Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Kapture1]

It was the first time the Obama administration abstained from voting against an anti-Israeli resolution. It certainly wasn't the first time the US has abstained. It's all symbolic nonsense, just like Trump's pronouncement yesterday. At best he doesn't know what he's doing and is just throwing red meat, at worst he's hoping for backlash. Whatever.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Kapture...your name should be Rapture...

[Dr. Strangelove]

Talent- I'll give this a try.

The UN Resolution is found here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2334.pdf

I do not see language that suggests all Jews must leave East Jerusalem. I DO see language that 'negative trends on the ground should be reversed' which I take to refer to the broader settlement activity. Note it does not 'completely reversed'.

The wisdom of the two-state solution is debatable. But Israel's Jewish demographic problem is a much bigger issue if you assume one-state only is the way forward. How do you maintain Israel being a "Jewish State" if Jews are eventually outnumbered by Arab Muslims and Arab Christians? I think there is good reason to be concerned that, yes, the Far Right in Israel will increasingly have influence over decisions and influence the writing of future laws governing citizenship, rights, and privileges.

[froot loops]

2334 is more explicit but 1435 calls for it in a less direct way.

[Ed Balzer]

Congress passed a law (1995) that said Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Clinton, Bush, and Obama were not willing to follow the law. Six months ago, a unanimous Senate voted to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Once again, Trump is following the law of the United States...

In substance, there was no difference between Dubya, both Clintons, and Obama. They knew that US recognition of moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem would hurt their cooperative relations with pro-western Sunni nations like the six gulf states, Jordan and Egypt. That is why all the neocons supported Hillary in 2016, why Bush's reputation is being rehabilitated, and why John McCain is their new hero.

Trump is probably one of our smartest presidents ever, and to quote Dune... "I see plans within plans." One of the worst things a US president could do to Israel is recognize Jerusalem, as that has potential to weaken alliances. Trump is no ally of Israel; he stopped funding for the 'good terrorists' in Syria causing Daesh to collapse, he did not support Barzani's power play in Iraqi Kurdistan, and he is pulling US support for the Syrian Kurds. Time will tell how the purge in Saudi Arabia turns out, but the biggest losers have been those closest to the Clinton Foundation which was very much pro-Israel.

... which pisses off the progs here.

You (and 99+% of conservatives) need to understand the difference between liberals and progressives.
- Liberals (aka libtards) are pro-Hillary Democrats, and only pretend to believe the incoherent bullshit they spew.
- Progressives (like libertarians) are neither Democrat nor Republican, because both are full of the same shit.

Why are the progs here so adamantly anti-Jewish?

As a progressive I hid it well, by supporting a Jew for president.

FYI... after the Dem primary was stolen by the most corrupt person on the planet, I voted for Trump in the general.

[hack]

Israel is in some ways our most advanced democratic civil society. Citizens can challenge military policy in courts. A legit civil-society movement exists in a country that, metaphorically, wakes up every day staring into the barrel of a gun. In 1967, as France and Belgium were still holding tight to their African colonies, Haaretz' official editorial position in the wake of the Six Day War was that the land would have to be given back. These are astonishing examples of human progress toward a just global society.

That said, demographics is destiny. Israel will soon be led exclusively by religious monsters, and probably become a rogue state. I don't know if we should be making policy based on the Israel that is or that was, or on the deal that was originally struck and from which reality has departed so severely. I do know that the reality is continuing to coddle Israel is just going to create bigger problems down the line. I have no answers, but I'm certain that there is no place for certainty about any of it.

Applicable lessons here: education is so important. This conflict thrives because education is politicized in those places. It should not be in America, but that's the direction in which we are moving.

[Ed Balzer]

Tearing up TPP -- fucking retarded. Backing Israel. Huzzah. Especially after Obama disgraceful UN parting gift abstention.

With all due respect Mr. Il Talento, this is very 'liberal'.

How was TPP worth passing?

Note that there are very extreme differences between being Jew-friendly, pro-Israel, and an apologist for Netanyahu.

[iam416]

DSL:

Here's the language I'd point to:

Condemning all measures aimed at altering the demographic composition,
character and status of the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East
Jerusalem, including, inter alia, the construction and expansion of settlements,
transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes and
displacement of Palestinian civilians, in violation of international humanitarian law
and relevant resolutions,

And then (the same thing, but actually part of the formal resolution):

1. Reaffirms that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the
Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal
validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major
obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and
comprehensive peace

And then they blame Israel (IMO):

4. Stresses that the cessation of all Israeli settlement activities is essential
for salvaging the two-State solution, and calls for affirmative steps to be taken
immediately to reverse the negative trends on the ground that are imperilling the
two-State solution

And finally:

9. Urges in this regard the intensification and acceleration of international
and regional diplomatic efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay a
comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant
United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of
land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the
Israeli occupation that began in 1967; and underscores in this regard the importance
of the ongoing efforts to advance the Arab Peace Initiative, the initiative of France
for the convening of an international peace conference, the recent efforts of the
Quartet, as well as the efforts of Egypt and the Russian Federation;

I mean, look, this thing was DRAFTED BY PALESTINE (and proposed by Egypt).

When you say that all settlements after 1967 are illegal and urge international pressure to end the occupation that began in 1967 you are saying, explicitly, return to the 1967 borders. And that, unequivocally, means East Jerusalem. I take the above quotes to mean COMPLETELY REVERSED.

Obama's UN Delegate said this:

Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 undermine Israel?s security, harm the viability of a negotiated two-state outcome, and erode prospects for peace and security,

Again, when you go with 1967 you're fairly clear on where you stand. That's why I read that resolution the way I do and why I think it's bullshit. YMMV.

To the larger point:

The wisdom of the two-state solution is debatable. But Israel's Jewish demographic problem is a much bigger issue if you assume one-state only is the way forward. How do you maintain Israel being a "Jewish State" if Jews are eventually outnumbered by Arab Muslims and Arab Christians? I think there is good reason to be concerned that, yes, the Far Right in Israel will increasingly have influence over decisions and influence the writing of future laws governing citizenship, rights, and privileges.

I don't know enough to agree or disagree on demographics, but taking that to be true, then it's certainly reasonably that hard-line Israelis will rise in power. I don't know where Israel stands on two-state right now. We do know that they were more than willing in 2000 with the East Jerusalem exception. It's certainly reasonable to argue that that rebuff made it possible for the right to rise -- right? If a two-state solution isn't possible -- if you believe that there is no way in hell the other side will ever agree to a two-state solution, then you slowly lurch in the direction they did (and will continue to if you're thoughts on demographics are correct).

That's an interesting discussion for Israel. I'm not sure, TBH, how it affects a non-existent peace process. Nor do I think it's related to the UN.

[Ed Balzer]

I can't imagine thinking that (a) it's appropriate for Israel to all the way back to 1967...

That ship sailed long ago, just like restoring all lands once dominated by native Americans in the US and restoring Erdely (Transylvania) to Hungary. Can you with any degree of honesty say that either the West Bank or Gaza have been given any chance of being viable autonomous regions by the Israeli government?

And you must recognize that the battle has been one-sided since 1948 (due to foreign aid), and Israel's might makes right approach has been the greatest impediment to peace.

[iam416]

But you must recognize that the battle has been one-sided since 1948 (due to foreign aid), and Israel's might makes right approach has been the greatest impediment to peace

The conjunctive is problematic. I recognize that Israel has military supremacy amongst its neighbors. No doubt. I can and do freely piss on the premise that Israeli military strength has been the "greatest impediment" to peace.

[THE_WIZARD_]

Strong words from Ed the ball lover...

[iam416]

To the actual issue at hand, as hack continues to correctly point out, the embassy in Jerusalem thing has to be viewed with the Saudis in mind. Well, probably.

In the larger geopolitical space, a known pro-Israel country recognizing Jerusalem as the capital because, you know, it is has to be weighed against Saudi interests (and others) in the behemoth Shia power sitting across the gulf. My guess is that the Saudis still care way more about Iran then some symbolic stuff. Dem boys in Tehran ain't symbolic.

[iam416]

The Wizard=Ed Balzer=The Prophet

[THE_WIZARD_]

The Wizard=Ed Balzer=The Prophet

I am planning on killing you...fucker...

[Ed Balzer]

And you must recognize that the battle has been one-sided since 1948 (due to foreign aid), and Israel's might makes right approach has been the greatest impediment to peace.

The conjunctive is problematic. I recognize that Israel has military supremacy amongst its neighbors. No doubt. I can and do freely piss on the premise that Israeli military strength has been the "greatest impediment" to peace.

I can freely piss on that too, as you did a Hillary and built a strawman argument.

For example Myanmar has used the power of the state to suppress democracy (might makes right, as I stated), but they are far from having "military supremacy amongst its neighbors" (as you creatively replied to).