Trump recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/middleeast/trump-jerusalem-israel-capital.html

So the madman did it, he has not implemented the biannual presidential weaving of the moving of the capital like Clinton, Bush and Obama had every 6 months (and he had done once after taking office), making the move and recognition of Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv, as the capital of Israel, official, making the US the first major power to do so (I say that because I'm unaware of any other country that has and don't want to say none have and then find out a small nation does).

This move was a long time coming (it was under the Clinton administration the bill was passed after all) but better late then never.

First Taiwan and now this. Trump is just going to blunder us into a WW3 at this rate if he keeps breaching matters that aren't supposed to be breached.

Probably not a good idea and liable to cause massive discontent, but in the end, it's just the way things are going.

The Palestinians are slowly but surely being ethnically cleansed out virtually any part of the occupied territories worth a damn, and it's obvious by now no-one's going to stop it.

May as well just get on with it until they're all crammed into a handful of small, worthless, urban concentration camps like Gaza Strip and Hebron, because that's the endgame that's obviously developing.

It's like lighting a match while you're surrounded by gasoline. Absolute insanity.

Agema:
The Palestinians are slowly but surely being ethnically cleansed....

Glad someone came out and said it.

I'm really struggling to care what happens to Palestine and Israel these days. They both seem like they deserve each other.

So will the American embassy come with big shooting shield painted over it?

You know a conversation is going well when one side is talking about genuine examples of ethnic cleansing, and the other is talking about what the bible says.

God damn, if Erdogan is telling you your decisions are too malevolent, you should probably start being more self-reflective.

And of course people are comfortably disconnected to not care. Of course it's just some words that effect no westerners, so it's all fucking good, of bloody course. Out of sight, out of mind.

Goddamnit, there's going to be a big war in the Middle East? I was all set for the big war in SE Asia, has that been cancelled?

Thaluikhain:
Goddamnit, there's going to be a big war in the Middle East? I was all set for the big war in SE Asia, has that been cancelled?

You're Australian. You should know by now a big war in SEA means a big war in Oceania. And I was geared up for that in 2001 ... alas I'm too old now. Old and apathetic.

It's so pleasing that both the World War and Intifada trilogies are going to get their concluding installment soon.

Thaluikhain:
Goddamnit, there's going to be a big war in the Middle East? I was all set for the big war in SE Asia, has that been cancelled?

I think the fact that the world didn't respond to the Rohingya genocide prevented that as being the cause of the next world war.

Agema:
The Palestinians are slowly but surely being ethnically cleansed out virtually any part of the occupied territories worth a damn, and it's obvious by now no-one's going to stop it.

Honest question here, zero sarcasm intended, but can you think of a solution that both sides would agree to at this point? I've heard people talk about 2000 and Camp David as the last chance to solve the issue, but I think this slow creeping issue was rendered unsolvable in a two-state form ever since 1978 or even maybe 1967. While I'd like a two-state (or more) solution, I see that as something Israel would never accept considering their string of military victories. As long as the USA is willing to back Israel no matter what they do (and this will remain the case for the foreseeable future) I don't see them coming to the table.

CM156:
Honest question here, zero sarcasm intended, but can you think of a solution that both sides would agree to at this point?

Not of their own volition, which is why political pressure is needed. It's probably not obvious in the US because public support for Israel is assured, but Israel spends a lot of diplomatic energy on trying to improve its image overseas and limit the impact of negative PR caused by the occupation. In the UK and other English speaking countries there is a small movement, mostly artists and academics, advocating a cultural boycott of Israel. This is apparently such a big issue that Israel has made it illegal for its citizens to advocate any kind of boycott, and has refused VISAs to people who have.

While you're correct that the seemingly unconditional US backing for Israel makes this far more difficult, if European countries were to impose economic sanctions, break off relations or otherwise act punitively it would constitute a pretty severe punishment. The problem is that most European countries are still deeply divided on the issue of Israel, and there's also the spectre of anti-semitism, which I think would have to be decisively confronted and exorcised. All in all, nothing is going to happen any time soon, and probably not at all, but you never know.

evilthecat:
In the UK and other English speaking countries there is a small movement, mostly artists and academics, advocating a cultural boycott of Israel.

BDS?

This is apparently such a big issue that Israel has made it illegal for its citizens to advocate any kind of boycott, and has refused VISAs to people who have.

They've also lobbied for making it so academic agencies that receive state funding can't get involved, right?

While you're correct that the seemingly unconditional US backing for Israel makes this far more difficult, if European countries were to impose economic sanctions, break off relations or otherwise act punitively it would constitute a pretty severe punishment. The problem is that most European countries are still deeply divided on the issue of Israel, and there's also the spectre of anti-semitism, which I think would have to be decisively confronted and exorcised.

Yeah. Germany and France are the economic powerhouses of the EU, correct? Both of them (especially Germany) sorta has an issue with Jews. Historically.

All in all, nothing is going to happen any time soon, and probably not at all, but you never know.

I mean, on an individual level, we could threaten to boycott products that come from Israeli settlements. But that's not going to do much. The structure of the UN not only insulates security council members, but any state they wish to protect from severe punishment. See Syria with Russia, North Korea with China (though less of that, somewhat, now a days), and Israel with the USA (I couldn't think of a recent example with either the UK or France).

It's not really big as people think, Jews letting go of Jerusalem is as likely as Muslims letting go of the Kaaba. There is no way to give the city or "split" it and it should be established instead of ignored.

I mean Jerusalem has a massive part in Jewish culture: http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/542288/jewish/Why-Break-a-Glass-at-a-Wedding.htm

Agema:

The Palestinians are slowly but surely being ethnically cleansed out virtually any part of the occupied territories worth a damn, and it's obvious by now no-one's going to stop it.

Dear god, Ethnical Cleansing? Really? Why not just go with Israeli death camps?

evilthecat:

Not of their own volition, which is why political pressure is needed. It's probably not obvious in the US because public support for Israel is assured, but Israel spends a lot of diplomatic energy on trying to improve its image overseas and limit the impact of negative PR caused by the occupation.

Israel already had political preassure under Obama who went ahead with the idea The Israeli side is to blame for everything and it didn't go so well, in the end the problem in my opinion is that EU and the USA keep thinking of the Palestininans as retarded children being bullied rather than an actual group which should be held to its actions and strive to non-violence (which is the only way for peace).

In the UK and other English speaking countries there is a small movement, mostly artists and academics, advocating a cultural boycott of Israel. This is apparently such a big issue that Israel has made it illegal for its citizens to advocate any kind of boycott, and has refused VISAs to people who have.

Didn't the EU had merchandise from the occupied territories marked? Maybe they should marked product from Israel with a yellow star of david.

inu-kun:

Agema:

The Palestinians are slowly but surely being ethnically cleansed out virtually any part of the occupied territories worth a damn, and it's obvious by now no-one's going to stop it.

Dear god, Ethnical Cleansing? Really? Why not just go with Israeli death camps?

When a bunch of people in Israel gather in rallies to celebrate the murder of a Palestinian (and venerating the murderer as a hero), those don't seem too far off. When those same people chant "A Jew is a soul, an Arab is a son of a whore" and "Kill them all", that doesn't seem too far off.

inu-kun:
and strive to non-violence (which is the only way for peace).

I assume you'll be voting for the party advocating unilateral disarmament of the IDF, then?

Well, this is not great in the short term, but given that my understanding is that the long term goal of the peace process was to have Jerusalem as the capital of both states, surely it's a move towards that? Sure, that's not the reason Trump did this, but if it prompts further diplomatic efforts to throw the Palestinians a bone it could actually be good in the long run.

Seanchaidh:
I assume you'll be voting for the party advocating unilateral disarmament of the IDF, then?

Those who desire peace prepare for war. Particularly if the modern history of your state has you being attacked literally the day the British left.

It's not paranoia if they are actually out to get you.

Xsjadoblayde:
And of course people are comfortably disconnected to not care. Of course it's just some words that effect no westerners, so it's all fucking good, of bloody course. Out of sight, out of mind.

Let's see how out of site and out of mind it is when pictures of dead children start to flood the internet again like they did the last time there was a conflict between the two. Whatever comes of this is on Trump. The only reason to do this is to entice religious violence. Fuckin' psychopath.

Catnip1024:

Seanchaidh:
I assume you'll be voting for the party advocating unilateral disarmament of the IDF, then?

Those who desire peace prepare for war. Particularly if the modern history of your state has you being attacked literally the day the British left.

It's not paranoia if they are actually out to get you.

I really wish these people objecting to the occupation and seizure of their land, the demolition of their homes, and the killing of their people would be more peaceful in their resistance. Oh, but si vis pacem para bellum. Yeah.

CM156:
It's so pleasing that both the World War and Intifada trilogies are going to get their concluding installment soon.

Uh uh. We're not fighting in a Third World War or another Middle Eastern conflict. Pretty sure our Prime Minister won't survive that. ANZUS treaty is specific... the threat to the U.S. has to be real and it has to be acting in self-defence. Northern Hemisphere and preferably only the Old and New Worlds nowhere near the Far East. We want nothing to do with it. Keep it to yourselves, this time. It has nothing to do with the greater Asia-Pacific region, we'd like to keep it that way.

Australia has barred any movement of its embassy. We don't want any of this shitstain you call 'foreign policy'. And frankly if it's a choice between China, India, and a possible defence pact with Indonesia and another U.S.-led Operation Piss-Off-Muslims-Worldwide ... I'm pretty sure Australia is going to go Swiss...

So whatever Trump's America wants to blunder into, I have growing doubts those interests are going to be shared.

Catnip1024:
Those who desire peace prepare for war. Particularly if the modern history of your state has you being attacked literally the day the British left.

It's not paranoia if they are actually out to get you.

And as history tells us... that is factually untrue. It's more accurate to say; "Those who desire peace realize guns are best silent." Having incredibly high war preparedness didn't stop the Great War. And the Great War sowed the seeds of WW2.

There were numerous times European powers could have pulled back and negotiated agsinst a cataclysmic conflict, but instead people spent more time preparing for a conflict while ignoring just how that looks to your neighbours. When you see your neighbours pumping out rows of trained soldiers, ramping up logistics capability to supply an invasion, neighbours rarely respond to that well.

Peace is infinitely more plausible when there is a sincere belief an enemy does not desire a war. Not when when they're talking up the force of arms and how much they'll fucking bury you.

CM156:

Honest question here, zero sarcasm intended, but can you think of a solution that both sides would agree to at this point? I've heard people talk about 2000 and Camp David as the last chance to solve the issue, but I think this slow creeping issue was rendered unsolvable in a two-state form ever since 1978 or even maybe 1967. While I'd like a two-state (or more) solution, I see that as something Israel would never accept considering their string of military victories. As long as the USA is willing to back Israel no matter what they do (and this will remain the case for the foreseeable future) I don't see them coming to the table.

No, you're right, they won't.

I think the Palestinians can accept the loss of right of return and a certain amount of West Bank territory compared to the 1967 borders. I think they'll also grudgingly accept Israel's demands to effectively run the key water supply resources of the West Bank. But they won't budge on East Jerusalem; even back in Camp David all they were offered was a sort of limited "occupancy" deal, where they ran it despite ultimate sovereignty remaining with Israel. (Bluntly, the settlement they were offered then seemed to me not much better than being a semi-autonomous client state of Israel.) There was hope the Palestinians might agree to a poor deal back then, simply because it was the best they were likely to get.

I suspect the Palestinians are more desperate now, and if offered another Camp David might take it. But Israel's not going to offer one - particularly under the current, distinctly rabid administration. The Israeli right knows that for a treaty were to occur, Israel would have to give back some of what has been taken. But that also means that the more Israel's taken by that point, the more it gets to keep. So it has expanded encroachment over Palestinian territories, and it know the international community has done nothing. They have no motivation to do otherwise.

This is why I say that in the end the Palestinians will be herded into a handful of isolated, urban concentration camps.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Australia has barred any movement of its embassy. We don't want any of this shitstain you call 'foreign policy'. And frankly if it's a choice between China, India, and a possible defence pact with Indonesia and another U.S.-led Operation Piss-Off-Muslims-Worldwide ... I'm pretty sure Australia is going to go Swiss...

Can we blow the dust off the Commonwealth? Ok, might have to kick the UK out, but still.

inu-kun:
It's not really big as people think, Jews letting go of Jerusalem is as likely as Muslims letting go of the Kaaba. There is no way to give the city or "split" it and it should be established instead of ignored.

Well, that's the problem isn't it.. the city is deeply, deeply sacred and important to three religions. For Christians (and Muslims) it is the place where Jesus was martyred, which for Christians is the centre of the entire religion. For Muslims, it is the destination of the night journey and the site of prophet Muhammad's ascent into heaven, one of the few miracles ascribed to him and the literal demonstration of his prophetic lineage. It is one of the Petrine Sees and part of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Pentarchy. Medieval Catholics would travelled literally thousands of miles, facing incredible adversity, because they believed that merely being there would absolve them of their sins. It was the primary target of the crusades and Muslim holy wars (despite the fact that the supposed political motive of the crusades was to protect Constantinople).

The authority which holds the Kaaba (and more importantly, the Masjid al Haram) is not "the Muslims", it's the king of Saudi Arabia. I personally know Muslims who have been arrested by religious police in Saudi Arabia for praying the wrong way. Likewise, Israel is not "the Jews". To say that Israel has an intrinsic right to a city because of the city's role in the religion of the majority of its citizens is.. well.. it's a thought that has no place in a modern, secular society. Saudi Arabia is not a modern, secular society. Israel, however, claims to be one.

inu-kun:
Israel already had political preassure under Obama who went ahead with the idea The Israeli side is to blame for everything and it didn't go so well, in the end the problem in my opinion is that EU and the USA keep thinking of the Palestininans as retarded children being bullied rather than an actual group which should be held to its actions and strive to non-violence (which is the only way for peace).

And again, that isn't something which happened for no reason.

When one side of a war racks up monthly civilian death tolls in the thousands, and the other doesn't make double digits, this suggests perhaps a certain asymmetry of violence, doesn't it? And then, when we pretend that these injuries are equal, don't you think that kind of suggests something about how we maybe perceive the value of life..

If non violence is the way to peace, then wouldn't the burden fall more strongly on those who use the most violence. I mean, I'll be honest with you, from the outside Israel's position doesn't look like any kind of commitment to non-violence. In fact, it seems like the calculated and deliberate use of indiscriminate violence to attempt to cow and assert authority over a population. That would explain why the responsibility is on the defeated or occupied population to give up violence, because the problem here doesn't really seem to be that violence is bad or that non-violence is the path to peace, it's that violence is the sole preserve of the powerful.

inu-kun:
Didn't the EU had merchandise from the occupied territories marked? Maybe they should marked product from Israel with a yellow star of david.

That would be unnecessary, not to mention offensive to the many Jewish citizens living within EU countries and who, for the most part, enjoy full rights of citizenship within secular states, rights which incidentally they also share with several generations of Palestinian refugees.

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:

Agema:

The Palestinians are slowly but surely being ethnically cleansed out virtually any part of the occupied territories worth a damn, and it's obvious by now no-one's going to stop it.

Dear god, Ethnical Cleansing? Really? Why not just go with Israeli death camps?

When a bunch of people in Israel gather in rallies to celebrate the murder of a Palestinian (and venerating the murderer as a hero), those don't seem too far off. When those same people chant "A Jew is a soul, an Arab is a son of a whore" and "Kill them all", that doesn't seem too far off.

So those few represent the entirety of Israel for you? Should we forget about political factions that are pro peace?
Meanwhile give me the Palestinian equivelant of Martin Luther King Jr.

inu-kun:
and strive to non-violence (which is the only way for peace).

I assume you'll be voting for the party advocating unilateral disarmament of the IDF, then?

Considering there are countries that want to harm Israel the answer is no. I have no problem the Palestinians have self defence forces like Japan had after WW2.

evilthecat:

The authority which holds the Kaaba (and more importantly, the Masjid al Haram) is not "the Muslims", it's the king of Saudi Arabia. I personally know Muslims who have been arrested by religious police in Saudi Arabia for praying the wrong way. Likewise, Israel is not "the Jews". To say that Israel has an intrinsic right to a city because of the city's role in the religion of the majority of its citizens is.. well.. it's a thought that has no place in a modern, secular society. Saudi Arabia is not a modern, secular society. Israel, however, claims to be one.

But Israel can still allow Muslim and Christians to pray in those site in peace, which cannot be said the other way around. And Israel is not secular, it's a democratic and jewish country. Furthermore the only ones who can lay a claim to Jerusalem are Jordan who had the city beforehand.

inu-kun:
Israel already had political preassure under Obama who went ahead with the idea The Israeli side is to blame for everything and it didn't go so well, in the end the problem in my opinion is that EU and the USA keep thinking of the Palestininans as retarded children being bullied rather than an actual group which should be held to its actions and strive to non-violence (which is the only way for peace).

And again, that isn't something which happened for no reason.

When one side of a war racks up monthly civilian death tolls in the thousands, and the other doesn't make double digits, this suggests perhaps a certain asymmetry of violence, doesn't it? And then, when we pretend that these injuries are equal, don't you think that kind of suggests something about how we maybe perceive the value of life..

Discounting the war we had some years ago "monthly civilian death tolls in the thousands" is just false. And the equivelance in general is just bizarre, should Israel be bombarded by rockets until we have a "fair" amount of deaths? What about economic and psychological damage of having a chance to be murdered randomly.

If non violence is the way to peace, then wouldn't the burden fall more strongly on those who use the most violence. I mean, I'll be honest with you, from the outside Israel's position doesn't look like any kind of commitment to non-violence. In fact, it seems like the calculated and deliberate use of indiscriminate violence to attempt to cow and assert authority over a population. That would explain why the responsibility is on the defeated or occupied population to give up violence, because the problem here doesn't really seem to be that violence is bad or that non-violence is the path to peace, it's that violence is the sole preserve of the powerful.

Like I said above, there never have been a political figure between palestinians who was for peace through non violence. The idea that any country should make peace with a group that plans to destroy it (like Hamas) is pure insanity.

inu-kun:
Didn't the EU had merchandise from the occupied territories marked? Maybe they should marked product from Israel with a yellow star of david.

That would be unnecessary, not to mention offensive to the many Jewish citizens living within EU countries and who, for the most part, enjoy full rights of citizenship within secular states.

I wonder how full rights of citizenship work for Jews in France. In the meantime, unless this will be done to every country engaging in an unfair conflict the move reaks of antisemitism.

Thaluikhain:

Can we blow the dust off the Commonwealth? Ok, might have to kick the UK out, but still.

Invoking old ideas of the Commonwealth would likely raise the hackles of Indonesia. Way too many shadows of the Konfrontasi going on there. But Australia-India defence pact would be beneficial. Regardless of the hot mess of the whimsical nature of Australian-Indonesian defence talks.

One month they're shutting down negotiations, another month reopening them.

The fact of the matter is Indonesia will look to Australia if China violates their borders again. But we don't want to push them away from any real chance of preparedness and bilateral planning by simply approaching Singapore and Malaysia. We kind of want to rope in Indonesia, and then look to Singapore and Malaysia.

Indonesia is the biggest nation in the South Pacific, but internally they're divided into a thousand disparate groups.

Some of these groups are quite friendly to Australia... like Aceh province, and Jakarta doesn't like that. So in the end if we don't want to see renewed fighting between Aceh guerrillas and Indonesian militants creating the frameworks of a second Timor Leste situation where we damage ourselves by acting or not acting, we kind of have to downplay traditional animosities in the region.

Jakarta knows that full well. We need Indonesia. As much as we can pretend that looking to Malaysia and Singapore as our primary local defensive allies to any Chinese aggression in the Sunda and Malacca straits... having Indonesian support is the key to peace in the region.

The key to maintaining that fragile network of self interest is recognising all of us benefit by having peace maintain in these waterways. We're natural allies in terms of geostrategic mutual interests, but history is working against us. Thing is... we have a really good thing going. And when you cut to the core, SEA and Oceania have a pretty good relationship. We shouldn't have such a good relationship but we do. In light of everything, we're *fairly* peaceful despite few nations being over 70 years old. It should be a hellscape of civil conflict, and if one were to look at thr post-Pacific War era... it looked very much like SEA was going to be riven with perpetual bloodshed.

Thailand... for instance. It openly declared war on Britain (specifically) during the Pacific War. It maintained an official declaration of war (albeit while telling Australia it didn't really care and it was unaware that Australia had to fight any enemies of Britain) after the fall of the Empire of Japan and the surrender.

So there is natural geostrategic strength that nations at least recognize at the core of maintaining a mutual idea of self defence against an invading 'other' from beyond a post-British/Dutch/Portuguese/etc Southeast Asia.

The thing is the Thais had a problem with the British, whereas both Australia and Siam felt no reason to actively engage.

And historically this was one of tge first true polarising war accords Australia had that diverged from British interests. Believe it or not the Australia-Siam peace treatise was the first independent peace accord Australia made outside the auspices of British wartime treaties. It's a pretty interesting little bit of overlooked government action concerning the history of Australia, and in my mind represented the first true blossoming of Australia's "pivoting to Asia" outlook ... that truly diverged from Western imperial interests.

Anyways, ranting aside... the thing is nations in Southeast Asia begrudgingly understand their importance and sovereignty are intimately tied to free access of strategic waterways, and they need to find some accommodation.

In a lot of ways that understanding is incredibly strong and can lend itself to an incredibly strong alliance with other natural allies like India.

Invoking shadows of the British Empire "only not British" I feel is way too divisive... On the otherhand, invoking ideas of things like a reformed Colombo Agreement ... that might just be the ticket to the birthing of the 21st century's next superpower alliance. Something unchallengeable given strategic access to the skies above the entire Southern Hemisphere, three continents, and three oceans...

China can't compete with that over the next twenty years and it knows it. Every Early Modern empire to date has realised the importance of Southeast Asia. Every modern superpower to date realises just how potent it is to have unrestricted access to the skies of the Southern Hemisphere.

We can't solidify this relationship by persisting in openly propping up U.S. interests and inflsming religious tensions.

Quickly drawing a line at not moving from Tel Aviv seems small... but it's a smart gesture to nations like Malaysia and Indonesia.

If we play our cards right, we can all profit! I would love it in my lifetime to see something like a "Three-Oceans Pact" ... a multilateral military and trade compact concerning the commanding position India and the South Pacific have to dominate trade and military spheres of influence. It is a strong geostrategic possibility, so long as we weather well our disparate cases of postcolonialism.

The miraculous thing is that we can leverage support of this simply by the fact that it's in the world's best interests that peace reign in the South Pacific. As the next foremost strategic waterways of the planet. For once we might actually see a new order of global powerbases emerge not through threats of violence or the horror of war, but through peaceful trade and industry.

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:

Dear god, Ethnical Cleansing? Really? Why not just go with Israeli death camps?

When a bunch of people in Israel gather in rallies to celebrate the murder of a Palestinian (and venerating the murderer as a hero), those don't seem too far off. When those same people chant "A Jew is a soul, an Arab is a son of a whore" and "Kill them all", that doesn't seem too far off.

So those few represent the entirety of Israel for you?

Nah. Just 67% of Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-january-4-2017/

inu-kun:
Should we forget about political factions that are pro peace?
Meanwhile give me the Palestinian equivelant of Martin Luther King Jr.

A Nelson Mandela would be somewhat more fitting than a Martin Luther King Jr. And you know what? It's not your prerogative to ask for one. Asking Palestinians to try non-violence against an occupying force that has shown itself to be quite unconcerned by murder and slaughter while they continue to take and kill more and more is galling.

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:
and strive to non-violence (which is the only way for peace).

I assume you'll be voting for the party advocating unilateral disarmament of the IDF, then?

Considering there are countries that want to harm Israel the answer is no. I have no problem the Palestinians have self defence forces like Japan had after WW2.

If we're treating this like WW2, they along with the rest of the world should be dictating terms to Israel, not the other way around.

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

When a bunch of people in Israel gather in rallies to celebrate the murder of a Palestinian (and venerating the murderer as a hero), those don't seem too far off. When those same people chant "A Jew is a soul, an Arab is a son of a whore" and "Kill them all", that doesn't seem too far off.

So those few represent the entirety of Israel for you?

Nah. Just 67% of Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-january-4-2017/

You do know that case is more complicated than "get to murder palestinians"? First of all there is the feeling the guy was judged before the trial with one of the ministers calling him a murderer and the media having a fieldday with him. The second is the guy he killed was a terrorist who stabbed people, not some innocent person.

inu-kun:
Should we forget about political factions that are pro peace?
Meanwhile give me the Palestinian equivelant of Martin Luther King Jr.

A Nelson Mandela would be somewhat more fitting than a Martin Luther King Jr. And you know what? It's not your prerogative to ask for one. Asking Palestinians to try non-violence against an occupying force that has shown itself to be quite unconcerned by murder and slaughter while they continue to take and kill more and more is galling.

This is insanity, you want Israel to seek peace with people who will never want peace. Why would we? Who in their right mind would?

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

I assume you'll be voting for the party advocating unilateral disarmament of the IDF, then?

Considering there are countries that want to harm Israel the answer is no. I have no problem the Palestinians have self defence forces like Japan had after WW2.

If we're treating this like WW2, they along with the rest of the world should be dictating terms to Israel, not the other way around.

So you really gonna go with Israel as Nazis?

Addendum_Forthcoming:

My computer ate my post. Anyhoo, I was being mostly facetious about the Commonwealth, although I do feel that with the US as it is, it's time to find other alliances, not just for Australia, but for the West. The previous hegemony came immediately to mind, and I'd like to see the Commonwealth work together more. The UK has shown itself to be rather against working with others recently (at the exact perfect time not to do that). I'd also like to see an "Alliance of Nations immediately West of Russia" work together as well.

Most definitely agree that Australia should stop following the US into terrible blunders, but that's been the case for a while. I don't know if that is going to happen, though.

As an aside, I think that a strong alliance needs nuclear capability, and few nations have that. India springs immediately to mind. Also preferably aircraft carriers, but that's less of an issue locally.

Seanchaidh:
Nah. Just 67% of Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-january-4-2017/

Don't even need to go that far. Just forcibly removing an ethnicity from where it lives is ethnic cleansing, and I seem to recall Israel doing a far bit of that.

Thaluikhain:

My computer ate my post. Anyhoo, I was being mostly facetious about the Commonwealth, although I do feel that with the US as it is, it's time to find other alliances, not just for Australia, but for the West. The previous hegemony came immediately to mind, and I'd like to see the Commonwealth work together more. The UK has shown itself to be rather against working with others recently (at the exact perfect time not to do that). I'd also like to see an "Alliance of Nations immediately West of Russia" work together as well.

Most definitely agree that Australia should stop following the US into terrible blunders, but that's been the case for a while. I don't know if that is going to happen, though.

As an aside, I think that a strong alliance needs nuclear capability, and few nations have that. India springs immediately to mind. Also preferably aircraft carriers, but that's less of an issue locally.

While nuclear capabilities are preferable, I think the miraculous thing about SEA/Oceania/Indian Subcontinent power that could be wielded is precisely because all other nations will profit from peace in the South Pacific.

As I was saying before, assuming some collective agreement can be reached, and I think that is an eminent possibility if only because all nations recognize thatr it is a necessity of their continued sovereignty that the truest threats are beyond the region, not within ... such a coalition of self-interested parties might precisely be that new supranational powerhouse precisely through the soft power of trade and industry.

We might actually achieve that never before seen state of a new global power order born not through conflict or threats of violence, but diplomacy, honest trade, and geostrategic relevance to the prosperity of other regions.

China has nuclear weapons ... but they were the first nation to sign a no first use treaty. Guaranteeing they will never launch unless they or their allies were directly fired upon with nuclear arms. Which is a pretty bold statement to have made back in the 60s.

It hasn't bluntened their rise to prominence. And as powerful as China might become, it doesn't haold a candle to the possible prosperity and power a more united Oceania-SEA-Indian coalition of mutual self-interest.

In the same way we might achieve global power through similar soft power through our commanding access to electronic warfare and through sonar nets. Which are eminently doable given the terrain and the commanding access to much of the skies above. But as you said ... a strong navy and highly capable force multiplication capabilities in the form of submarine hunters and aircraft carriers, and an advanced space industry for launching our own satellites with covert payloads is required.

But there is nothing stoipping us from being able to afford such things through multilateral defence spending projects between natural allies that recognize we have everything to gain by working together, and everything to lose the second we forget our truest enemies, our truest threats, are those that exist outside our shared relams of influence.

I want to see Australia less entangled by Olw World-New World struggles with China and Russia, and the Middle East.

Naturally I'm not going to advocate isolationism ... but Christ do we need some high volume vetting of the wars the EU and the U.S. may drag us into with a potential 7 more years of Trump.

I'm actually less frightened of Trump in some aspects than I am the insane political rhetoric I'm seeing in Europe ... sure Macron won, but he ain't going to bridge the gap of either the Left looking for real social change and looking to actual fight the EU's less ... wealth distributing policies ... Nor the fascists wanting to engage in the culture wars and seekings to burn down the EU altogether.

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:

So those few represent the entirety of Israel for you?

Nah. Just 67% of Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-january-4-2017/

You do know that case is more complicated than "get to murder palestinians"? First of all there is the feeling the guy was judged before the trial with one of the ministers calling him a murderer and the media having a fieldday with him. The second is the guy he killed was a terrorist who stabbed people, not some innocent person.

He was given a year and half sentence with a year probation for executing a disarmed, motionless man lying face first on the ground. They did not suspect him of having explosives. Elor Azaria, hero of Israel, killed him anyway.

Oh, and the man killed was resisting an occupation that is illegal under international law. Elor Azaria is a terrorist who wore a uniform.

inu-kun:

inu-kun:
Should we forget about political factions that are pro peace?
Meanwhile give me the Palestinian equivelant of Martin Luther King Jr.

A Nelson Mandela would be somewhat more fitting than a Martin Luther King Jr. And you know what? It's not your prerogative to ask for one. Asking Palestinians to try non-violence against an occupying force that has shown itself to be quite unconcerned by murder and slaughter while they continue to take and kill more and more is galling.

This is insanity, you want Israel to seek peace with people who will never want peace. Why would we? Who in their right mind would?

I'm so sorry that people who your government has been killing and stealing land from steadily for decades don't want peace on your terms.

inu-kun:

inu-kun:

Considering there are countries that want to harm Israel the answer is no. I have no problem the Palestinians have self defence forces like Japan had after WW2.

If we're treating this like WW2, they along with the rest of the world should be dictating terms to Israel, not the other way around.

So you really gonna go with Israel as Nazis?

Israel is an aggressor, occupier, apartheid state in the process of cleansing and colonizing the West Bank. As to why I think it's the Palestinians and the rest of the world that needs to be dictating terms-- Israel is the one blatantly abusing its military superiority in order to solidify unjust territorial gains. "Oh my God, they want to kill us! This totally justifies continuing to take their land, ghettoize and destroy their people."

It is clear that a solution with any semblance of compatibility with justice will require the Israeli state to be compelled to act differently, as not only is Israel not decolonizing, they are actively colonizing more.

Thaluikhain:

Seanchaidh:
Nah. Just 67% of Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-january-4-2017/

Don't even need to go that far. Just forcibly removing an ethnicity from where it lives is ethnic cleansing, and I seem to recall Israel doing a far bit of that.

Indeed.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
But there is nothing stoipping us from being able to afford such things through multilateral defence spending projects between natural allies that recognize we have everything to gain by working together, and everything to lose the second we forget our truest enemies, our truest threats, are those that exist outside our shared relams of influence.

I tend to agree with that, excepting it's based on the idea that nations will be led by people working in their nations interests. A party that gets voted in based on xenophobia and isolationism might cause all sorts of problems. What happens if Indonesia or India or Australia gets a Trump in power?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
And as history tells us... that is factually untrue. It's more accurate to say; "Those who desire peace realize guns are best silent." Having incredibly high war preparedness didn't stop the Great War. And the Great War sowed the seeds of WW2.

The Swiss have been neutral an absurdly long time. They still maintain a decent sized armed forces with a high level of preparedness.

We've not had any significant conflicts between superpowers since Korea. One could argue the nuclear arms race had something to do with this, limiting it to proxy conflicts.

Sure, don't fire. But you have to at least have the guns.

There were numerous times European powers could have pulled back and negotiated agsinst a cataclysmic conflict, but instead people spent more time preparing for a conflict while ignoring just how that looks to your neighbours. When you see your neighbours pumping out rows of trained soldiers, ramping up logistics capability to supply an invasion, neighbours rarely respond to that well.

Once Russia moved to aid Serbia, there was no chance due to the treaties in place.

There are far more significant issues leading to WW1 than "people had guns".

Peace is infinitely more plausible when there is a sincere belief an enemy does not desire a war. Not when when they're talking up the force of arms and how much they'll fucking bury you.

Peace is infinitely more likely when there is no real chance of the opposition gaining anything in a war, as opposed to a mutual drain of people and funds.

A better historical example would be the policy of disarmament in the 1930s. And look where that led. Numerous European countries completely unprepared to defend themselves. Sooner or later, someone will always be tempted to exploit weakness.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here