Anyone want to talk about Obama "throwing Israel under the bus"?
'67 border, yea or nay?
Syria, still too soft?
Bahrain, just right?
improves relations with some middle eastern countries while hurting relations with a country that cannot afford to cut ties with us? i think that works
edit: didn't watch it, fyi. just going off the op
Quote from: citizen k on May 19, 2011, 10:35:06 PM
Anyone want to talk about Obama "throwing Israel under the bus"?
'67 border, yea or nay?
Nay. Not gonna happen. Israel will hold onto Jerusalem or get destroyed. So why poison dialogue with the Israelis by putting it forth?
So he's stating what American policy towards Israel in regard to the Palestinian issue has been for decades? The only people shocked by this are idiots.
Any talk about the Middle East Peace is pointless right now. The Palestinian government couldn't abide by an agreement even if they wanted to. Hell, it's not clear who to negotiate with anymore.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 19, 2011, 11:04:09 PM
So he's stating what American policy towards Israel in regard to the Palestinian issue has been for decades? The only people shocked by this are idiots.
Any talk about the Middle East Peace is pointless right now. The Palestinian government couldn't abide by an agreement even if they wanted to. Hell, it's not clear who to negotiate with anymore.
:yes:
And Bibi doesn't want to negotiate.
EDIT: I really hope this doesn't signal any significant efforts at Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It'd be a complete waste of time and effort.
Meanwhile the Simon Wiesenthal Center said Obama's plan calls for a return to Israel's "1967 Auschwitz borders."
Way to play the Holocaust card. I don't even know what that means.
Quote from: Josephus on May 20, 2011, 07:53:07 AM
Meanwhile the Simon Wiesenthal Center said Obama's plan calls for a return to Israel's "1967 Auschwitz borders."
Way to play the Holocaust card. I don't even know what that means.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Josephus on May 20, 2011, 07:53:07 AM
Meanwhile the Simon Wiesenthal Center said Obama's plan calls for a return to Israel's "1967 Auschwitz borders."
Way to play the Holocaust card. I don't even know what that means.
Wow, you know, it isn't hard to play the Holocaust card effectively.
You just have to talk about the unique need for Jewish security or something. Coming right out and dropping "Auschwitz" is really ineffective.
Quote from: Josephus on May 20, 2011, 07:53:07 AM
Meanwhile the Simon Wiesenthal Center said Obama's plan calls for a return to Israel's "1967 Auschwitz borders."
Way to play the Holocaust card. I don't even know what that means.
It means the horror of having all the fanatical settlers returning to Tel Aviv would be equivalent to the trauma of Auschwitz.
Slargos joins the thread in 3...2...1....
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2011, 08:05:41 AM
Wow, you know, it isn't hard to play the Holocaust card effectively.
You just have to talk about the unique need for Jewish security or something. Coming right out and dropping "Auschwitz" is really ineffective.
What it means is that Israel's position both as a religiously-defined nation and as an occupier of non-national territory cannot be rationally defended, so they will do so irrationally.
Didn't know the Wiesenthal Center people read languish, but they have picked up the typical languishite "debate" style almost perfectly.
Quote from: Josephus on May 20, 2011, 07:53:07 AM
Meanwhile the Simon Wiesenthal Center said Obama's plan calls for a return to Israel's "1967 Auschwitz borders."
Way to play the Holocaust card. I don't even know what that means.
Should be renamed the "1967 You-Killed-Baby-Jesus border" since we're just throughing out random emotionally laden words.
goy = gay
That said, retreating from anywhere seems like fucked up silly idea from Israel's POV. All their Gaza pullout ever established was giving a playground and missile silo to Hamas, and even if the leaders make peace, the dirt-poor palestinians will look at the territory of Israel as their birthright and only salvation for centuries to come.
What the gypsy said. A serious peace proposal has to include both the return of land captured in 67 and some sort of security guarantees for Israel (plus some sugar daddy paying off the 48ers).
There is nothing new in the speech re Israel/Palestine, it is just reaffermation of previous positions.
What is new, is Bibi's rejectionist stance. There can be no peace progress with Bibi in charge, since he'll just find ways to reject everything.
Mind you, any progress at all appears unlikely these days, given the recent PA-Hamas amalgamation - with Hamas insisting as a condition that there be no backing down from its 'kill everyone in Israel' policy.
It's going to be hard to get any negotiations going with Bibi on one end, and a Hamas-dominated PA on the other. Obama's speech is whistling in the wind - until, that is, those two problems (Bibi and Hamas/PA) are solved.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2011, 09:14:52 AM
What the gypsy said. A serious peace proposal has to include both the return of land captured in 67 and some sort of security guarantees for Israel (plus some sugar daddy paying off the 48ers).
Thanks for agreeing with me, gook.
Quote from: Tamas on May 20, 2011, 08:53:45 AM
That said, retreating from anywhere seems like fucked up silly idea from Israel's POV. All their Gaza pullout ever established was giving a playground and missile silo to Hamas, and even if the leaders make peace, the dirt-poor palestinians will look at the territory of Israel as their birthright and only salvation for centuries to come.
I saw President Obama in another speech, I think it was his first Mid East speech. In that he said just the opposite, that Israel going back to the 1967 borders was not an option, that they should keep their capitol in Jersualem, etc. So this latest speech appears to be going back on that?
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 09:15:11 AM
It's going to be hard to get any negotiations going with Bibi on one end, and a Hamas-dominated PA on the other. Obama's speech is whistling in the wind - until, that is, those two problems (Bibi and Hamas/PA) are solved.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Famericanthings.files.wordpress.com%2F2011%2F05%2Fseals-by-wikimediadotorg.jpg&hash=a76a8656ec2e11b9ad669fe268a43c6ee4deddb1)
:lol:
I was thinking more along the line of elections.
Quote from: Tamas on May 20, 2011, 09:17:36 AM
Thanks for agreeing with me, gook.
Half breed. Now go steal me a horse.
Quote from: Tamas on May 20, 2011, 09:22:58 AM
you started it!
Why are you angry? I was just clarifying that I'm a half breed, not a gook. And stealing horses is like breathing to you people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2011, 09:26:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 20, 2011, 09:22:58 AM
you started it!
Why are you angry? I was just clarifying that I'm a half breed, not a gook. And stealing horses is like breathing to you people.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Tamas on May 20, 2011, 09:29:43 AM
:rolleyes:
So hot blooded. So quick to take offense.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2011, 09:14:52 AM
What the gypsy said. A serious peace proposal has to include both the return of land captured in 67 and some sort of security guarantees for Israel (plus some sugar daddy paying off the 48ers).
Wait, so we finally found a foreign policy item on which you have some disagreement with the Obama administration? :o
:P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2011, 09:26:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 20, 2011, 09:22:58 AM
you started it!
Why are you angry? I was just clarifying that I'm a half breed, not a gook. And stealing horses is like breathing to you people.
Is demi-gook the appropriate label, then? Or Gawkeye? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2011, 09:52:24 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2011, 09:26:34 AM
Quote from: Tamas on May 20, 2011, 09:22:58 AM
you started it!
Why are you angry? I was just clarifying that I'm a half breed, not a gook. And stealing horses is like breathing to you people.
Is demi-gook the appropriate label, then? Or Gawkeye? :unsure:
I would have thought "Far Eastern Elvis" :elvis:
;)
Watching the ultra-right go apeshit over nothing is amusing. Siegebreaker should be good for a laugh.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 20, 2011, 09:14:52 AM
What the gypsy said. A serious peace proposal has to include both the return of land captured in 67 and some sort of security guarantees for Israel (plus some sugar daddy paying off the 48ers).
Yep. And even if this were offered and guaranteed, domestic politics on one side or both might still make it impossible.
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 09:15:11 AM
Mind you, any progress at all appears unlikely these days, given the recent PA-Hamas amalgamation - with Hamas insisting as a condition that there be no backing down from its 'kill everyone in Israel' policy.
Interestingly enough, the last two hamas spokesmen (one of them a member of the Hamas governing council, the other their official press spokesman) I have heard over the last coupla days said that Hamas has no problem with Israel's existence inside the pre-'67 borders, but that the "Right of Return" must be recognized or compensated for.
Not that Hamas is known for a consistent policy, but I found this interesting evidence that even Hamas can change (in image if not reality).
Bibi, maybe not so much.
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2011, 10:38:17 AM
Interestingly enough, the last two hamas spokesmen (one of them a member of the Hamas governing council, the other their official press spokesman) I have heard over the last coupla days said that Hamas has no problem with Israel's existence inside the pre-'67 borders, but that the "Right of Return" must be recognized or compensated for.
Not that Hamas is known for a consistent policy, but I found this interesting evidence that even Hamas can change (in image if not reality).
What are the chances any Hamas administration can maintain that policy? Internal politics is bound to force a revision eventually.
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2011, 10:38:17 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 09:15:11 AM
Mind you, any progress at all appears unlikely these days, given the recent PA-Hamas amalgamation - with Hamas insisting as a condition that there be no backing down from its 'kill everyone in Israel' policy.
Interestingly enough, the last two hamas spokesmen (one of them a member of the Hamas governing council, the other their official press spokesman) I have heard over the last coupla days said that Hamas has no problem with Israel's existence inside the pre-'67 borders, but that the "Right of Return" must be recognized or compensated for.
Not that Hamas is known for a consistent policy, but I found this interesting evidence that even Hamas can change (in image if not reality).
Bibi, maybe not so much.
Heh, the picture being drawn here is not an encouraging one.
http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=32209
QuoteHamas Leaders Clash Over Attitude Toward Israel
Written by David E. Miller
Published Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Senior Gaza official say armed resistance, not negotiations, is Hamas' only agenda
Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic movement, is relaying contradictory messages about its attitudes towards peace talks with Israel and its commitment to continued "armed resistance," as it tries to square conflicting demands arising from its national unity agreement with Fatah and popular hostility to the Jewish state.
Fissures within the movement since the agreement with arch-rival Fatah was signed May 4, ending four years of acrimony, have grown so deep that Hamas' policy debates that are usually held behind closed doors have burst into the open. Hamas' divisions have been made even more complicated by the turmoil in Egypt and Syria, two countries that play a big role in Palestinian politics.
Shaul Mishal, a political scientist at Tel Aviv University, said that the role switch between Khaled Mashal and Mahmoud A-Zahar indicated that the two leaders' positions were malleable; expressing an internal power struggle for positions in the new Palestinian government.
"There is an internal battle within Hamas for power sharing in the West Bank," Mishal, author of The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence and Coexistence, told The Media Line. "Hamas' domestic leadership is trying to bargain in order to maintain the maximum number of positions in the government."
Hamas' ability to resolve its internal disputes is critical. The U.S. and Israel are seeing how the new Palestinian Authority (PA) unity government looks before deciding on whether there is room to resume peace talks or continue providing foreign aid and transferring tax money to the PA.
Mashal, the Syria-based head of Hamas' political bureau, told Egyptian youth activists on May 10 that Hamas was willing to give Israel one year to recognize a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders. Following this deadline, Mashal said, "Hamas would add new cards to the resistance," indicating that the armed struggle was not Hamas' only option.
But on Tuesday, A-Zahar, a senior Hamas official in Gaza, told Al-Quds daily that Mashal's conciliatory statements towards Israel "did not represent official Hamas policy."
"We did not give Abu-Mazen [Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas] the opportunity to negotiate nor did we agree to negotiations," A-Zahar told the newspaper. "On the contrary, we have embarrassed him on the issue of negotiations time and again."
"No change has occurred in Hamas' position, which views [armed] resistance as the sole option," he added.
A-Zahar's comments seemed to echo those made by Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyya, who on May 15 told a crowd of 10,000 worshipers in a Gaza mosque that Palestinians hoped "to end the Zionist project in Palestine."
Traditionally, Hamas' Gaza leadership is believed to hold more pragmatic views with regards to Israel, as opposed to the tougher stance of Syrian-based officials, represented by Mashal. The recent statements put that presumption into question.
"There is no contradiction between the two statements," Ahmad Yousef, a former senior adviser to PM Haniyya told The Media Line. "Even while negotiating, the struggle must continue. Everyone understands that the conflict can only be resolved through negotiations."
But Mkhaimar Abusada, a political scientist at Al-Azhar University in Gaza, noted that Hamas leadership has even squared off on issues unrelated to their immediate political agenda.
After the killing of Al-Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden by American special forces in Pakistan in early May, Haniyya condemned the killing of "a martyr" in a statement that was given wide media coverage and placed the Islamic movement among the Islamic extremists.
But Mashal's deputy, Mousa Abu-Marzouq, later insisted that this was Haniyya's personal opinion which didn't reflect the movement's policy.
Abusada said that in his interview A-Zahar was speaking to a bellicose Palestinian society whereas Mashal was directing his more moderate words to the international community.
"The political upheavals in Syria have also softened Mashal's stance," Abusada told The Media Line. "Today he is more inclined to cooperate with the new Egyptian government which wants reconciliation."
Mishal of Tel Aviv University added that differences between the local and foreign leadership of the movement are usually discussed in private, but sometimes they burst out. He said it was wrong to categorize the foreign leadership as more radical; noting that Ahmad Al-Jaabari, head of Hamas' military wing, led the hardest line amongst Hamas leaders, despite belonging to the local leadership in Gaza.
"It's true that the political leadership in Gaza is generally considered less radical, but it really depends on the population that each individual leader sees himself as representing," Mishal said.
Fatah leader Azzam Al-Ahmad told the Palestinian daily Al-Ayyam Wednesday that Fatah and Hamas had reached an agreement on all pending issues between them. He said the two parties exchanged names of candidates for the new government, and now each side would return home and propose the names to its leadership.
Israel has said that it would only negotiate with a Palestinian partner genuinely interested in peace.
"Those who wish to obliterate us are no partners for peace," Netanyahu said in the Knesset on Monday. "A Palestinian government with half its members declaring daily that they plan to annihilate the Jewish state is not a partner for peace."
Hamas, both in its charter and in its public statements, has so far declined to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Hamas has traditionally offered various sorts of "truces", but always on the understanding that these are strictly a pragmatic necessity - their long-term goal, as stated in their Charter, remains the destriction of Israel.
They are like a fighter who has stated that the duel is to the death, but who is willing to cry "uncle" when pounded to the mat - to get a breather.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 20, 2011, 10:44:18 AM
What are the chances any Hamas administration can maintain that policy? Internal politics is bound to force a revision eventually.
Force a revision to what? The politics that i see operating against a two-state policy are the politics on each side that need an external enemy to distract from government failures and inefficiencies.
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2011, 10:57:01 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 20, 2011, 10:44:18 AM
What are the chances any Hamas administration can maintain that policy? Internal politics is bound to force a revision eventually.
Force a revision to what? The politics that i see operating against a two-state policy are the politics on each side that need an external enemy to distract from government failures and inefficiencies.
That's what I mean. A revision back to "push them into the sea" as the official policy.
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2011, 10:57:01 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 20, 2011, 10:44:18 AM
What are the chances any Hamas administration can maintain that policy? Internal politics is bound to force a revision eventually.
Force a revision to what? The politics that i see operating against a two-state policy are the politics on each side that need an external enemy to distract from government failures and inefficiencies.
I don't see the situation as even remotely symmetrical. The Israeli public status quo is not in nearly the same unbearable mess as the Palestinian public status quo.
What has empowered Bibi and his ilk is the preceived failure of various peace initiatives and unilateral pull-outs by Israel. The Israeli public, or at least a goodly enough segment of it, sees the Palestinian second state as Gaza writ large.
They, together with Bibi, simply don't see the status quo as all that bad, in comparison. The job is to convince them otherwise (which, I contend, can only be done by creating or encouraging a Palestinian leadership that is both gifted with power and legitimacy with the Palestinian public *and* with a willingness to make substantive peace in return for concessions).
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 10:50:35 AMHamas has traditionally offered various sorts of "truces", but always on the understanding that these are strictly a pragmatic necessity - their long-term goal, as stated in their Charter, remains the destriction of Israel.
How important is this, really, in the peace process? Apart from the rhetoric, I mean. It is my understanding that the IRA, for instance, never gave up their programme of a united Ireland, yet this did not mean they were unwilling to engage in peace talks, nor to finally agree to their final decommissioning.
As for the cycle of cease-fire-truce-violence, it seems to me to be SOP for these types of situation. At some point, you have to go beyond that to engage in peace talks, with the understanding that they can fail.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 20, 2011, 11:07:02 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 10:50:35 AMHamas has traditionally offered various sorts of "truces", but always on the understanding that these are strictly a pragmatic necessity - their long-term goal, as stated in their Charter, remains the destriction of Israel.
How important is this, really, in the peace process? Apart from the rhetoric, I mean. It is my understanding that the IRA, for instance, never gave up their programme of a united Ireland, yet this did not mean they were unwilling to engage in peace talks, nor to finally agree to their final decommissioning.
As for the cycle of cease-fire-truce-violence, it seems to me to be SOP for these types of situation. At some point, you have to go beyond that to engage in peace talks, with the understanding that they can fail.
The importance lies in the fact that, unlike the IRA, Hamas isn't showing any willingness to actually do other than what they say they will do.
Also, Hamas goes rather further than the IRA ever went. Hamas is, at base, a religious movement, and it claims religous sanction - not to "unite Palestine", but to massacre all Jews therein.
From the Hamas Charter:
QuoteThe Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders. It goes back to 1939, to the emergence of the martyr Izz al-Din al Kissam and his brethren the fighters, members of Muslim Brotherhood. It goes on to reach out and become one with another chain that includes the struggle of the Palestinians and Muslim Brotherhood in the 1948 war and the Jihad operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1968 and after.
Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).
The Slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement:
Article Eight:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.
There is no particular reason to suppose that Hamas leaders don't actually believe this, or are likely to ignore it in the future.
It is sort of difficult to imagine a lasting peace with folks who believe they are religiously compelled to kill you. I doubt the IRA Charter said the like.
Other tidbits from the Charter:
Quote"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 11:05:16 AM
They, together with Bibi, simply don't see the status quo as all that bad, in comparison. The job is to convince them otherwise (which, I contend, can only be done by creating or encouraging a Palestinian leadership that is both gifted with power and legitimacy with the Palestinian public *and* with a willingness to make substantive peace in return for concessions).
Isn't the Pali public way more intransigent than the Israeli on the issue? I'm not trying to be an uber-pessimist, but I think that Pali public opinion is the biggest barrier to peace that currently exists there. If I'm wrong, that would be great.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 20, 2011, 11:16:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 11:05:16 AM
They, together with Bibi, simply don't see the status quo as all that bad, in comparison. The job is to convince them otherwise (which, I contend, can only be done by creating or encouraging a Palestinian leadership that is both gifted with power and legitimacy with the Palestinian public *and* with a willingness to make substantive peace in return for concessions).
Isn't the Pali public way more intransigent than the Israeli on the issue? I'm not trying to be an uber-pessimist, but I think that Pali public opinion is the biggest barrier to peace that currently exists there. If I'm wrong, that would be great.
I think that the big problem is Pali leadership. As for the Pali public, I don't have a really good grasp on what they want.
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 10:50:35 AM
Hamas has traditionally offered various sorts of "truces", but always on the understanding that these are strictly a pragmatic necessity - their long-term goal, as stated in their Charter, remains the destriction of Israel.
Yes, it is amusing to listen to the attempts by the "moderates" to explain away the charter.
QuoteThey are like a fighter who has stated that the duel is to the death, but who is willing to cry "uncle" when pounded to the mat - to get a breather.
They are definitely riding the tiger of passions they have fueled. No easy way to jump off that, even if you want to.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 20, 2011, 10:59:39 AM
That's what I mean. A revision back to "push them into the sea" as the official policy.
"All of Palestine is an Islamic State" is still the official (written) position.
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 11:05:16 AM
What has empowered Bibi and his ilk is the preceived failure of various peace initiatives and unilateral pull-outs by Israel. The Israeli public, or at least a goodly enough segment of it, sees the Palestinian second state as Gaza writ large.
Well, Bibi and his ilk have existed since before there was a peace initiative or any unilateral pullouts by Israel, but the unwillingness of anyone to step forward as a partner in the peace process does leave Israel's peaceably-oriented politicians rather lonely.
QuoteThey, together with Bibi, simply don't see the status quo as all that bad, in comparison. The job is to convince them otherwise (which, I contend, can only be done by creating or encouraging a Palestinian leadership that is both gifted with power and legitimacy with the Palestinian public *and* with a willingness to make substantive peace in return for concessions).
I don't think there is any question about that. My point is that there are powerful forces on both sides (not symmetrically powerful, but powerful) that see a peace settlement as a bad thing. They want to avoid any compromise now in hopes of final victory later.
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 11:18:45 AM
I think that the big problem is Pali leadership. As for the Pali public, I don't have a really good grasp on what they want.
But isn't it part of the problem of perception? From what I gather, what Hamas is doing / saying on the ground is not so closely-aligned with the fanatical charter. Hamas is, like IRA and others, an uneasy coalition, with an ever-growing public-political component. Despite what Hamas has in its charter, I am not sure it is operating under the delusion that Israel will go away / be eradicated any time soon.
The core problem, where the leadership might share more the hopes and aspirations of the Palestinians, seems to be the right of return.
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2011, 11:26:07 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 11:05:16 AM
What has empowered Bibi and his ilk is the preceived failure of various peace initiatives and unilateral pull-outs by Israel. The Israeli public, or at least a goodly enough segment of it, sees the Palestinian second state as Gaza writ large.
Well, Bibi and his ilk have existed since before there was a peace initiative or any unilateral pullouts by Israel, but the unwillingness of anyone to step forward as a partner in the peace process does leave Israel's peaceably-oriented politicians rather lonely.
QuoteThey, together with Bibi, simply don't see the status quo as all that bad, in comparison. The job is to convince them otherwise (which, I contend, can only be done by creating or encouraging a Palestinian leadership that is both gifted with power and legitimacy with the Palestinian public *and* with a willingness to make substantive peace in return for concessions).
I don't think there is any question about that. My point is that there are powerful forces on both sides (not symmetrically powerful, but powerful) that see a peace settlement as a bad thing. They want to avoid any compromise now in hopes of final victory later.
Yup, agree with this. Though Bibi & Co. don't have to do anything to "win" - they believe just have to do
nothing, which they are good at doing, and they will "win" by default.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 20, 2011, 11:38:46 AMHamas is, like IRA and others, an uneasy coalition, with an ever-growing public-political component.
I'm still not convinced Hamas and IRA are very comparable. As far as organization goes, the IRA had a paramilitary structure. I don't think Hamas is a coalition of different blocs of Palestinian thought.
Quote from: Oexmelin on May 20, 2011, 11:38:46 AM
But isn't it part of the problem of perception? From what I gather, what Hamas is doing / saying on the ground is not so closely-aligned with the fanatical charter. Hamas is, like IRA and others, an uneasy coalition, with an ever-growing public-political component. Despite what Hamas has in its charter, I am not sure it is operating under the delusion that Israel will go away / be eradicated any time soon.
The core problem, where the leadership might share more the hopes and aspirations of the Palestinians, seems to be the right of return.
In that case negotiations are futile since Hamas negotiators do not speak for all of it's members.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2011, 12:57:31 PM
In that case negotiations are futile since Hamas negotiators do not speak for all of it's members.
Not sure what this means. Hamas is a party. It leadership speaks for the party when speaking
ex cathedra, as it were. Lots of individual expression as well, though not in any negotiations (which have never happened).
Why would Hamas send negotiators that don't speak for the party?
How come this thread suddenly shortened to two pages, iirc it was a least 20 pages long earlier. :blink:
It's a new thread, mongers. OP was trying to be amusing in creating a new thread with such a similar one to the 'Obama nailed Osama' thread.
Quote from: Caliga on May 20, 2011, 02:54:15 PM
It's a new thread, mongers. OP was trying to be amusing in creating a new thread with such a similar one to the 'Obama nailed Osama' thread.
Oops my bad. :blush:
This seems like a sensible development. Israel has proven to be both a troublesome and a disloyal ally. It seems to me that 95% of the America's troubles with Middle East are based in the support of Israel. The Holocaust guilt seems to be dying out with the last Holocaust survivors so there is really no reason to continue supporting Israel anymore.
Besides, crusader kingdoms live about two - three generations, so it is not unprecedented.
Edit: this post was made while drunk. :P
Quote from: Martinus on May 20, 2011, 03:02:46 PM
This seems like a sensible development. Israel has proven to be both a troublesome and a disloyal ally. It seems to me that 95% of the America's troubles with Middle East are based in the support of Israel. The Holocaust guilt seems to be dying out with the last Holocaust survivors so there is really no reason to continue supporting Israel anymore.
Besides, crusader kingdoms live about two - three generations, so it is not unprecedented.
:D
Seems you and Bibi are hearing much the same thing in Obama's speech.
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 03:06:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 20, 2011, 03:02:46 PM
This seems like a sensible development. Israel has proven to be both a troublesome and a disloyal ally. It seems to me that 95% of the America's troubles with Middle East are based in the support of Israel. The Holocaust guilt seems to be dying out with the last Holocaust survivors so there is really no reason to continue supporting Israel anymore.
Besides, crusader kingdoms live about two - three generations, so it is not unprecedented.
:D
Seems you and Bibi are hearing much the same thing in Obama's speech.
As said in the edit, I am after 3 strawberry margaritas. :P
Quote from: Martinus on May 20, 2011, 03:06:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 03:06:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 20, 2011, 03:02:46 PM
This seems like a sensible development. Israel has proven to be both a troublesome and a disloyal ally. It seems to me that 95% of the America's troubles with Middle East are based in the support of Israel. The Holocaust guilt seems to be dying out with the last Holocaust survivors so there is really no reason to continue supporting Israel anymore.
Besides, crusader kingdoms live about two - three generations, so it is not unprecedented.
:D
Seems you and Bibi are hearing much the same thing in Obama's speech.
As said in the edit, I am after 3 strawberry margaritas. :P
That would also explain a lot about Bibi ... :hmm:
;)
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2011, 08:14:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2011, 08:05:41 AM
Wow, you know, it isn't hard to play the Holocaust card effectively.
You just have to talk about the unique need for Jewish security or something. Coming right out and dropping "Auschwitz" is really ineffective.
What it means is that Israel's position both as a religiously-defined nation and as an occupier of non-national territory cannot be rationally defended, so they will do so irrationally.
Didn't know the Wiesenthal Center people read languish, but they have picked up the typical languishite "debate" style almost perfectly.
Why can't it be rationally defended? History suggests if a state takes land by force that is all the defense they need to keep it, and as long as they are able to hold onto it is not everything else moot?
Quote from: The Brain on May 20, 2011, 08:20:11 AM
goy = gay
Are you also going to use the plural form for gays?
Gayim sounds kind of wierd.
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2011, 02:26:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2011, 12:57:31 PM
In that case negotiations are futile since Hamas negotiators do not speak for all of it's members.
Not sure what this means. Hamas is a party. It leadership speaks for the party when speaking ex cathedra, as it were. Lots of individual expression as well, though not in any negotiations (which have never happened).
Why would Hamas send negotiators that don't speak for the party?
I was responding to what Oexmelin said. He described it as an uneasy coalition, presumably between those who are fanatical and want to destroy Israel, and those more pragmatic who are willing to deal with Israel politically. If that is the case why should we assume that any deal cut by the pragmatists would be honored by the Fanatics?
Why would Hamas send negotiators that don't speak for all of them? If Oex's description of Hamas is true then it's possible that can't.
Personally I don't see Hamas as this uneasy coalition. I think their offers of negotiations are not in good faith, and are merely ploys to improve their image in the West.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 20, 2011, 04:07:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2011, 08:14:19 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 20, 2011, 08:05:41 AM
Wow, you know, it isn't hard to play the Holocaust card effectively.
You just have to talk about the unique need for Jewish security or something. Coming right out and dropping "Auschwitz" is really ineffective.
What it means is that Israel's position both as a religiously-defined nation and as an occupier of non-national territory cannot be rationally defended, so they will do so irrationally.
Didn't know the Wiesenthal Center people read languish, but they have picked up the typical languishite "debate" style almost perfectly.
Why can't it be rationally defended? History suggests if a state takes land by force that is all the defense they need to keep it, and as long as they are able to hold onto it is not everything else moot?
The problem isn't the combination of being a religiously-defined nation and an occupier of non-national territory. The problem is adding the concept of being a democracy to the mix. They can't indefinately continue to occupy areas inhabited by large numbers on non-Jews indefinately. Eventually, they will either have to grant full citizenship to Palestinians in the occupied territories, and thus lose the identity of being a Jewish state; or cease to be viewed as a true democracy; or else withdraw from the occupied territories.
They could always just drive them out like the US did with the Indians.
Quote from: dps on May 20, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
The problem isn't the combination of being a religiously-defined nation and an occupier of non-national territory. The problem is adding the concept of being a democracy to the mix. They can't indefinately continue to occupy areas inhabited by large numbers on non-Jews indefinately. Eventually, they will either have to grant full citizenship to Palestinians in the occupied territories, and thus lose the identity of being a Jewish state; or cease to be viewed as a true democracy; or else withdraw from the occupied territories.
Why? Nothing about democracy says treating occupied peoples outside the borders of your state democratically. There's no innate paradox between a democracy and repression.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 20, 2011, 06:12:29 PM
Quote from: dps on May 20, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
The problem isn't the combination of being a religiously-defined nation and an occupier of non-national territory. The problem is adding the concept of being a democracy to the mix. They can't indefinately continue to occupy areas inhabited by large numbers on non-Jews indefinately. Eventually, they will either have to grant full citizenship to Palestinians in the occupied territories, and thus lose the identity of being a Jewish state; or cease to be viewed as a true democracy; or else withdraw from the occupied territories.
Why? Nothing about democracy says treating occupied peoples outside the borders of your state democratically. There's no innate paradox between a democracy and repression.
Because the Isrealis want it both ways. They want to treat the West Bank as a hostile, occupied territory when it suits them, and at the same time as an integral part of the state of Isreal.
Can't negotiate with the Palestinians. Even when they're offered 99% of what they want, they say no. Oslo, Camp David 2000...it's Arafat all over again.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2011, 06:50:57 PM
Can't negotiate with the Palestinians. Even when they're offered 99% of what they want, they say no. Oslo, Camp David 2000...it's Arafat all over again.
:lol:
That old lie.
Hint repeating it endlessly doesn't make it become truth.
Quote from: mongers on May 20, 2011, 06:56:03 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2011, 06:50:57 PM
Can't negotiate with the Palestinians. Even when they're offered 99% of what they want, they say no. Oslo, Camp David 2000...it's Arafat all over again.
:lol:
That old lie.
Hint repeating it endlessly doesn't make it become truth.
Unfortunately, that whole 1% part of "pushing Israel into the Med" is an unacceptable Israeli concession.
Really, though: can you Euros be any more anti-semitic? We'd have more respect for you if you just fucking came out and admitted it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 20, 2011, 04:07:54 PM
Why can't it be rationally defended? History suggests if a state takes land by force that is all the defense they need to keep it, and as long as they are able to hold onto it is not everything else moot?
Ah, the old "history suggests" argument. It isn't any more compelling when you use it like this than when OBL used it to moan that history suggested that when Christian nations' militaries captured Muslim cities they annihilate the population.
International law says that borders change as a result of treaties. Sometimes those treaties are forced, but no one just gets to declare themselves in possession of more Lebensraum just because they currently militarily occupy a place.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2011, 04:30:05 PM
I was responding to what Oexmelin said. He described it as an uneasy coalition, presumably between those who are fanatical and want to destroy Israel, and those more pragmatic who are willing to deal with Israel politically. If that is the case why should we assume that any deal cut by the pragmatists would be honored by the Fanatics?
Again, I am not sure what the argument is, here. Whatever policy that Hamas decides is their negotiating policy is what their negotiators will present in negotiations, just like all groups in negotiations. The task of disciplining Hamas members would be the responsibility of the Palerstinians, just as the task of disciplining Israeli fanatics would be the responsibility of the Israelis.
QuoteWhy would Hamas send negotiators that don't speak for all of them? If Oex's description of Hamas is true then it's possible that can't.
Personally I don't see Hamas as this uneasy coalition. I think their offers of negotiations are not in good faith, and are merely ploys to improve their image in the West.
It is possible that neither Israel nor the Palestinians can send a delegation to negotiate, true. That has always been the case (at Taba it was Israel that refused to honor the deal that their negotiators had negotiated).
Quote from: Razgovory on May 20, 2011, 05:17:41 PM
They could always just drive them out like the US did with the Indians.
Yep. Reading that story about the AmerHamas types driving the Navaho nation into the sea has always been weirdly fascinating. The maps were by Tim, were they not?
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2011, 07:11:47 PM
Again, I am not sure what the argument is, here.
Then I fear the deficiency lies with you. I'm sorry you can not meaningfully participate in this conversation.
Quote from: derspiess on May 20, 2011, 09:50:15 AM
Wait, so we finally found a foreign policy item on which you have some disagreement with the Obama administration? :o
:P
Has the policy actually been announced yet? All I've seen are the promos.
And for the record I criticized his split the difference + drop dead date approach to Afghanistan as well as his prevent the massacre of beelions and beelions of innocent Libyans policy. So there. :blurgh:
FOREHEADFOREHEADFOREHEAD
Quote from: dps on May 20, 2011, 06:31:17 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 20, 2011, 06:12:29 PM
Quote from: dps on May 20, 2011, 04:46:36 PM
The problem isn't the combination of being a religiously-defined nation and an occupier of non-national territory. The problem is adding the concept of being a democracy to the mix. They can't indefinately continue to occupy areas inhabited by large numbers on non-Jews indefinately. Eventually, they will either have to grant full citizenship to Palestinians in the occupied territories, and thus lose the identity of being a Jewish state; or cease to be viewed as a true democracy; or else withdraw from the occupied territories.
Why? Nothing about democracy says treating occupied peoples outside the borders of your state democratically. There's no innate paradox between a democracy and repression.
Because the Isrealis want it both ways. They want to treat the West Bank as a hostile, occupied territory when it suits them, and at the same time as an integral part of the state of Isreal.
So, can you tell me where and when Israel tries to treat a part of the west bank as hostile occupied territory one day and an integral part of the state of israel the other?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2011, 06:50:57 PM
Can't negotiate with the Palestinians. Even when they're offered 99% of what they want, they say no. Oslo, Camp David 2000...it's Arafat all over again.
It's funny how you can simultaneously hold this view and support the IRA cause. :lol:
Quote from: Viking on May 21, 2011, 04:41:35 AM
So, can you tell me where and when Israel tries to treat a part of the west bank as hostile occupied territory one day and an integral part of the state of israel the other?
Settling occupied territories is illegal under international law.
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2011, 05:08:56 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 21, 2011, 04:41:35 AM
So, can you tell me where and when Israel tries to treat a part of the west bank as hostile occupied territory one day and an integral part of the state of israel the other?
Settling occupied territories is illegal under international law.
Thats not answering my question. The settlements would come under the treats as "an integral part of the state of israel" [sic] bit. dps' claim was that
QuoteBecause the Isrealis want it both ways. They want to treat the West Bank as a hostile, occupied territory when it suits them, and at the same time as an integral part of the state of Isreal.
I want to know of any examples of the Israelis treating a piece of land in the west bank as occupied one day and an integral part of Israel.
The Israeli position is that the west bank territories not already annexed by Israel (the city of Jerusalem) are not occupied palestinian territories, but rather disputed territories.
Quote from: Martinus on May 21, 2011, 05:05:39 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 20, 2011, 06:50:57 PM
Can't negotiate with the Palestinians. Even when they're offered 99% of what they want, they say no. Oslo, Camp David 2000...it's Arafat all over again.
It's funny how you can simultaneously hold this view and support the IRA cause. :lol:
Those issues are continents apart.
Quote from: dps on May 20, 2011, 06:31:17 PM
Because the Isrealis want it both ways. They want to treat the West Bank as a hostile, occupied territory when it suits them, and at the same time as an integral part of the state of Isreal.
It's called a buffer territory/state, nothing new, and they historically haven't been treated the same as the state they are buffering.
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2011, 07:06:45 PM
Ah, the old "history suggests" argument. It isn't any more compelling when you use it like this than when OBL used it to moan that history suggested that when Christian nations' militaries captured Muslim cities they annihilate the population.
International law says that borders change as a result of treaties. Sometimes those treaties are forced, but no one just gets to declare themselves in possession of more Lebensraum just because they currently militarily occupy a place.
Did you really just use the words "international law?" Let us not get too embroiled in discussions over inanities, but just as a reference point if I put up a sign in my back yard that says "Inside this home is a meth factory" and then send a packet over to the police department with a signed confession that I am operating a meth factory along with photographic proof and a final note saying "Come Get Some" then my violation of the law will be handled relatively quickly by overwhelming police action. Thus the theory that is law becomes force and action applied, and the principles of the law are enforced.
If Israel occupies territories gained through right of conquest, and this violates the norm that "territory changes due to treaties" (treaties typically signed to reflect which side has beaten the other, FWIW, we didn't take East Prussia from Germany due to some vague legal principles but instead because of the fait accompli of the conquest) unless there is an equivalent to the SWAT team that would break down the doors to my meth factory I posit Israel can continue doing what it has been doing indefinitely. It is not as though they have been doing this for only a brief time, and throughout history there are examples of other States holding territory that is widely thought to not "belong" to them rightfully for
generations.
Exactly. And if you hold on to the territory long enough it becomes a core province. :contract:
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2011, 07:06:45 PM
International law says that borders change as a result of treaties. Sometimes those treaties are forced, but no one just gets to declare themselves in possession of more Lebensraum just because they currently militarily occupy a place.
No, that's a status quo. International law is a result of treaties. There is no international governing body or law enforcement agency that doesn't rely on the nicety of a sovereign nation observing the treaty, hence why it's so hard to get sitting heads of state out of their countries for war crimes trials.
Quote from: Josephus on May 21, 2011, 08:28:43 AM
Exactly. And if you hold on to the territory long enough it becomes a core province. :contract:
This is why I think all this babble over the borders of 1967 is vile bording on evil. The mere idea that if you just avoid negotiating a final status agreement that you can turn a ceasefire line into a border makes ceasefires impossible in the future. Any side which considers itself stronger will fight until they have reached all their goals, any side which has been defeated will refuse to concede on the grounds that nothing can be gained by negotiating.
Tell the Israelis and Arabs of 1948 that the green line is either going to be THE BORDER or THE BASIS FOR THE BORDER means that the fighting doesn't stop.
I don't understand why the idiot politicians of today don't understand this.
Ceasefires aren't impossible now, and ceasefire lines have become defacto borders in the past (see Korea).
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2011, 09:22:26 AM
Ceasefires aren't impossible now, and ceasefire lines have become defacto borders in the past (see Korea).
Nobody is presently suggesting that the DMZ in Korea is a legitimate border, yet people are suggesting that the Green Line is.
The DMZ seems as legitimate a border as any.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2011, 10:25:11 AM
The DMZ seems as legitimate a border as any.
EDIT FOR BELATED SARCASM DETECTION: Good point. Even when the governments do agree, residents tend to make up their own ideas about where the line actually is. SEE: American Colonies, 1763 Proclamation.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 21, 2011, 10:25:11 AM
The DMZ seems as legitimate a border as any.
Well, neither country that share the border accept the border... so....I'd think it was a whole bunch less legitimate than most any other border.
Quote from: Viking on May 21, 2011, 11:15:32 AM
Well, neither country that share the border accept the border... so....I'd think it was a whole bunch less legitimate than most any other border.
Yeah, took a second for the joke to sink in.
FWIW, I'll always side with pretty much anyone over Muslims who I think of as the worst kind of human garbage (all of them, especially the ones that don't conform to any of the stereotypes and just want to live peaceful, modern lives.) That being said I don't really view either party as being materially in the wrong here. You have a group of Arabs that had historically lived in the vague region that now makes up Israel/Palestinian territories (of course they had no real national identity because they were pseudo-tribal collections of peoples living under the Ottoman thumb and typically occupying land leased for generations, all the land owners lived in Istanbul and probably never personally surveyed their property before they sold lots of it to Jewish settlers right out from under the people living on it) want a certain territory for themselves. The justifications for the desire are irrelevant. If I want to buy a bottle of liquor and get drunk, I don't need a justification to do it. The Jews want the territory for themselves, again, the justifications don't matter.
There is no acceptable negotiated peace so one side resorts to asymmetric warfare (suicide bombings, car bombings et cetera), the only realistic tools they have. The other side resorts to overwhelming force, reprisals, security walls et cetera, the only realistic tools they have.
The only thing I really care about at this point is the fact that the United States has blown way too much political capital (and a decent amount of actual capital) in funding Israel, we've also had to fund Egypt because we support Israel, we're easier targets for the rantings of crazed Muslim jihadists because we support Israel. I see absolutely no material benefit to us in supporting either side. I'm all for cutting 100% of all funding to the region: no money to Egypt, no money to Israel, no money to anyone who isn't giving us something that materially benefits us. Fuck 'em all and let them fight it out like big kids on the play ground. I'm all about supporting the Saud family because at least I've seen us get tangible return on investment from them. I've not seen much good for the United States come out of involvement in the Holy Land.
Hmmm........ :hmm:
Welcome back OvB :cool:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 21, 2011, 07:56:06 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 20, 2011, 07:06:45 PM
Ah, the old "history suggests" argument. It isn't any more compelling when you use it like this than when OBL used it to moan that history suggested that when Christian nations' militaries captured Muslim cities they annihilate the population.
International law says that borders change as a result of treaties. Sometimes those treaties are forced, but no one just gets to declare themselves in possession of more Lebensraum just because they currently militarily occupy a place.
Did you really just use the words "international law?" Let us not get too embroiled in discussions over inanities, but just as a reference point if I put up a sign in my back yard that says "Inside this home is a meth factory" and then send a packet over to the police department with a signed confession that I am operating a meth factory along with photographic proof and a final note saying "Come Get Some" then my violation of the law will be handled relatively quickly by overwhelming police action. Thus the theory that is law becomes force and action applied, and the principles of the law are enforced.
If Israel occupies territories gained through right of conquest, and this violates the norm that "territory changes due to treaties" (treaties typically signed to reflect which side has beaten the other, FWIW, we didn't take East Prussia from Germany due to some vague legal principles but instead because of the fait accompli of the conquest) unless there is an equivalent to the SWAT team that would break down the doors to my meth factory I posit Israel can continue doing what it has been doing indefinitely. It is not as though they have been doing this for only a brief time, and throughout history there are examples of other States holding territory that is widely thought to not "belong" to them rightfully for generations.
There is law enforcement in states but not between states, and that means you can break international law all you want! Awesome!
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2011, 10:49:53 PM
There is law enforcement in states but not between states, and that means you can break international law all you want! Awesome!
Exactly, see the word "
want" in your sentence? That's precisely the case, and precisely how it tends to go down, too. Sometimes the international response can compel a change in behavior sans military action, but if not, and if the international community is not willing to respond militarily, then it isn't any kind of law that matters. Laws on paper or treaties signed with fancy $500 pens aren't worth a damn if they don't have real force backing them up.
If you want a happy relationship with the international community you
shouldn't just ignore treaties you sign, political agreements, standing international arrangements and etc. It's no different than two businesses that enter into a contract, if one business has a reputation for not holding up its end of its contractual obligations people will be less willing to do business with that company. That's regardless of the fact that you can sue another corporation for breach of contract--if I'm a business person I don't want to have to sue people to get them to hold up their end of our agreements and if I have reason to suspect a company is prone to behaving that way I'd just as soon not do business with them at all. So a country that flagrantly ignores international treaties can find it hard to operate on a range of issues.
So I don't think you
should want to ignore international law, but if a country does, the only thing that can change the situation is military force. The police are willing to arrest criminals pretty much universally, the international community is not willing to turn international law into that rigorous form legal system.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 21, 2011, 06:21:08 PM
FWIW, I'll always side with pretty much anyone over Muslims who I think of as the worst kind of human garbage (all of them, especially the ones that don't conform to any of the stereotypes and just want to live peaceful, modern lives.)
Why?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 21, 2011, 11:46:13 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2011, 10:49:53 PM
There is law enforcement in states but not between states, and that means you can break international law all you want! Awesome!
Exactly, see the word "want" in your sentence? That's precisely the case, and precisely how it tends to go down, too. Sometimes the international response can compel a change in behavior sans military action, but if not, and if the international community is not willing to respond militarily, then it isn't any kind of law that matters. Laws on paper or treaties signed with fancy $500 pens aren't worth a damn if they don't have real force backing them up.
If you want a happy relationship with the international community you shouldn't just ignore treaties you sign, political agreements, standing international arrangements and etc. It's no different than two businesses that enter into a contract, if one business has a reputation for not holding up its end of its contractual obligations people will be less willing to do business with that company. That's regardless of the fact that you can sue another corporation for breach of contract--if I'm a business person I don't want to have to sue people to get them to hold up their end of our agreements and if I have reason to suspect a company is prone to behaving that way I'd just as soon not do business with them at all. So a country that flagrantly ignores international treaties can find it hard to operate on a range of issues.
So I don't think you should want to ignore international law, but if a country does, the only thing that can change the situation is military force. The police are willing to arrest criminals pretty much universally, the international community is not willing to turn international law into that rigorous form legal system.
International law is a standing international arrangement, stemming from the principle of pacta sunt servanda, indeed no different from two businessmen entering into contract, or those contracts arising from concludent action (i.e. from acting as though there is a contract, not sure it's the correct term in English). If there is some part of the international law you don't like, you can always object to that part, and you won't be considered bound by it, as long as you are a persistant objector. But if you don't you're considered bound by it just as everyone else and other states can use various means to their disposal (not just military) to respond to breaches, if they so like. But of course it works just fine most of the time anyway and only a few countries that are taken seriously make a habit out of breaking it. As you rightly note, this is because countries generally care about their reputation.
Quote from: Viking on May 21, 2011, 09:08:00 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 21, 2011, 08:28:43 AM
Exactly. And if you hold on to the territory long enough it becomes a core province. :contract:
This is why I think all this babble over the borders of 1967 is vile bording on evil. The mere idea that if you just avoid negotiating a final status agreement that you can turn a ceasefire line into a border makes ceasefires impossible in the future.
Not really.
QuoteAny side which considers itself stronger will fight until they have reached all their goals, any side which has been defeated will refuse to concede on the grounds that nothing can be gained by negotiating.
Despite your assertion above, the historical record does not in fact indicate that factions are willing to fight to their final annihilation in order to reach their goals, and a number of civil wars for example have ended despite unfavourable ceasefire lines. War ends when the political will to continue dries up, that may or may not have much to do with whether a ceasefire line becomes a border.
QuoteTell the Israelis and Arabs of 1948 that the green line is either going to be THE BORDER or THE BASIS FOR THE BORDER means that the fighting doesn't stop.
No, the principle is, 'what you hold, you keep, if you can defend', like most other conflicts. The reason that Arab states have kept the issue alive is because they can do so pretty much costlessly and it in fact suited them politically.
By the way, the fighting stopped in Bosnia despite the fact that the Dayton Peace Accord is pretty much, with some minor adjustments, the autumn ceasefire line.
QuoteI don't understand why the idiot politicians of today don't understand this.
Probably exposure to political realities.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2011, 11:59:33 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 21, 2011, 06:21:08 PM
FWIW, I'll always side with pretty much anyone over Muslims who I think of as the worst kind of human garbage (all of them, especially the ones that don't conform to any of the stereotypes and just want to live peaceful, modern lives.)
Why?
They are a lot like Protestants. Something Muslims and Protestants both recognized early on.
Quote from: Warspite on May 22, 2011, 05:17:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 21, 2011, 09:08:00 AM
This is why I think all this babble over the borders of 1967 is vile bording on evil. The mere idea that if you just avoid negotiating a final status agreement that you can turn a ceasefire line into a border makes ceasefires impossible in the future.
Not really.
Oh well...
Quote from: Warspite on May 22, 2011, 05:17:10 AM
QuoteAny side which considers itself stronger will fight until they have reached all their goals, any side which has been defeated will refuse to concede on the grounds that nothing can be gained by negotiating.
Despite your assertion above, the historical record does not in fact indicate that factions are willing to fight to their final annihilation in order to reach their goals, and a number of civil wars for example have ended despite unfavourable ceasefire lines. War ends when the political will to continue dries up, that may or may not have much to do with whether a ceasefire line becomes a border.
Final annihilation is no longer as likely an option in a world with humanitarian interventions. Lybia is an example of that. Ceasefire lines are easy to agree on the grounds that they are not the final borders.
Quote from: Warspite on May 22, 2011, 05:17:10 AM
QuoteTell the Israelis and Arabs of 1948 that the green line is either going to be THE BORDER or THE BASIS FOR THE BORDER means that the fighting doesn't stop.
No, the principle is, 'what you hold, you keep, if you can defend', like most other conflicts. The reason that Arab states have kept the issue alive is because they can do so pretty much costlessly and it in fact suited them politically.
By the way, the fighting stopped in Bosnia despite the fact that the Dayton Peace Accord is pretty much, with some minor adjustments, the autumn ceasefire line.
Your attachment to that conflict might cause you to deal with the conflict in a partisan way. The 1995 bosnian and croatian offensive was completely successfull and it stopped (presumably at the US's requirement) at the line the US then demanded that the Serbs accepted. But, more importantly, the ceasefire agreement calls for a final peace that unifies the country, which is what is happening. The Republika Srpska is just merely a temporary entity.
Quote from: Warspite on May 22, 2011, 05:17:10 AM
QuoteI don't understand why the idiot politicians of today don't understand this.
Probably exposure to political realities.
That is probably the best explanation. Had Israel been "popular" then political realities would be different. That is a fundamentally corrupt attitude in my view.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 06:41:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2011, 11:59:33 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 21, 2011, 06:21:08 PM
FWIW, I'll always side with pretty much anyone over Muslims who I think of as the worst kind of human garbage (all of them, especially the ones that don't conform to any of the stereotypes and just want to live peaceful, modern lives.)
Why?
They are a lot like Protestants. Something Muslims and Protestants both recognized early on.
:huh: Can you elaborate on that?
:hmm:
I remember hearing once that Martin Luther read a translation of the Koran and went on to write a violently anti-Muslim response to it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2011, 07:15:02 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 06:41:23 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 21, 2011, 11:59:33 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 21, 2011, 06:21:08 PM
FWIW, I'll always side with pretty much anyone over Muslims who I think of as the worst kind of human garbage (all of them, especially the ones that don't conform to any of the stereotypes and just want to live peaceful, modern lives.)
Why?
They are a lot like Protestants. Something Muslims and Protestants both recognized early on.
:huh: Can you elaborate on that?
Use of personal interpretations, tendency towards literalism, iconoclastic, were at war with Catholics, etc. The belief in a set of codes that inform all personal actions is seen both in Reformed theology and Sunni Islam.
http://books.google.com/books?id=BjC7K1j_AT8C&pg=PA208&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
Quote from: Pat on May 22, 2011, 01:49:26 AM
International law is a standing international arrangement, stemming from the principle of pacta sunt servanda, indeed no different from two businessmen entering into contract, or those contracts arising from concludent action (i.e. from acting as though there is a contract, not sure it's the correct term in English).
Except in a business relationship you can always go to court or to arbitration in case you disagree on something or in case one of the parties fail to meet its side of the agreement. That is not possible in international relations.
Quote
If there is some part of the international law you don't like, you can always object to that part, and you won't be considered bound by it, as long as you are a persistant objector.
Oh really? What about Iran and the non-proliferation-treaty? If I understand things correctly, there are some parts of "international law" that all states are bound to, no matter if they want to or not. That is what Nurnberg taught us.
Quote from: Bluebook on May 22, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Oh really? What about Iran and the non-proliferation-treaty? If I understand things correctly, there are some parts of "international law" that all states are bound to, no matter if they want to or not. That is what Nurnberg taught us.
What about Iran and the NPT? They have signed it.
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2011, 10:09:21 AM
What about Iran and the NPT? They have signed it.
They have? When?
Quote from: Bluebook on May 22, 2011, 10:36:00 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 22, 2011, 10:09:21 AM
What about Iran and the NPT? They have signed it.
They have? When?
Iran is a signatory to the NPT, that is why the Russians have been helping them with civil nuclear power generation at Busheir.
Oh well, good thing Im not a lawyer then.
However, I believe my point still stands, all states are bount by certain parts of "international law", regardless wether they want to or not.
:lol:
You should come here more often, Bluebook.
Quote from: Bluebook on May 22, 2011, 12:45:39 PM
Oh well, good thing Im not a lawyer then.
However, I believe my point still stands, all states are bount by certain parts of "international law", regardless wether they want to or not.
International Law is the law that countries are willing to enforce on others. Basically while binding on paper, it is a mere honor code followed in fear of sanctions.
There is actually often arbitration in international law, although typically in the realm of trade disputes. In many cases of course the disputes go on for more than a decade and little is resolved either way (that's not totally out of line with domestic laws, though--Exxon Valdez was litigated for a long time.)
Some international law can essentially be enforced if one party decides to enforce it. For example if you lose a WTO dispute hearing they can authorize sanctions against your country. The sanctions are much more powerful than a traditional "fine", with a fine you basically have been told "pay this!" If you're fined by the State as a private citizen the consequences of non-payment can lead to imprisonment, garnished wages, liens on real estate, and other methods. With WTO sanctions they essentially just allow a certain amount of tariffs to be levied against the offending country, and because of that method of enforcement there is little the sanctioned country could do to prevent it. If the sanctioned country decides they are willing to pay the price, then it basically just goes on for as long as they want. President Bush enacted the idiotic 2002 Steel Tariffs essentially out of purely political reasons, in an attempt to secure Pennsylvania and other Rust Belt states for the 2004 election. I think that move cost us around $2bn in WTO sanctions and the President basically just shrugged and let it happen, in a case in which he valued his reelection chances at ~$2bn out of our economy.
Quote from: Bluebook on May 22, 2011, 12:45:39 PM
Oh well, good thing Im not a lawyer then.
However, I believe my point still stands, all states are bount by certain parts of "international law", regardless wether they want to or not.
Iran is a signing party of the NPT--it's just that you wouldn't know it, since they've been in violation and non-compliant for almost 10 years. That's the problem.
Israel, Pakistan and India are the three countries that did not sign the NPT and did develop nuclear weapons.
North Korea was party to that treaty once. Also I think South Africa (which no admits to building nuclear weapons).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 21, 2011, 11:46:13 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 21, 2011, 10:49:53 PM
There is law enforcement in states but not between states, and that means you can break international law all you want! Awesome!
Exactly, see the word "want" in your sentence? That's precisely the case, and precisely how it tends to go down, too. Sometimes the international response can compel a change in behavior sans military action, but if not, and if the international community is not willing to respond militarily, then it isn't any kind of law that matters. Laws on paper or treaties signed with fancy $500 pens aren't worth a damn if they don't have real force backing them up.
If you want a happy relationship with the international community you shouldn't just ignore treaties you sign, political agreements, standing international arrangements and etc. It's no different than two businesses that enter into a contract, if one business has a reputation for not holding up its end of its contractual obligations people will be less willing to do business with that company. That's regardless of the fact that you can sue another corporation for breach of contract--if I'm a business person I don't want to have to sue people to get them to hold up their end of our agreements and if I have reason to suspect a company is prone to behaving that way I'd just as soon not do business with them at all. So a country that flagrantly ignores international treaties can find it hard to operate on a range of issues.
So I don't think you should want to ignore international law, but if a country does, the only thing that can change the situation is military force. The police are willing to arrest criminals pretty much universally, the international community is not willing to turn international law into that rigorous form legal system.
This is essentially true (except that the military force is the only way of changing someone else's behaviour - that's untrue, sanctions, ostracism etc. can work very well too). It is however in the states' interest to enforce international law simply because it makes the behaviour of everybody more predictable.
Which is why Obama is right to tell Israel that it won't be getting a carte blanche anymore when it chooses to ignore international law.
But other than that, your point about international law is unhelpful. The point discussed was whether Israel was treating the occupied territories in a way that is inconsistent under the existing international law - so a claim that it doesn't matter because noone will enforce this is not really a matter of debate.
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 07:03:11 AM
Final annihilation is no longer as likely an option in a world with humanitarian interventions. Lybia is an example of that. Ceasefire lines are easy to agree on the grounds that they are not the final borders.
I think you are underestimating war exhaustion, even in non "final" situations. Most modern societies would give up the fight long before their final annihilation even if it meant losing some square miles of land.
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
Quote from: Bluebook on May 22, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Except in a business relationship you can always go to court or to arbitration in case you disagree on something or in case one of the parties fail to meet its side of the agreement. That is not possible in international relations.
That is not always an option. Gentlemen's agreements are not uncommon in business relationships, and even when some provision of a contract is unenforceable, people who do business rarely exploit that. Reputation is often more important than even compliance with law (which is why for example cartels are so popular).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcQp9ltLmSvfj_oyBP-pdbnhZvo-nIY-8p3fMDCzEhh4NeBoN-F8EA%26amp%3Bt%3D1&hash=12dd26e5402289bf0a878238bdd27b6a3742deaf)
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
hot jew chicks.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
There is an unwillingness in the US to let an allied country get eaten up by it's aggressive neighbors. I understand this is a foreign concept in Europe.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 02:30:17 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
There is an unwillingness in the US to let an allied country get eaten up by it's aggressive neighbors. I understand this is a foreign concept in Europe.
But how this alliance came to be and is sustained exactly is the question. We know there is an alliance between the US and Israel, but the US does not get a lot out of this alliance, and Israel has been consistently a piss-poor ally (getting into trouble, selling secrets to the Chinese and the Russians etc.).
Quote from: Martinus on May 22, 2011, 02:15:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 07:03:11 AM
Final annihilation is no longer as likely an option in a world with humanitarian interventions. Lybia is an example of that. Ceasefire lines are easy to agree on the grounds that they are not the final borders.
I think you are underestimating war exhaustion, even in non "final" situations. Most modern societies would give up the fight long before their final annihilation even if it meant losing some square miles of land.
It's more a case of modern societies being unwilling to conduct the final annihilation regardless of the evil of the enemy. Modern societies win wars against non-modern societies.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 02:30:17 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
There is an unwillingness in the US to let an allied country get eaten up by it's aggressive neighbors. I understand this is a foreign concept in Europe.
Right. 1917, 1941. It's a foreign concept all over, seems to me.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
The US population has an empathy for the israelis that they don't have with the palestinians. The US does not suffer from colonial guilt, is not infested with continental philosophy (post-modernism), has an ideological attachment to democracy and the US has a substantial christian zionist movement which supports israel on an irrational basis.
The idea of going to another land to create a new improved life for oneself is appealing to americans.
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 02:31:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 22, 2011, 02:15:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 07:03:11 AM
Final annihilation is no longer as likely an option in a world with humanitarian interventions. Lybia is an example of that. Ceasefire lines are easy to agree on the grounds that they are not the final borders.
I think you are underestimating war exhaustion, even in non "final" situations. Most modern societies would give up the fight long before their final annihilation even if it meant losing some square miles of land.
It's more a case of modern societies being unwilling to conduct the final annihilation regardless of the evil of the enemy. Modern societies win wars against non-modern societies.
Yes, but what I am saying is that a modern society is willing to accept a ceasefire while knowing that it may keep borders at a status quo which is not desirable to that society simply because the society may be tired of continuing hostilities.
Argentina pretty much gave up Falklands (even if it claims it didn't) when it signed cease fire with Britain and I'm pretty such Argentineans knew what it meant - and they were nowhere near annihilation.
Quote from: Martinus on May 22, 2011, 02:35:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 02:31:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 22, 2011, 02:15:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 07:03:11 AM
Final annihilation is no longer as likely an option in a world with humanitarian interventions. Lybia is an example of that. Ceasefire lines are easy to agree on the grounds that they are not the final borders.
I think you are underestimating war exhaustion, even in non "final" situations. Most modern societies would give up the fight long before their final annihilation even if it meant losing some square miles of land.
It's more a case of modern societies being unwilling to conduct the final annihilation regardless of the evil of the enemy. Modern societies win wars against non-modern societies.
Yes, but what I am saying is that a modern society is willing to accept a ceasefire while knowing that it may keep borders at a status quo which is not desirable to that society simply because the society may be tired of continuing hostilities.
Argentina pretty much gave up Falklands (even if it claims it didn't) when it signed cease fire with Britain and I'm pretty such Argentineans knew what it meant - and they were nowhere near annihilation.
The argument I am trying to make is that Argentina could agree to a ceasefire without conceding it's claim to the Malvinas. Had Argentina had to ceded the Malvinas as part of the ceasefire they would not have accepted the ceasefire.
Once the Argentinians had been expelled from the Malvinas the UK would be unwilling to conduct any military operations apart from a blockade and the occasional air-raid. Provided the Argentinians were willing to carry on suffering the blockade and air-raid they would not cede the Malvinas.
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 02:35:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
The US population has an empathy for the israelis that they don't have with the palestinians. The US does not suffer from colonial guilt, is not infested with continental philosophy (post-modernism), has an ideological attachment to democracy and the US has a substantial christian zionist movement which supports israel on an irrational basis.
The idea of going to another land to create a new improved life for oneself is appealing to americans.
We, unlike Europeans, happen to like Jews. They've been an integral part in the development of this nation, and they put the "Judeo" in "Judeo-Christian tradition" when it comes to the roots of our culture. The "substantial christian zionist movement" isn't really all that substantial, though. It's just loud.
We haven't been trying to liquidate them for thousands of years.
Up until the mid-80s, there were more Jews in the five burroughs of New York City than there were in Israel. How many European capitals can say that?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 02:43:01 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 02:35:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
The US population has an empathy for the israelis that they don't have with the palestinians. The US does not suffer from colonial guilt, is not infested with continental philosophy (post-modernism), has an ideological attachment to democracy and the US has a substantial christian zionist movement which supports israel on an irrational basis.
The idea of going to another land to create a new improved life for oneself is appealing to americans.
We, unlike Europeans, happen to like Jews. They've been an integral part in the development of this nation, and they put the "Judeo" in "Judeo-Christian tradition" when it comes to the roots of our culture. The "substantial christian zionist movement" isn't really all that substantial, though. It's just loud.
We haven't been trying to liquidate them for thousands of years.
Up until the mid-80s, there were more Jews in the five burroughs of New York City than there were in Israel. How many European capitals can say that?
Up until the early 40's, Warsaw could. But do note, New York is not a capital city, So Antwerp might also apply.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:34:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 02:30:17 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
There is an unwillingness in the US to let an allied country get eaten up by it's aggressive neighbors. I understand this is a foreign concept in Europe.
Right. 1917, 1941. It's a foreign concept all over, seems to me.
What do these dates signify here?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 02:43:01 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 02:35:44 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
The US population has an empathy for the israelis that they don't have with the palestinians. The US does not suffer from colonial guilt, is not infested with continental philosophy (post-modernism), has an ideological attachment to democracy and the US has a substantial christian zionist movement which supports israel on an irrational basis.
The idea of going to another land to create a new improved life for oneself is appealing to americans.
We, unlike Europeans, happen to like Jews. They've been an integral part in the development of this nation, and they put the "Judeo" in "Judeo-Christian tradition" when it comes to the roots of our culture. The "substantial christian zionist movement" isn't really all that substantial, though. It's just loud.
We haven't been trying to liquidate them for thousands of years.
Up until the mid-80s, there were more Jews in the five burroughs of New York City than there were in Israel. How many European capitals can say that?
Yes yes, you like the jews and we butcher them every chance we get, I know the drill. I was looking more for historical reasons and whatnot. You seem to be saying there's an emotional attachment because of the substantial role jews have played in US history, yes?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 03:02:21 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:34:23 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 02:30:17 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
There is an unwillingness in the US to let an allied country get eaten up by it's aggressive neighbors. I understand this is a foreign concept in Europe.
Right. 1917, 1941. It's a foreign concept all over, seems to me.
What do these dates signify here?
We didn't intervene in their mudfights at first opportunity.
As far as I know, we weren't allies. Though we did send vital supplies.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 03:13:24 PM
As far as I know, we weren't allies. Though we did send vital supplies.
Reading about France's pathetic attempts to get us to intervene in Horne's
To Lose a Battle: France 1940 gives me the giggles.
BONJOUR! Could you send some of your pathetically small and underequipped army over as fast as you can? Yes, they'll get overrun with us too!
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 03:17:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 03:13:24 PM
As far as I know, we weren't allies. Though we did send vital supplies.
Reading about France's pathetic attempts to get us to intervene in Horne's To Lose a Battle: France 1940 gives me the giggles.
BONJOUR! Could you send some of your pathetically small and underequipped army over as fast as you can? Yes, they'll get overrun with us too!
When in doubt make sure Eisenhower, Marshall, Bradley, Patton and LeMay all end up in German POW camps in 1940....
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 03:17:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 03:13:24 PM
As far as I know, we weren't allies. Though we did send vital supplies.
Reading about France's pathetic attempts to get us to intervene in Horne's To Lose a Battle: France 1940 gives me the giggles.
BONJOUR! Could you send some of your pathetically small and underequipped army over as fast as you can? Yes, they'll get overrun with us too!
That's what good allies do. Zombie Lafayette is: disappointed :sleep:
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 03:17:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 03:13:24 PM
As far as I know, we weren't allies. Though we did send vital supplies.
Reading about France's pathetic attempts to get us to intervene in Horne's To Lose a Battle: France 1940 gives me the giggles.
BONJOUR! Could you send some of your pathetically small and underequipped army over as fast as you can? Yes, they'll get overrun with us too!
That's what good allies do. Zombie Lafayette is: disappointed :sleep:
Black Jack Pershing went to Lafayette's tomb...
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 03:17:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 03:13:24 PM
As far as I know, we weren't allies. Though we did send vital supplies.
Reading about France's pathetic attempts to get us to intervene in Horne's To Lose a Battle: France 1940 gives me the giggles.
BONJOUR! Could you send some of your pathetically small and underequipped army over as fast as you can? Yes, they'll get overrun with us too!
That's what good allies do. Zombie Lafayette is: disappointed :sleep:
Y'all was lucky to get what youse got.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 03:22:52 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 03:17:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 03:13:24 PM
As far as I know, we weren't allies. Though we did send vital supplies.
Reading about France's pathetic attempts to get us to intervene in Horne's To Lose a Battle: France 1940 gives me the giggles.
BONJOUR! Could you send some of your pathetically small and underequipped army over as fast as you can? Yes, they'll get overrun with us too!
That's what good allies do. Zombie Lafayette is: disappointed :sleep:
Y'all was lucky to get what youse got.
I'm thankful for all the sacrifices Mother Russia did for us in both World Wars. :frog:
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 03:25:14 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 03:22:52 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 03:17:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 03:13:24 PM
As far as I know, we weren't allies. Though we did send vital supplies.
Reading about France's pathetic attempts to get us to intervene in Horne's To Lose a Battle: France 1940 gives me the giggles.
BONJOUR! Could you send some of your pathetically small and underequipped army over as fast as you can? Yes, they'll get overrun with us too!
That's what good allies do. Zombie Lafayette is: disappointed :sleep:
Y'all was lucky to get what youse got.
I'm thankful for all the sacrifices Mother Russia did for us in both World Wars. :frog:
I'm thankful the Russians joined us first time round and the NAZIs go them to join us the second time round. The Ruskis did it for themselves.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 03:09:09 PM
Yes yes, you like the jews and we butcher them every chance we get, I know the drill. I was looking more for historical reasons and whatnot. You seem to be saying there's an emotional attachment because of the substantial role jews have played in US history, yes?
An emotional attachment? That's like saying we have an emotional attachment with Europe. They're who we are.
They're who you are too, but it's just more fun sticking them in ovens and watching their yarmulkes pop when they're done.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 03:17:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 03:13:24 PM
As far as I know, we weren't allies. Though we did send vital supplies.
Reading about France's pathetic attempts to get us to intervene in Horne's To Lose a Battle: France 1940 gives me the giggles.
BONJOUR! Could you send some of your pathetically small and underequipped army over as fast as you can? Yes, they'll get overrun with us too!
That's what good allies do. Zombie Lafayette is: disappointed :sleep:
Too true.
We should've had battlewagons forward deployed to the UK in 1939.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 03:09:09 PMYou seem to be saying there's an emotional attachment because of the substantial role jews have played in US history, yes?
some article posted on languish a year or two ago blamed lbj and his grandmother
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:28:41 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 03:09:09 PM
Yes yes, you like the jews and we butcher them every chance we get, I know the drill. I was looking more for historical reasons and whatnot. You seem to be saying there's an emotional attachment because of the substantial role jews have played in US history, yes?
An emotional attachment? That's like saying we have an emotional attachment with Europe. They're who we are.
They're who you are too, but it's just more fun sticking them in ovens and watching their yarmulkes pop when they're done.
Less of the rhetoric, more of the historic please. Why stand by them no matter what, compared to Zambia, Laos or Tadjikistan?
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 04:37:22 PMWhy stand by them no matter what?
because they are long-standing allies, i presume. it doesn't help that they're more civilized than much of the middle east, are whiter than the arabs, and have the support of the religious in america. it's not hard to find a reason to support israel over the brown people
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 04:37:22 PMLess of the rhetoric, more of the historic please. Why stand by them no matter what, compared to Zambia, Laos or Tadjikistan?
The same reason we stand by you assholes no matter what.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:32:26 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 03:21:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 03:17:25 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 03:13:24 PM
As far as I know, we weren't allies. Though we did send vital supplies.
Reading about France's pathetic attempts to get us to intervene in Horne's To Lose a Battle: France 1940 gives me the giggles.
BONJOUR! Could you send some of your pathetically small and underequipped army over as fast as you can? Yes, they'll get overrun with us too!
That's what good allies do. Zombie Lafayette is: disappointed :sleep:
Too true.
We should've had battlewagons forward deployed to the UK in 1939.
Ewww, I don't know about that. Let the Europeans bash themselves for a while before we get involved.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:32:26 PM
We should've had battlewagons forward deployed to the UK in 1939.
Ewww, I don't know about that. Let the Europeans bash themselves for a while before we get involved.
Fuck that. Any time is good Nazi killing time.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:55:48 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:32:26 PM
We should've had battlewagons forward deployed to the UK in 1939.
Ewww, I don't know about that. Let the Europeans bash themselves for a while before we get involved.
Fuck that. Any time is good Nazi killing time.
Let 'em overrun the frogs first. They deserve it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 04:56:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:55:48 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:32:26 PM
We should've had battlewagons forward deployed to the UK in 1939.
Ewww, I don't know about that. Let the Europeans bash themselves for a while before we get involved.
Fuck that. Any time is good Nazi killing time.
Let 'em overrun the frogs first. They deserve it.
Why do they deserve it?
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 04:37:22 PM
Less of the rhetoric, more of the historic please. Why stand by them no matter what, compared to Zambia, Laos or Tadjikistan?
Because up until around Sabra and Shatila the story of Israel was very much a plucky David fighting off several Goliaths. Starving Auschwitz survivers sneak through a British blockade and pick up smuggled Sten guns to battle massive professional armies from the entire Arab world to protect their *UN recognized* independence.
The question I've got for you is why Europe decided to throw Israel under the bus in 1967.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
I think it's a combination of right time/place. We were going to support anyone during the Cold War that we could, much of the Middle East was "in play" as to who they would side with. Both us and the Soviets pumped a lot of money into countries in that region. Egypt sort of went back and forth, Iraq sort of went back and forth. Iraq notably had a lot of support from us but also a lot of Soviet military hardware that we tore up in Gulf War I.
Israel was a lot more amenable to being on "our" side than the side of the Soviets, they were one we could move into the "firm" column in supporting the side of the West against the savage, unwashed Russian monsters. The large Jewish population in America also tightened this up significantly. Sometime in the past 30 years fundamentalist American Protestants also became massive supporters of Israel because they intrinsically think it is "right" for the people of David to control the Holy Land (contrary to popular belief only a very small number of the most extreme fundamentalist Protestants believe that Israel has to rebuild the temple for the rapture to happen.)
I'm with you though, ROI on the shit hole that is the Middle East is absolutely terrible. I look more to our relationship with Saudi Arabia than our relationship with most other European countries as an example of how to get decent ROI. Unfortunately we made the mistake of stationing some troops in Saudi Arabia which enraged some hard liners.
What made the US pick socialist Israel was Nassers trying to play the superpowers against each other and eventually going for Soviet funding of the Aswan dam.
Hell, a lot of US support for Isreal is just because of moral disgust with the Holocaust. But Viking is right, a lot of it was also Nassar accepting Soviet aid.
I think a major factor is that lots of Israeli citizens have American Citizenship.
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 06:18:12 PM
What made the US pick socialist Israel was Nassers trying to play the superpowers against each other and eventually going for Soviet funding of the Aswan dam.
Thing is, the US was the first country to recognized Israel. So it goes back further then that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 22, 2011, 06:06:00 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
I think it's a combination of right time/place. We were going to support anyone during the Cold War that we could, much of the Middle East was "in play" as to who they would side with. Both us and the Soviets pumped a lot of money into countries in that region. Egypt sort of went back and forth, Iraq sort of went back and forth. Iraq notably had a lot of support from us but also a lot of Soviet military hardware that we tore up in Gulf War I.
Israel was a lot more amenable to being on "our" side than the side of the Soviets, they were one we could move into the "firm" column in supporting the side of the West against the savage, unwashed Russian monsters. The large Jewish population in America also tightened this up significantly. Sometime in the past 30 years fundamentalist American Protestants also became massive supporters of Israel because they intrinsically think it is "right" for the people of David to control the Holy Land (contrary to popular belief only a very small number of the most extreme fundamentalist Protestants believe that Israel has to rebuild the temple for the rapture to happen.)
I'm with you though, ROI on the shit hole that is the Middle East is absolutely terrible. I look more to our relationship with Saudi Arabia than our relationship with most other European countries as an example of how to get decent ROI. Unfortunately we made the mistake of stationing some troops in Saudi Arabia which enraged some hard liners.
IIRC there were some fears that Israel would swing over to the Soviet camp, at least prior to '67. After all, a lot of Jews came from Eastern Europe and the USSR, and they were seen as leaning socialist (see kibbutzes).
Quote from: Martinus on May 22, 2011, 02:31:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 02:30:17 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
There is an unwillingness in the US to let an allied country get eaten up by it's aggressive neighbors. I understand this is a foreign concept in Europe.
But how this alliance came to be and is sustained exactly is the question. We know there is an alliance between the US and Israel, but the US does not get a lot out of this alliance, and Israel has been consistently a piss-poor ally (getting into trouble, selling secrets to the Chinese and the Russians etc.).
Israel have never sold anything without american consent.
Not even israeli developed tech.
This is in fact one of the issues in israeli domestic politics.
We see ourselves as far too complacent to american desires.
Not that it is an issue for me.
I do support israeli complete alingment with the US.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 06:46:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 06:18:12 PM
What made the US pick socialist Israel was Nassers trying to play the superpowers against each other and eventually going for Soviet funding of the Aswan dam.
Thing is, the US was the first country to recognized Israel. So it goes back further then that.
Yeah. The US was trying to strongarm the UK into giving Palestine to the Jews during the war.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 06:46:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 06:18:12 PM
What made the US pick socialist Israel was Nassers trying to play the superpowers against each other and eventually going for Soviet funding of the Aswan dam.
Thing is, the US was the first country to recognized Israel. So it goes back further then that.
Not to mention familiar relationship.
You can't throw a rock without hitting somebody with a relative in the US, whether it is israelis migrating to the US (yeah, I'm guilty) to american jews migrating to Eretz.
And a lot of the money that funded the terrorists that were involved in founding Israel came from the US.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 22, 2011, 09:11:54 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on May 22, 2011, 06:06:00 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 02:16:38 PM
Can an Amerikkkan enlighten as to why the US and Israel have such close ties? US jewish voting population? Cold War history between the two?
I don't see what the US gets out of this special relationship.
I think it's a combination of right time/place. We were going to support anyone during the Cold War that we could, much of the Middle East was "in play" as to who they would side with. Both us and the Soviets pumped a lot of money into countries in that region. Egypt sort of went back and forth, Iraq sort of went back and forth. Iraq notably had a lot of support from us but also a lot of Soviet military hardware that we tore up in Gulf War I.
Israel was a lot more amenable to being on "our" side than the side of the Soviets, they were one we could move into the "firm" column in supporting the side of the West against the savage, unwashed Russian monsters. The large Jewish population in America also tightened this up significantly. Sometime in the past 30 years fundamentalist American Protestants also became massive supporters of Israel because they intrinsically think it is "right" for the people of David to control the Holy Land (contrary to popular belief only a very small number of the most extreme fundamentalist Protestants believe that Israel has to rebuild the temple for the rapture to happen.)
I'm with you though, ROI on the shit hole that is the Middle East is absolutely terrible. I look more to our relationship with Saudi Arabia than our relationship with most other European countries as an example of how to get decent ROI. Unfortunately we made the mistake of stationing some troops in Saudi Arabia which enraged some hard liners.
IIRC there were some fears that Israel would swing over to the Soviet camp, at least prior to '67. After all, a lot of Jews came from Eastern Europe and the USSR, and they were seen as leaning socialist (see kibbutzes).
You definitively do not understand israeli mentality.
The kibbutzim are an expression of israeli democracy.
In Eretz, if you want to be a pinky or reddish, you do not need to go and create a violent communist revolution.
You just need to join a Kibbutz.
Israel is probably the only country in the world in which you can live according to whatever crazy ideology you subscribe to.
From hard core capitalism to hard core communism, with no money and communal kitchens, not kidding you.
However these days most kibbutzim are just another form of capitalism, with more than half their workforce being non-kibbutzniks, working hands paid in hard cash.
Quote from: Bluebook on May 22, 2011, 09:50:05 AM
Quote from: Pat on May 22, 2011, 01:49:26 AM
International law is a standing international arrangement, stemming from the principle of pacta sunt servanda, indeed no different from two businessmen entering into contract, or those contracts arising from concludent action (i.e. from acting as though there is a contract, not sure it's the correct term in English).
Except in a business relationship you can always go to court or to arbitration in case you disagree on something or in case one of the parties fail to meet its side of the agreement. That is not possible in international relations.
Yes it is, there are courts for that.
Quote
If there is some part of the international law you don't like, you can always object to that part, and you won't be considered bound by it, as long as you are a persistant objector.
Oh really? What about Iran and the non-proliferation-treaty? If I understand things correctly, there are some parts of "international law" that all states are bound to, no matter if they want to or not. That is what Nurnberg taught us.
[/quote]
Right, you're not wrong about that last part. For every rule there's an exception. ;) You're talking about the ius cogens, a core of Intl. law that you actually can not opt-out of, which is a recent inclusion from Nurnberg onwards and something I should've mentioned (especially as it contains territorial aggrandizement). It's universally accepted even though it can be a bit hard to defend from the classical perspective of sovereignty.
BTW your point about the NPT was void because Iran actually had signed it, but it could've been valid if you had chosen some other example. Let's say there's a treaty regulating maritime traffic or something, then you'll most likely be considered bound by it even if you haven't signed it, unless you protest. I.e. the written intl. law can spill over into the unwritten intl. law.
Quote from: Neil on May 22, 2011, 10:59:22 PM
And a lot of the money that funded the terrorists that were involved in founding Israel came from the US.
RIP Folke Bernadotte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte
Lol, I just read the title as The Obama "To Make Important Middle Earth Speech"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 05:10:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 04:56:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:55:48 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:32:26 PM
We should've had battlewagons forward deployed to the UK in 1939.
Ewww, I don't know about that. Let the Europeans bash themselves for a while before we get involved.
Fuck that. Any time is good Nazi killing time.
Let 'em overrun the frogs first. They deserve it.
Why do they deserve it?
I was attempting a troll. I set out some hamburger with glass in it for the Euros.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2011, 11:07:10 PM
Lol, I just read the title as The Obama "To Make Important Middle Earth Speech"
"...at my direction, hobbit bowmen of the Shire have located and killed Grima Wormtongue..."
Quote from: Caliga on May 23, 2011, 07:18:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2011, 11:07:10 PM
Lol, I just read the title as The Obama "To Make Important Middle Earth Speech"
"...at my direction, hobbit bowmen of the Shire have located and killed Grima Wormtongue..."
:D
Quote from: Pat on May 22, 2011, 01:49:26 AM
International law is a standing international arrangement, stemming from the principle of pacta sunt servanda, indeed no different from two businessmen entering into contract, or those contracts arising from concludent action (i.e. from acting as though there is a contract, not sure it's the correct term in English).
It's a poor model for analyzing international law from both a descriptive and prescriptive point of view. Descriptively, it doesn't at all capture how international law arises, who the actors are, and how it operates in practice. Prescriptively, it doesn't do the work that proponents of a more vigorous international law regime would want it to do, but at the same time does more than what opponents would want it to do.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 23, 2011, 07:04:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 05:10:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 04:56:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:55:48 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:32:26 PM
We should've had battlewagons forward deployed to the UK in 1939.
Ewww, I don't know about that. Let the Europeans bash themselves for a while before we get involved.
Fuck that. Any time is good Nazi killing time.
Let 'em overrun the frogs first. They deserve it.
Why do they deserve it?
I was attempting a troll. I set out some hamburger with glass in it for the Euros.
Nothing more retarded than calling out your own trolls.
I don't think even Jaron do this.
Quote from: Neil on May 22, 2011, 09:44:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 06:46:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 06:18:12 PM
What made the US pick socialist Israel was Nassers trying to play the superpowers against each other and eventually going for Soviet funding of the Aswan dam.
Thing is, the US was the first country to recognized Israel. So it goes back further then that.
Yeah. The US was trying to strongarm the UK into giving Palestine to the Jews during the war.
Yeah, but that didn't have anything to do with the Jews or Palestine exclusively. The US basically was anti-colonial, and wanted the British and French to divest themeselves of their colonies. For example, the US was the only country to have an official observer present when Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent state. To bad we didn't go ahead an officially recognize them;, too; it would have saved us a lot of trouble.
Quote from: dps on May 23, 2011, 12:27:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 22, 2011, 09:44:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 06:46:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 06:18:12 PM
What made the US pick socialist Israel was Nassers trying to play the superpowers against each other and eventually going for Soviet funding of the Aswan dam.
Thing is, the US was the first country to recognized Israel. So it goes back further then that.
Yeah. The US was trying to strongarm the UK into giving Palestine to the Jews during the war.
Yeah, but that didn't have anything to do with the Jews or Palestine exclusively. The US basically was anti-colonial, and wanted the British and French to divest themeselves of their colonies. For example, the US was the only country to have an official observer present when Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent state. To bad we didn't go ahead an officially recognize them;, too; it would have saved us a lot of trouble.
I thought that was just an OSS team that got a bit sidetracked ? :unsure:
Quote from: mongers on May 23, 2011, 12:33:39 PM
Quote from: dps on May 23, 2011, 12:27:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 22, 2011, 09:44:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 06:46:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 06:18:12 PM
What made the US pick socialist Israel was Nassers trying to play the superpowers against each other and eventually going for Soviet funding of the Aswan dam.
Thing is, the US was the first country to recognized Israel. So it goes back further then that.
Yeah. The US was trying to strongarm the UK into giving Palestine to the Jews during the war.
Yeah, but that didn't have anything to do with the Jews or Palestine exclusively. The US basically was anti-colonial, and wanted the British and French to divest themeselves of their colonies. For example, the US was the only country to have an official observer present when Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent state. To bad we didn't go ahead an officially recognize them;, too; it would have saved us a lot of trouble.
I thought that was just an OSS team that got a bit sidetracked ? :unsure:
It was an OSS team, but I'm not sure what you mean by "sidetracked". They were our liason with the VC, co-ordinating actions against the Japanese.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 04:37:22 PM
Less of the rhetoric, more of the historic please. Why stand by them no matter what, compared to Zambia, Laos or Tadjikistan?
Cold War allies. We remember our friends and besides that inertia is strong.
All three of those countries you listed were a bunch of dirty Soviet allies. Though Tajikistan didn't have much choice in the matter.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 04:37:22 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:28:41 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 03:09:09 PM
Yes yes, you like the jews and we butcher them every chance we get, I know the drill. I was looking more for historical reasons and whatnot. You seem to be saying there's an emotional attachment because of the substantial role jews have played in US history, yes?
An emotional attachment? That's like saying we have an emotional attachment with Europe. They're who we are.
They're who you are too, but it's just more fun sticking them in ovens and watching their yarmulkes pop when they're done.
Less of the rhetoric, more of the historic please. Why stand by them no matter what, compared to Zambia, Laos or Tadjikistan?
Well if you follow Seedy's logic, it'd be because Zambia, Laos and Tadjikistan aren't really "us". One couldn't really say that "they're who we are."
Quote from: dps on May 23, 2011, 12:27:58 PM
Yeah, but that didn't have anything to do with the Jews or Palestine exclusively. The US basically was anti-colonial, and wanted the British and French to divest themeselves of their colonies. For example, the US was the only country to have an official observer present when Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent state. To bad we didn't go ahead an officially recognize them;, too; it would have saved us a lot of trouble.
Creating a colony of Jews on Arab land has nothing at all to do with anti-colonialism, or principles of any kind. The votes of American Jews, now those were reasons to act.
Quote from: Zoupa on May 22, 2011, 04:37:22 PM
Less of the rhetoric, more of the historic please. Why stand by them no matter what, compared to Zambia, Laos or Tadjikistan?
:lmfao: Good one.
Quote from: dps on May 23, 2011, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 23, 2011, 12:33:39 PM
Quote from: dps on May 23, 2011, 12:27:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 22, 2011, 09:44:43 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 22, 2011, 06:46:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on May 22, 2011, 06:18:12 PM
What made the US pick socialist Israel was Nassers trying to play the superpowers against each other and eventually going for Soviet funding of the Aswan dam.
Thing is, the US was the first country to recognized Israel. So it goes back further then that.
Yeah. The US was trying to strongarm the UK into giving Palestine to the Jews during the war.
Yeah, but that didn't have anything to do with the Jews or Palestine exclusively. The US basically was anti-colonial, and wanted the British and French to divest themeselves of their colonies. For example, the US was the only country to have an official observer present when Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam an independent state. To bad we didn't go ahead an officially recognize them;, too; it would have saved us a lot of trouble.
I thought that was just an OSS team that got a bit sidetracked ? :unsure:
It was an OSS team, but I'm not sure what you mean by "sidetracked". They were our liason with the VC, co-ordinating actions against the Japanese.
I was hinting at them supposedly saving H.C.M.'s life with medicine.
Given they were intelligence agents, I don't think you could class that as being offical observers ? :unsure:
Quote from: Siege on May 23, 2011, 10:25:33 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 23, 2011, 07:04:52 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 05:10:26 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 04:56:21 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:55:48 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 22, 2011, 04:52:54 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 22, 2011, 04:32:26 PM
We should've had battlewagons forward deployed to the UK in 1939.
Ewww, I don't know about that. Let the Europeans bash themselves for a while before we get involved.
Fuck that. Any time is good Nazi killing time.
Let 'em overrun the frogs first. They deserve it.
Why do they deserve it?
I was attempting a troll. I set out some hamburger with glass in it for the Euros.
Nothing more retarded than calling out your own trolls.
I don't think even Jaron do this.
Don't you have an IED to trip over?
Here's a bone tossed to all our Jew-hating Pro-Palestinian friends, courtesy of you know what--
Quote
Government Official Who Makes Perfectly Valid, Well-Reasoned Point Against Israel Forced To Resign
May 20, 2011 | ISSUE 47•20
WASHINGTON—State Department diplomat Nelson Milstrand, who appeared on CNN last week and offered an informed, thoughtful analysis implying that Israel could perhaps exercise more restraint toward Palestinian moderates in disputed territories, was asked to resign Tuesday. "The United States deeply regrets any harm Mr. Milstrand's careful, even-tempered, and factually accurate remarks may have caused our democratic partner in the Middle East," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an unequivocal condemnation of the veteran foreign-service officer's perfectly reasonable statements. "U.S. policy toward Israel continues to be one of unconditional support and fawning sycophancy." Milstrand, 63, will reportedly appear at an AIPAC conference to offer a full apology as soon as his trial concludes and his divorce is finalized,
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 23, 2011, 09:21:03 AM
Quote from: Pat on May 22, 2011, 01:49:26 AM
International law is a standing international arrangement, stemming from the principle of pacta sunt servanda, indeed no different from two businessmen entering into contract, or those contracts arising from concludent action (i.e. from acting as though there is a contract, not sure it's the correct term in English).
It's a poor model for analyzing international law from both a descriptive and prescriptive point of view. Descriptively, it doesn't at all capture how international law arises, who the actors are, and how it operates in practice. Prescriptively, it doesn't do the work that proponents of a more vigorous international law regime would want it to do, but at the same time does more than what opponents would want it to do.
Perhaps this is due my relative inexperience but I must say I don't quite see the problem in it being in between two antithetical positions, and if not by pacta sunt servanda, then how does it arise?
Pacta sunt servanda is a principle of private law as between individuals, with the presumption that there is a sovereign in the background. But the subjects of international law (primarily nation-states) are not individuals or akin to individuals, and there is no background supernational sovereign. It's a poor analogy and IMO a dangerous one because it elides over precisely the critical distinctions that make public international law different from private law.
Positively, international law arises from the conduct of international actors. That is states act in certain ways and over time to the extent that conduct becomes regularized or routinized (which may be through written treaties or conventions but may be otherwise), expectations can arise that assume a law-like character. International law is just a loose set of doctrine that attempts to characterize and categorize those expectations and apparent precedents.
The second source of international law is international lawyers themselves - academics, treatise writers, legal entrepeneurs, business advocates and politicians -- who have an interest in representing a particular form of international legal order. By putting forth claims about the substantive content of international law and its status as law, the international lawyers are attempting to create a new legal order in effect ex nihilo. This is a project that is essentially rhetorical at present but could eventually develop into something firmer if international institutions arise in response to effectuate the project. So far, the process is embryonic at best and has encountered resistance.
The term I've heard for that process is "compliance pull".
I think a more accurate description is "making shit up."
Quote from: Caliga on May 23, 2011, 07:18:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 22, 2011, 11:07:10 PM
Lol, I just read the title as The Obama "To Make Important Middle Earth Speech"
"...at my direction, hobbit bowmen of the Shire have located and killed Grima Wormtongue..."
:lol:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 24, 2011, 09:23:21 AM
I think a more accurate description is "making shit up."
Well, this was Franck's thesis about the reality of international law: 'make shit up', and if enough people
act as if it was real, binding rules, eventually they will
become real, binding rules, through the magic of legitimacy.
The problem is that, when shit really hits the fan for states, power talks and legitmacy walks. Apparently.
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 09:46:19 AM
Well, this was Franck's thesis about the reality of international law: 'make shit up', and if enough people act as if it was real, binding rules, eventually they will become real, binding rules, through the magic of legitimacy.
And if they don't, it was just making shit up.
There's a third way actually that I missed which is over time states can create trans-national institutions that serve their respective interests but over time acquire a legitimacy and life of their own. Just as the royal courts in England gradually crowded out other more localized and competing forums because they provided more efficient and effective forms of justice, trans-national institutions can over time prove themselves as a better means of dealing with justiciable problems that are inherently trans-national character. But while in the former case the rise of the royal courts was paralleled and interacted with a rise in royal power (backed by coercive force), that dynamic is not yet occurringwith respect to the latter case, which practically limits its potential.
The EU could potentially gain that power, but I doesn't now and I doubt it ever will.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2011, 10:03:46 AM
There's a third way actually that I missed which is over time states can create trans-national institutions that serve their respective interests but over time acquire a legitimacy and life of their own. Just as the royal courts in England gradually crowded out other more localized and competing forums because they provided more efficient and effective forms of justice, trans-national institutions can over time prove themselves as a better means of dealing with justiciable problems that are inherently trans-national character. But while in the former case the rise of the royal courts was paralleled and interacted with a rise in royal power (backed by coercive force), that dynamic is not yet occurringwith respect to the latter case, which practically limits its potential.
That was also part of Franck's original thesis - that there is legitimacy-creating value in transparently useful and efficient mechanisms of international legal reciprocity.
I can agree that these mechanisms can arise, but like you I'm somewhat skeptical about how far they can go without coercion backing them up. Matters of war and peace - I don't think so; the powerful will never agree to be so limited, and the powerless will not see the imposition on them as legitimate if the powerful aren't bound.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2011, 09:19:22 AM
Pacta sunt servanda is a principle of private law as between individuals, with the presumption that there is a sovereign in the background. But the subjects of international law (primarily nation-states) are not individuals or akin to individuals, and there is no background supernational sovereign. It's a poor analogy and IMO a dangerous one because it elides over precisely the critical distinctions that make public international law different from private law.
.
Pacta sunt servanda has been a principle of international law for many thousands of years, it is probably as old as humanity itself. I quote from Britannica: "The concept known by the Latin formula pacta sunt servanda ("agreements must be kept") is arguably the oldest principle of international law." To say there can be no principles without power backing them up is no less than the very essence of nihilism and power-worship.
QuotePositively, international law arises from the conduct of international actors. That is states act in certain ways and over time to the extent that conduct becomes regularized or routinized (which may be through written treaties or conventions but may be otherwise), expectations can arise that assume a law-like character. International law is just a loose set of doctrine that attempts to characterize and categorize those expectations and apparent precedents.
The second source of international law is international lawyers themselves - academics, treatise writers, legal entrepeneurs, business advocates and politicians -- who have an interest in representing a particular form of international legal order. By putting forth claims about the substantive content of international law and its status as law, the international lawyers are attempting to create a new legal order in effect ex nihilo. This is a project that is essentially rhetorical at present but could eventually develop into something firmer if international institutions arise in response to effectuate the project. So far, the process is embryonic at best and has encountered resistance.
This is an argument from sovereignty, which is an argument from power. You are essentially saying it is the state that is sovereign, it is the state that wields power, it is the state that exists, and everything above states are metaphysics. I say nothing else, except that states should be bound by their word. I would also say that metaphysics is something very important. All human culture and civilization is at their essence metaphysics. They are made up. It is a law of human nature that human activity is inspired by metaphysics since thought must precede action - to fool oneself into denying this is in itself a sort of metaphysics, a set of beliefs. And the point is that principles and morals are not metaphysics at all, even though it may be helpful for some people to see them that way.
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 11:16:56 AM
Pacta sunt servanda has been a principle of international law for many thousands of years, it is probably as old as humanity itself. I quote from Britannica: "The concept known by the Latin formula pacta sunt servanda ("agreements must be kept") is arguably the oldest principle of international law." To say there can be no principles without power backing them up is no less than the very essence of nihilism and power-worship.
This is an argument from sovereignty, which is an argument from power. You are essentially saying it is the state that is sovereign, it is the state that wields power, it is the state that exists, and everything above states are metaphysics. I say nothing else, except that states should be bound by their word. I would also say that metaphysics is something very important. All human culture and civilization is at their essence metaphysics. They are made up. It is a law of human nature that human activity is inspired by metaphysics since thought must precede action - to fool oneself into denying this is in itself a sort of metaphysics, a set of beliefs. And the point is that principles and morals are not metaphysics at all, even though it may be helpful for some people to see them that way.
He's arguing about what is. You are arguing about what ought.
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 11:16:56 AM
Pacta sunt servanda has been a principle of international law for many thousands of years, it is probably as old as humanity itself. I quote from Britannica: "The concept known by the Latin formula pacta sunt servanda ("agreements must be kept") is arguably the oldest principle of international law."
As applied to public international law, it is (as a matter of fact not aspiration) a mere exhortation, based on a false analogy to private contract. International agreements can be and are often are abrogated unlitaterally -- and such abrogation is not a deviant result, but a corollary of a system of independent sovereign states.
QuoteTo say there can be no principles without power backing them up is no less than the very essence of nihilism and power-worship.
Nihilism is power without principles. Utopianism is principles without power. Pragmatism accepts the reality and necessity of both.
Quote from: Malthus on May 24, 2011, 12:16:23 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 11:16:56 AM
Pacta sunt servanda has been a principle of international law for many thousands of years, it is probably as old as humanity itself. I quote from Britannica: "The concept known by the Latin formula pacta sunt servanda ("agreements must be kept") is arguably the oldest principle of international law." To say there can be no principles without power backing them up is no less than the very essence of nihilism and power-worship.
This is an argument from sovereignty, which is an argument from power. You are essentially saying it is the state that is sovereign, it is the state that wields power, it is the state that exists, and everything above states are metaphysics. I say nothing else, except that states should be bound by their word. I would also say that metaphysics is something very important. All human culture and civilization is at their essence metaphysics. They are made up. It is a law of human nature that human activity is inspired by metaphysics since thought must precede action - to fool oneself into denying this is in itself a sort of metaphysics, a set of beliefs. And the point is that principles and morals are not metaphysics at all, even though it may be helpful for some people to see them that way.
He's arguing about what is. You are arguing about what ought.
The metaphysical is. I am also arguing about the dialectics between is and ought, more specifically the matter of whether what is should follow from what ought or if what ought should follow from what is. In the latter there lies danger, and I would say the position of Joan, while not exactly this, could be used to mean this, in which case there is no international law at all, which there clearly is; the principle of pacta sunt servanda has existed for many thousands of years and it has been denied and broken by the powerful but always made it's return, and though denied by some today I'm sure it will be back soon.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2011, 12:35:25 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 11:16:56 AM
Pacta sunt servanda has been a principle of international law for many thousands of years, it is probably as old as humanity itself. I quote from Britannica: "The concept known by the Latin formula pacta sunt servanda ("agreements must be kept") is arguably the oldest principle of international law."
As applied to public international law, it is (as a matter of fact not aspiration) a mere exhortation, based on a false analogy to private contract.
International agreements can be and are often are abrogated unlitaterally -- and such abrogation is not a deviant result, but a corollary of a system of independent sovereign states.
Deviation from the norm does not mean there is no norm. Let us posit a made up country, we can call it Graecia, where the law that you must pay your taxes is not carried out because the state is too weak. By your position that means there is no law, because it is imperfectly or not at all carried out. This is clearly false. It just means it's not followed by those strong who can get away with it (though it is perhaps forced on the weak).
Quote
QuoteTo say there can be no principles without power backing them up is no less than the very essence of nihilism and power-worship.
Nihilism is power without principles. Utopianism is principles without power. Pragmatism accepts the reality and necessity of both.
Are all principles without power utopian?
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 01:05:59 PM
The metaphysical is. I am also arguing about the dialectics between is and ought, more specifically the matter of whether what is should follow from what ought or if what ought should follow from what is. In the latter there lies danger, and I would say the position of Joan, while not exactly this, could be used to mean this, in which case there is no international law at all, which there clearly is; the principle of pacta sunt servanda has existed for many thousands of years and it has been denied and broken by the powerful but always made it's return, and though denied by some today I'm sure it will be back soon.
But there exists a real (not metaphysical) international law. It simply does not operate like domestic law. A better analogy would be to voluntary industry codes of conduct and dispute resolution - existing in a world without courts to back them up.
Arbitration, under such circumstances, may *look* like a court process and have all the *trappings* of (say) contract law, but it always operates with the understanding that, at base, it is voluntary and those submitting to arbitration will only do so as long as they believe being part of the system serves their interests - for example, accepting a loss in any one conflict because, over time, support for the system is "worth it" - having a just and equitable system of dispute resolution is worth any individual loss.
Matters of peace and war can easily take on aspects of a zero-sum game and are not easily susceptible to this sort of arbitration. The reason ought to be obvious: there is so much at stake that no country sees it being "worth it" to accept a loss in any individual conflict, in order to support the system. Particularly if "the system" is neither just nor impartial to begin with.
The Israel-Palestine matter is a perfect example. Some contend that the very existence of Israel as a state is illegal or unjust. Israel could not ever voluntarily accept arbitrating the matter, because what if they lost?
In short, one may voluntarily accept arbitrating matters like the import tariffs on beets, because what you lose on beets you may gain on spinach. One may not voluntarily arbitrate putting one's head in a noose - that requires someone with guns to
make you do it.
Well if you think it is very unreasonable to follow the law in a specific case I guess you can always break it (which is easy in Intl. law) but that doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 01:39:51 PM
Well if you think it is very unreasonable to follow the law in a specific case I guess you can always break it (which is easy in Intl. law) but that doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.
There is certainly a creature entitled "international law", but it is not really like domestic law - it doesn't operate in the same way at all; its sources and dynamics are different. Most significantly, it lacks any sovereign. Even domestic voluntary arbitration ultimately has the recourse of a sovereign to fall back on - if the arbitration fails, you can always fall back on suing the bastards in the regular courts; and arbitration awards are often legally enforcable.
"International law" is basically no more nor less than voluntary arbitration of disputes between nations, interpreted through the lens of customs, treaties, and the added organisms of the United Nations - a pseudo-Parliament that goes perfectly with the making of pseudo-Law.
The UN is an even worse analogue for a sovereign government, than International Law is for law - in fact, it adds a layer of obvious injustice to muddy custom and treaty, since its "parliament" is made up of sovereign nations each with a vote regardless of population, and its "governing council" is dominated, right or wrong, by the victors of WW2.
I know there's no real sovereign, and I know it doesn't work the same. I'm just saying it exists and that there's a principle that agreements should be kept in it.
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 02:21:34 PM
I know there's no real sovereign, and I know it doesn't work the same. I'm just saying it exists and that there's a principle that agreements should be kept in it.
But there isn't, really. The principles of international law are created through custom, and a sovereign state customarily retains the freedom to break its agreements whenever it chooses.
And then the other state(s) becomes angry, because it broke the law.
This freedom to break arrangements does exist under Intl. law but is not absolute. Like in the Vienna convention on treaties (quote from wiki):
"A party may claim that a treaty should be terminated, even absent an express provision, if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. Such a change is sufficient if unforeseen, if it undermined the "essential basis" of consent by a party, if it radically transforms the extent of obligations between the parties, and if the obligations are still to be performed. A party cannot base this claim on change brought about by its own breach of the treaty. This claim also cannot be used to invalidate treaties that established or redrew political boundaries."
International Law is a living document. :D
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 02:26:47 PM
And then the other state(s) becomes angry, because it broke the law.
They tend not to, because states appreciate that international law isn't like real law.
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 01:05:59 PM
You are essentially saying it is the state that is sovereign, it is the state that wields power, it is the state that exists, and everything above states are metaphysics. I say nothing else, except that states should be bound by their word . . . the principle of pacta sunt servanda has existed for many thousands of years and it has been denied and broken by the powerful but always made it's return, and though denied by some today I'm sure it will be back soon.
States don't have a "word" to break or be bound by. States are agglomerations of people in a political community and are delineated by their self-definition and their action. The essence of the state is its own preservation as such, the protection of the individuals within it, and the effectuation of the aims and goals of those individuals. That is what drives all interaction of a state with the outside world. So pacta sunt servanda not only does not accurately describe how states really behave, it is also (prescriptively) as a principle inconsistent with the very concept of a system of independent states. Because if an interstate agreement comes into conflict with a fundamental policy of one of the states to the agreement, then the state in order to retain its quality as such, *must* reject the principle of pacta sunt servanda, i.e. the principle of "keeping to one's word" must yield to the contradictory needs and aspirations of the community.
This is not a question of the "powerful' rejecting the principle - states both weak and strong must reject it in order to maintain their quality as states. Indeed, you are so focused on the case of a powerful state rejecting purported international norms that you are missing the alternative case of a powerful state *asserting* an international norm to legitimize its infringement upon the sovereignty of a weaker state. this can be seen today with the Western powers in Libya, and with China in the South China Sea.
QuoteThe metaphysical is. I am also arguing about the dialectics between is and ought, more specifically the matter of whether what is should follow from what ought or if what ought should follow from what is. In the latter there lies danger, and I would say the position of Joan, while not exactly this, could be used to mean this, in which case there is no international law at all, which there clearly is;
My point is different -- rather than there being an "international law" there are "international laws" - or to put it another way, there is an "international law" but its content and import are contested and amorphous. By phrasing the matter in metaphysical terms - ie as a matter of applying abstract principles of universal natural law to concretes in international relations - one takes a particular form of the "ought" and asserts to be the "is", only not yet fully realized. This is the Hegelian move of asserting the rational as real. But it begs the question - which (or whose) rationality? The metaphysical argument is just a way of getting around the contested nature of the status and content of international law rather than engaging with those objections.
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2011, 02:51:09 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 02:26:47 PM
And then the other state(s) becomes angry, because it broke the law.
They tend not to, because states appreciate that international law isn't like real law.
Some do. Remember when some countries risked their relations with this really big country by saying "um guys there's this thing called intl. law" and then people in the big country got really angry because it obviously didn't apply to them?
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 02:54:49 PM
Some do. Remember when some countries risked their relations with this really big country by saying "um guys there's this thing called intl. law" and then people in the big country got really angry because it obviously didn't apply to them?
Not really.
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 02:54:49 PM
Quote from: Neil on May 24, 2011, 02:51:09 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 02:26:47 PM
And then the other state(s) becomes angry, because it broke the law.
They tend not to, because states appreciate that international law isn't like real law.
Some do. Remember when some countries risked their relations with this really big country by saying "um guys there's this thing called intl. law" and then people in the big country got really angry because it obviously didn't apply to them?
Yeah, and did they declare war on that big country? Impose sanctions? Nope.
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 02:54:49 PM
Some do. Remember when some countries risked their relations with this really big country by saying "um guys there's this thing called intl. law" and then people in the big country got really angry because it obviously didn't apply to them?
Is this a reference to France and Britain violating the Kellogg-Briand Pact in 1939 by declaring war on Germany?
I don't precisely recall the diplomatic fallout from this.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2011, 03:02:17 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 02:54:49 PM
Some do. Remember when some countries risked their relations with this really big country by saying "um guys there's this thing called intl. law" and then people in the big country got really angry because it obviously didn't apply to them?
Is this a reference to France and Britain violating the Kellogg-Briand Pact in 1939 by declaring war on Germany?
I don't precisely recall the diplomatic fallout from this.
IIRC, Poland somehow kind of ended up getting screwed by the resolution of the whole mess.
:hmm: Yeah, I don't think Pat thought through his example.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2011, 02:53:55 PM
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 01:05:59 PM
You are essentially saying it is the state that is sovereign, it is the state that wields power, it is the state that exists, and everything above states are metaphysics. I say nothing else, except that states should be bound by their word . . . the principle of pacta sunt servanda has existed for many thousands of years and it has been denied and broken by the powerful but always made it's return, and though denied by some today I'm sure it will be back soon.
States don't have a "word" to break or be bound by. States are agglomerations of people in a political community and are delineated by their self-definition and their action. The essence of the state is its own preservation as such, the protection of the individuals within it, and the effectuation of the aims and goals of those individuals. That is what drives all interaction of a state with the outside world.
To say a state merely is a bunch of individuals is true but is reductionist like saying the Mona Lisa is merely paint on a canvas (and the paint is merely a mixture of ingredients, that are merely different chemicals, that are merely atoms, etc). A state is expected to represent those individuals as a collective to the outside world. This is not a lege ferenda argument. It doesn't matter that the Greek state was weak or if it didn't really represent it's citizens or whatever - the rest of the world still has the right to hold Greece to it's obligations. I might remind you of all the third world countries that are still paying off huge debts to first world countries, way more than what they recieve in aid, not seldomly racked up by buying tons of weapons when their government was a pawn in the cold war and didn't represent the people at all. Why don't you try tell them pacta sunt servanda doesn't exist?
QuoteSo pacta sunt servanda not only does not accurately describe how states really behave, it is also (prescriptively) as a principle inconsistent with the very concept of a system of independent states. Because if an interstate agreement comes into conflict with a fundamental policy of one of the states to the agreement, then the state in order to retain its quality as such, *must* reject the principle of pacta sunt servanda, i.e. the principle of "keeping to one's word" must yield to the contradictory needs and aspirations of the community. This is not a question of the "powerful' rejecting the principle - states both weak and strong must reject it in order to maintain their quality as states.
No it's not inconsistent. It's perfectly consistent. You can break treaties without any provision for doing so in the treaty if the circumstances considerably change and that's OK with intl. law, I even posted a summary of what it says in the Vienna convention in this very thread just a few posts ago. And presumably states should be expected not to sign stupid treaties just as individuals should be expected not to sign stupid contracts.
Quote
Indeed, you are so focused on the case of a powerful state rejecting purported international norms that you are missing the alternative case of a powerful state *asserting* an international norm to legitimize its infringement upon the sovereignty of a weaker state. this can be seen today with the Western powers in Libya, and with China in the South China Sea.
That's a terrible argument and you're absolutely wrong, since, actually, it's the inconsistancy and hypocrisy that bothers me.
Quote
QuoteThe metaphysical is. I am also arguing about the dialectics between is and ought, more specifically the matter of whether what is should follow from what ought or if what ought should follow from what is. In the latter there lies danger, and I would say the position of Joan, while not exactly this, could be used to mean this, in which case there is no international law at all, which there clearly is;
My point is different -- rather than there being an "international law" there are "international laws" - or to put it another way, there is an "international law" but its content and import are contested and amorphous. By phrasing the matter in metaphysical terms - ie as a matter of applying abstract principles of universal natural law to concretes in international relations - one takes a particular form of the "ought" and asserts to be the "is", only not yet fully realized. This is the Hegelian move of asserting the rational as real. But it begs the question - which (or whose) rationality? The metaphysical argument is just a way of getting around the contested nature of the status and content of international law rather than engaging with those objections.
[/quote]
I agree that there is an international law but that it's content and import are contested and amorphous. Taking the Ought and asserting it as the Is is what all law does. Same thing with that it's not fully realized, that can be said of all law. Which (or whose) rationality is a good question. I'd say the rationality that has been more or less constant in explicit form for thousands of years and is probably as old as our specie or perhaps even older (I'm sure you can find tons examples of the
principle of pacta sunt servanda (not the law) even in the animal world). So, yeah, that rationality.
Quote from: Pat on May 24, 2011, 03:56:46 PM
A state is expected to represent those individuals as a collective to the outside world.
All the more reason it is inconsistent for a state to constrain its action in the name of an abstract principle where that principle may conflict with the needs of those its represents.
QuoteI might remind you of all the third world countries that are still paying off huge debts to first world countries, way more than what they recieve in aid, not seldomly racked up by buying tons of weapons when their government was a pawn in the cold war and didn't represent the people at all. Why don't you try tell them pacta sunt servanda doesn't exist?
I don't have to tell them - they already know. A debtor state makes a calculation about the costs and benefits of the default - the general legal principle is not a factor. So e.g. Argentina decides it is better off defaulting and assuming the consequences - pacta sunt servanda be damned. Note that there was little consequence of significance to Argentina from doing this at the state level - rather the fallout such as it has been principally related to the reaction of private debt holders and the international bond markets.
QuoteYou can break treaties without any provision for doing so in the treaty if the circumstances considerably change and that's OK with intl. law, I even posted a summary of what it says in the Vienna convention in this very thread just a few posts ago.
This is an exception that swallows up the whole; state relations internally and externally are inherently dynamic and circumstances are always changing.
This is the problem when one takes a private law doctrine like contract and apply it to an alien sphere like international relations. In contract, the principle that agreements are to be enforced is hedged about by all sorts of exceptions deriving from the organic public policy of the state. Absent international consensus on the contours of desirable public policy, such a doctrine cannot be transplanted into international public law. And beyond that, in contract there is the ultimate out of "efficient breach" - a contracting party can always choose to break the agreement and pay damages if the cost of doing so would be less than the cost of adhering to the agreement. That is an essential aspect of contract, but one not easily carried over into international law.
QuoteThat's a terrible argument and you're absolutely wrong, since, actually, it's the inconsistancy and hypocrisy that bothers me.
Why is it wrong? What is the hypocrisy?
QuoteWhich (or whose) rationality is a good question. I'd say the rationality that has been more or less constant in explicit form for thousands of years and is probably as old as our specie or perhaps even older (I'm sure you can find tons examples of the principle of pacta sunt servanda (not the law) even in the animal world). So, yeah, that rationality.
So the appeal is to natural law. I don't agree even as a matter of private law - the principle that one should do what one commits to do (which is what pacta sunt servanda reduces to) does not strike me as inherently obvious or natural.
Focusing on the principle as an international law concept, it strikes me as an odd basic principle. As a liberal, I would say that the basic "natural" or "rational" principle of state should be that the state should protect the liberty of its citizens and effectuate the ends of its free citizens as expressed through a free and democratic political process. But that requires that the free, liberal state act autonomously with respect to the outside world, and to reverse itself with respect to external commitments when domestic political will so commands. And that is inconsistent with pacta sunt servanda as a foundational concept of international law.
Quote from: dps on May 24, 2011, 03:04:51 PM
IIRC, Poland somehow kind of ended up getting screwed by the resolution of the whole mess.
AFAIK there is no actual or possible system of international law or relations that does not result in Poland getting screwed.
"Let's settle here between the Germans and the Russians, what could possibly go wrong?"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2011, 05:00:09 PM
Quote from: dps on May 24, 2011, 03:04:51 PM
IIRC, Poland somehow kind of ended up getting screwed by the resolution of the whole mess.
AFAIK there is no actual or possible system of international law or relations that does not result in Poland getting screwed.
"Let's settle here between the Germans and the Russians, what could possibly go wrong?"
To be fair, when they did settle the Germans were getting the snot beaten out of the my the Hungarians and the Russians were getting the snot beat out of them by Varangians and Finnish tribesmen. The odds of both of these pathetic losers getting their act together is rather low...
Quote from: Malthus on May 20, 2011, 09:15:11 AM
There is nothing new in the speech re Israel/Palestine, it is just reaffermation of previous positions.
What is new, is Bibi's rejectionist stance. There can be no peace progress with Bibi in charge, since he'll just find ways to reject everything.
Mind you, any progress at all appears unlikely these days, given the recent PA-Hamas amalgamation - with Hamas insisting as a condition that there be no backing down from its 'kill everyone in Israel' policy.
It's going to be hard to get any negotiations going with Bibi on one end, and a Hamas-dominated PA on the other. Obama's speech is whistling in the wind - until, that is, those two problems (Bibi and Hamas/PA) are solved.
I agree - though I think the Hamas-Fatah thing is more interesting in the context of the Arab spring and should be treated with suspicion but could end up as a positive step - that it's pretty disheartening.
I think Bibi could, and I think wants, to make peace. But his coalition partners are ultra hard-line and frankly racist and I think Bibi is, understandably, very scared with what's happening throughout the region. I still think if Israel still had Sharon things would have gone better over the last few years.
QuoteI saw President Obama in another speech, I think it was his first Mid East speech. In that he said just the opposite, that Israel going back to the 1967 borders was not an option, that they should keep their capitol in Jersualem, etc. So this latest speech appears to be going back on that?
His line hasn't changed - the US line hasn't changed since Johnson. 1967, with land swaps, is the basis of any deal in terms of territory. It's been Israel's position for a long while and, according to the Palestine papers, was the basis of negotiations by the Palestinians too. Bibi's demand that the Palestinian Authority recognise Israel as a Jewish state is relatively new. Generally Israel's been happy saying 'we're the Jewish state' and the Palestinian Authority saying 'we recognise Israel'. That's a sophist workaround but that happens.
Quote
Because up until around Sabra and Shatila the story of Israel was very much a plucky David fighting off several Goliaths. Starving Auschwitz survivers sneak through a British blockade and pick up smuggled Sten guns to battle massive professional armies from the entire Arab world to protect their *UN recognized* independence.
The question I've got for you is why Europe decided to throw Israel under the bus in 1967.
Europe doesn't; France does. Britain continues to be close to Israel to the present day and Germany never criticises them. In terms of population I think a few things happen. The New Left self-identifies with national liberation movements and Third Worldism, plus there's an aspect of terrorist chich - while it's distant, I think Munich, the RAF, the Red Brigades and the rest tarnish this a bit. I think there's post-colonial guilt, which is really just an extension of sympathising with those national liberation movements. I also think that in continental Europe implicitly unbreakable support of Israel, like Atlanticism, was part of the hypocritical post-war settlement and after 67 successive generations feel less commitment and more hostility to that because their personal guilt over the war is gone. Also Exodus wasn't a bestseller.
There is a risk for Israel I think if she stops looking like the only plucky little democracy in the region and if she starts to face anything like the sort of protests we've seen elsewhere in the Arab world.
QuoteHell, a lot of US support for Isreal is just because of moral disgust with the Holocaust. But Viking is right, a lot of it was also Nassar accepting Soviet aid.
I think Israeli support of the US is important too. I mean the Soviets make a massive play for Israel immediately after independence. I think perhaps the American openness (more open-minded to a democratic socialist government backed by the USSR than in the rest of the Cold War at least) mixed with the start of anti-semitic purges begins to change things prior to Nasser and make the Israelis more amenable to the US and the Soviets needing a new Middle Eastern friend.
Quote
Thing is, the US was the first country to recognized Israel. So it goes back further then that.
The USSR was.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 24, 2011, 04:56:14 PM
So the appeal is to natural law. I don't agree even as a matter of private law - the principle that one should do what one commits to do (which is what pacta sunt servanda reduces to) does not strike me as inherently obvious or natural.
It doesn't? Why not?
Quote
Focusing on the principle as an international law concept, it strikes me as an odd basic principle. As a liberal, I would say that the basic "natural" or "rational" principle of state should be that the state should protect the liberty of its citizens and effectuate the ends of its free citizens as expressed through a free and democratic political process. But that requires that the free, liberal state act autonomously with respect to the outside world, and to reverse itself with respect to external commitments when domestic political will so commands. And that is inconsistent with pacta sunt servanda as a foundational concept of international law.
This seems to be the core of our disagreement and the rest is going nowhere so I'll go from here.
What is the rational or natural basis of that? If it's something like a social contract then that's pacta sunt servanda (the various attempts to derive society from contracts and agreements against all empiricism are themselves a testimony to pacta sunt servanda being one of the oldest and most central principles of law).
Anyway, the people should elect responsible representatives or be held responsible. If there's a trend of elected representatives acting really partisan in matters of long term foreign agreements you can always require that treaties should be ratified by parliamentary majority, and if that doesn't work, you can make it a qualified majority. So that's not really a problem.
BTW lege ferenda I would argue that the case for pacta sunt servanda (henceforth: PSS) is strongest as applies to democracies since then the states actually represent the people. It's much harder to justify when it comes to a people being held responsible to what a brutal dictatorship decided for them many regime changes ago when they didn't have say in it. Then I can agree it's a bad principle.
I should have been more clear in my earlier post - my basic objection is to the concept of natural law in the first place. Positing PSS as a natural principle is a good illustration of the problems associated with natural law as a theory. As a matter of empirical reality, human beings often renege on commitments - indeed reneging on commitments is probably more common than keeping to them (think of New Year's Resolutions or "till death do us part"). So for PSS to be a natural law concept, the claim must be that notwithstanding the obvious fact that actual people (in "nature") often violate the principle, there is some reason nonetheless to conceive of it as a normative command. But so such reason has been advanced here and I cannot think of one. On the contrary, it seems to me there are good reasons why human beings should not be compelled to be bound by their commitments (e.g. because of the inherently dynamic and changing nature of human experience). I.e one could easily posit the contrary of PSS as the normative rule, with the PSS principle being a policy-based (expediency) exception to that rule carved out for certain particular kinds of intercourse (e.g. certain kinds of commercial transactions, land transactions in writing, etc.).
Thus, when I stated "as a liberal, I would say that the basic 'natural' or 'rational' principle of state should be [X]", I did not mean to state that there actually was a "natural" or "rational" principle of state. Rather I meant that to the extent I would recognize a principle for the organization of a state it would be along liberal democratic lines, not because liberal democracy is a "natural" principle of state, but because I happen to be a liberal democrat by conviction.
I do stand by the claim that a liberal democratic state is not consistent with strong adherance to PSS externally and I think your response demonstrates that fact. You state:
QuoteAnyway, the people should elect responsible representatives or be held responsible.
Which is tantamount to explaining that in order to maintain consistency with PSS, democracy must be (and should be?) constrained such that the people only elect the "right" representatives ("responsible" representatives who will constrain state action to conform with PSS). Then:
QuoteIf there's a trend of elected representatives acting really partisan in matters of long term foreign agreements you can always require that treaties should be ratified by parliamentary majority, and if that doesn't work, you can make it a qualified majority
That requirement actually exists in the US (partially - the Senate must ratify) but it doesn't respond to the objection because legislative majorities in democratic states are ephemeral. Indeed, public objection to foreign treaty terms can be a basis for the fall of a legislative majority.