German Nazi regime and others," the ZOA's Mort Klein said.
The United Nations designated Jan. 27 International Holocaust Remembrance Day to mark the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest Nazi death camp.
In 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry issued an extensive statement on the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau that remembered "the six million Jews and the millions more murdered by the Nazis – including Poles, Roma, LGBT people, persons with disabilities." Two years earlier, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement that did not explicitly name Jews but forcefully warned against Holocaust denial.
"It is our obligation to stay true to our values and maintain constant vigilance," she said. "We must never forget that when the checks and balances in government and society that protect fundamental freedoms are lost, the result can be massive atrocities. The United States is committed to a world in which the lessons of the Holocaust are taught and that all human rights are valued so that this will never happen again."
It's going to be funny as balls watching Siegy, after carrying all that water for Trump all election long, carry his own canister of Zyklon-B.