Trump recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Seanchaidh:
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.

The Palestinian people I have some sympathy for. The Palestinian state and various factions, less so. The surrounding hostile states, not at all.

You cannot launch a hostile invasion on a country, be defeated, and then expect to not lose anything as a result. Complaining about occupied territory is bullshit if your aim was to completely eradicate a nation entirely.

Seanchaidh:

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.

Regardless, if people suspect he didn't recieve a fair trial they have the right to do it.

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.

I'm sorry that unless the Palestinians ever decide to go to peace route they will never the country they want.

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.

1) "Apartheid and cleansing", what you say does not happen in reality.
2) You mean Israel does what every country does, use its might to keep its borders. Or do you want to return Texas to Mexico?
3) Justice led by a continent which murdered a third of jewish population in an act that solidified why a Jewish country is necessary.
4) The Palestinians never agreed to UN decision to part Israel, quite the opposite in fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#The_vote

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.

You both realize that there is a Muslim populace in Israel, right?

Thaluikhain:

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?

You mean like the One Nation garbage, or the Cory Bernardi's of Australian politics?

True enough they are a problem, but then again we've tread this path before. And I honestly think some ofthe political rhetoric we see out of Europe, much less a Trump, is going to help dissuade Australians from following in those footsteps.

Let's take the extreme possibility of another Middle Eastern conflict Australia gets dragged into. While that could bolster calls for isolationism, it's not going to immediately effect our relationship with India, Thailand or Singapore. You take the flipside ... a possible trade skirmish with tariffs out of the U.S. ... once again, that will more likely drive a wedge between Australia and the West rather than drive a wedge between Australia and the Asia-Pacific.

As awful as the possibility of a bigger Cory Bernardi or Pauline Hanson than either one of those current people ... it will likely result in more Keatings, Hawkes, and Frasers.

As awful as some of these people were, they were logical answers to the militants in the U.S. and they did keep us out of wars ... and expanded ideas of Australian 'trade power' rather than the force of arms.

Economic treatises have often been Australia's 'goto' political policies when we've seen resurgent U.S. militancy. Take a Menzies compared to a Kennedy or Johnson, for instance. I mean, only a few years out of the war with Japan, and we were already building a 'Garden of Peace' in the respective mutual countries, and even making peace with Thailand despite the fact that they were technically warring with the British at the time.

Often Australia shines right when Europe and the U.S. is shaking the mailed fist.

And regardless of whether you have centre-right Liberal/Nationals, or Centre wing Liberal/Nationals, or Right wing Liberal/Nationals .... all of them look up to a Menzies as if the 'Golden Era' of Australian politics.

And to be fair, so do a hell of a lot of the Labor Party ala Hawke, Keating and Rudd.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
You mean like the One Nation garbage, or the Cory Bernardi's of Australian politics?

True enough they are a problem, but then again we've tread this path before. And I honestly think some ofthe political rhetoric we see out of Europe, much less a Trump, is going to help dissuade Australians from following in those footsteps.

Possibly, but there are plenty of Australians that follow the US lead, Trump is emboldening people beyond his own borders. OTOH, "we're not as bad as the US" is something many Australians (and others) like to say, but where that bar is set varies.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Economic treatises have often been Australia's 'goto' political policies when we've seen resurgent U.S. militancy. Take a Menzies compared to a Kennedy or Johnson, for instance. I mean, only a few years out of the war with Japan, and we were already building a 'Garden of Peace' in the respective mutual countries, and even making peace with Thailand despite the fact that they were technically warring with the British at the time.

During the Cold War is was wise to play nice. Though, yeah, same conditions again and we might get much the same.

Catnip1024:
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.

Nobody is questioning the need for defence. But then again, there is a significantly high degree of difference one can see in a force composition designed to repel an invading force rather than one preparing to invade, to strike unimpeded and with minimal repercussions.

Building anti-ballistic missile shields on Russia's doorstep is a pretty quick way to rile Russia up, for instance.

Hence why peace is best served when politicians realises the guns are best silent. The capacity to wage war is less enticing.

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".

There were, but it certainly didn't help that nations weren't merely stocking guns. They were actively courting the capacity to actually maintain an invasion.

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.

A better example I would have used is the Washington Naval Treaty if I was arguing your point, and then comparing that to entities like the Empire of Japan breaking it regardless. But then again that doesn't actually nullify what I said did it? There is a direct corresponding element to just how prepared a nation is to secure victory through force of arms and then doing so.

As much as we'd like to pretend that any nation could secure an adequate defence to the machinations of people dreaming of empire, it just so happens those nations that maintain warmachines create war as it's suddenly economically viable to do so.

It's amazing how often all those people who desired peace through the capacity to wage war do not seem to actually contribute to a more peaceful world. It tends to lead to things like, say, the U.S. occupation of the Philippines as soon as they """liberated""" it from the Spanish...

Surely it's of little compensatory knowledge that the Philippines should have just 'prepared hard enough'. I'd say that any basic understanding of history would kind of write off that possibility of them being adequately capable of resisting the U.S. Moreover, of even greater surprise was that those shackles were entirely removed through largely peaceful revolt. Probably the most peaceful revolution in history.

Speaking about Korea ... just how safe do you think the world will continue to be if every two bit dictator scared of the U.S. gets nuclear weapons they can deliver to 'hostage cities' nominally allied with the West? Sure, it 'secures peace' ... but I'm willing to bet that the only shot in hell we have of not inviting unthinkable horror and hardship might rely on people hopefully realising that they can never be used again.

I mean, how prepared is prepared? Nuclear weapons and posturing with them, creating a culture of paranoia seems pretty prepared for war ... but frankly I doubt the world could survive three or four more North Koreas ... much less nearly 200 of them. Dare I say, maybe we should aim at reducing the number of paranoid, nuclear-armed states.

Nuclear weapons don't even frighten me as much as some of the biological weapons programs people were tinkering with ... fortunately we thought that level of preparation was probably overdoing it. We actually got together and decided conclusively that maybe these guns are too big for any country to prepare for war with.

ID50 rate upon inhaled exposure of but only 1-10 germ particulates that is exceedingly hard to kill under any Earth-like environmental conditions. With a long incubation period, high mortality, high disability rate that allows maximum infection rates of an exposed populace?

Is that prepared enough?

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

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.

Regardless, if people suspect he didn't recieve a fair trial they have the right to do it.

And I have the right to judge them for wanting to pardon someone who is clearly a contemptible racist murderer, not a "hero".

inu-kun:

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.

I'm sorry that unless the Palestinians ever decide to go to peace route they will never the country they want.

The timeless cry of the oppressor, "If only they would be peaceful". Meanwhile, oppressor proposes legislation allowing hunger-strikers to be force fed. Normal concern for normal country. And AIPAC lobbies politicians in the United States to outlaw participation in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement. Nonviolence has 'em spooked, I'll give you that.

inu-kun:

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.

1) "Apartheid and cleansing", what you say does not happen in reality.

https://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/1.671538
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/palestinian-ghettos-were-always-the-plan.premium-1.495144

inu-kun:
2) You mean Israel does what every country does, use its might to keep its borders. Or do you want to return Texas to Mexico?

Texas doesn't belong to Mexico anymore than it belongs to Spain. Caddo, Pueblo, Comanche, Kiowa, Karankawa, Apache, and other tribes have a claim to Texas, and the United States has not done right by its indigenous population. The United States is the situation Israeli colonialists dream of: a depopulated graveyard to build their state upon. The indigenous population of the United States sits at around 1% and is generally ignored. The indigenous peoples of the United States deserve better than they've gotten, certainly. Some think the various tribes should be given back their land (though, at this point, I'm not certain how that would ever happen, due to the power structures in place).

In any case, BUT THOSE OTHER COLONISTS GOT TO isn't an excuse. Israel doesn't get to model its behavior on the American genocidal precedent anymore than it does the Roman genocidal precedent.

inu-kun:
3) Justice led by a continent which murdered a third of jewish population in an act that solidified why a Jewish country is necessary.

The holocaust isn't license to steal land from Arabs.

inu-kun:
4) The Palestinians never agreed to UN decision to part Israel, quite the opposite in fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#The_vote

That doesn't indicate that they were consulted in the decision..? And the UK abstained?

But anyway: Yeah, and? Arab states in general didn't agree to a plan to take land from Palestinians, therefore..?

inu-kun:

Thaluikhain:

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.

You both realize that there is a Muslim populace in Israel, right?

There is an invading settler colonial state exerting military control over Palestine.

There are also native Americans living in the United States and Armenians living in Turkey.

inu-kun:
But Israel can still allow Muslim and Christians to pray in those site in peace, which cannot be said the other way around.

The same was true in mandatory Palestine, and the result was that Jewish leaders (many of whom went on to be Israeli politicians) blew up a hotel with no warning, murdered police officers and attempted to assassinate the prime minister of Great Britain. Because this isn't about access to holy sites, it was never about access to holy sites, it's about ownership of holy sites.

inu-kun:
And Israel is not secular, it's a democratic and jewish country.

And yet, you expect us to believe that Israel, which you argue is an explicitly religious state and a national personification of Jewish identity, having control of Jerusalem, a city which as mentioned is sacred to all Abrahamatic religions, is the best option for everyone. Is this an argument you would accept in reverse?

In reality, Israel is for the most part a secular state. It's far more secular than Saudi Arabia and a good bit more secular than Iran, for example. There are religious influences in government, but that's true of the USA and Britain as well. Unlike these places, however (and to paraphrase Chompsky) there does seem to be a cultural tendency to flip between presenting Israel as secular or religious depending on the situation.. when demanding acceptance from the international community, Israel is a modern secular country. When special treatment is needed, Israel is a religiously particular country which can't be held accountable to the standards of a normal, secular country..

inu-kun:
Discounting the war we had some years ago "monthly civilian death tolls in the thousands" is just false.

That was Operation Protective Edge, in 2014, which was exceptionally bad. However, the civilian casualties are always disproportionate.

inu-kun:
And the equivelance in general is just bizarre, should Israel be bombarded by rockets until we have a "fair" amount of deaths?

I don't know, you were the one talking about how non-violence is the only way to peace, right. What do you think?

inu-kun:
What about economic and psychological damage of having a chance to be murdered randomly.

We all have an infinitesimally small chance to be murdered randomly (and a slightly higher chance to be murdered non-randomly). Demanding that people be non-randomly murdered in huge numbers to alleviate your sense of psychological distress at the minute possibility strikes me as a fairly troubling response, and not one which suggests any great commitment to non-violence or, for that matter, to peace.

Again, it is the strange logic that on one hand a country and its people have the right to defend themselves, and on the other hand it falls to people to embrace non-violence while under occupation.

inu-kun:
Like I said above, there never have been a political figure between palestinians who was for peace through non violence.

Well, the way you're talking it sounds like non-violence actually just means abject surrender.. so in a way that doesn't surprise me. Non-violence only tends to be successful when it actually provides a way to accomplish political goals.

inu-kun:
I wonder how full rights of citizenship work for Jews in France.

They work the same way they do for everyone. That's literally what secular citizenship means.

Also, what is your obsession with France? Do you think France is the only country with anti-Semitism? Do you think France is a blasted hellscape where roving packs of genderfluid Muslim communists roam the streets sucking the blood from innocent Jewish children? In case you didn't notice, this thread is about a US president who, when confronted by people chanting "Jews will not replace us" and literally wearing SS uniforms, tried to claim there were "two sides". That wasn't in France.

Thaluikhain:

Possibly, but there are plenty of Australians that follow the US lead, Trump is emboldening people beyond his own borders. OTOH, "we're not as bad as the US" is something many Australians (and others) like to say, but where that bar is set varies.

But who's actually arguing for this?

The grand bulk of former Prime Ministers on both sides of the battlelines of both the 90s and 00s that don't have to take flak and can speak openly on the matter. None of them have anything glowing to say about the continued alliance.

Nobody legitimately believes the U.S. going into the future would legitimately help us in a direct confrontation. And what exactly do we get from the U.S. alliance? Access to technology? Well how long has it taken the U.S. to fulfill their F35 order we put in with them? Not only that, much like Vietnam, the U.S. withheld equipment on the basis of securing our support. Who is legitimately going to target us in the Asia-Pacific? China won't. At least not yet, primarily because we've given them no reason to.

And even then how many of these supposed shadowy pro-U.S. politicians actually complained when we pushed through the Darwin Port System rental to Chinese corporations under an Obama presidency... not even a Trump presidency? Nobody really complained, precisely because no Australian pollies see it as a bad deal. To put it plainly ... Australia isn't a small fish in a big pond. It's an appropriately sized fish in an appropriately sized pond. There are numerous other countries that will sell us weapons tech, and even then ... the U.S. isn't going to stop selling us arms even as we pivot to regional alliances.

Even taking the most American-esque right wing eurocentric garbage you see in Australia, it doesn't measure to you average American congressman.

Even the most ugliest, racist nonsense you see in Australian politics ... it's still couched in an idea of Australian sovereignty ... not in terms of some grander eurocentric ideology. To put it plainly, what Australian Federal MPs have you seen seen pull out a tenth of Trump's trade war rhetoric about China? A nation that if itwere legitimate threat to the West, that would have Australia solidly in its crosshairs well before actually imposing itself on the U.S. much less Europe?

I don't think Howard was that particularly racist ... but he was the last truly Alliance supportive PM we've seen in the last ... shit, 40 years? And while you have a legitimately conservative arsehole like Abbott ... even he didn't mouth off about the Alliance anywhere near that of Howard. If Abbott is our baseline super-conservative, the guy that pushed ahead the, I'm pretty sure we're safe from a Trade War-Trumpesque pollies in Australia.

Moreover, Abbott didn't survive 2 years in office due to public hatred of him that it almost cost the Libs everything come the last election.

Thaluikhain:

During the Cold War is was wise to play nice. Though, yeah, same conditions again and we might get much the same.

Give it a few more years ... Australia is inevitably going to go 28 years recession free at this point at the bare minimum, but there is a correction in the works. Every boom comes with a bust, and we've already gone the longest time in all financial history without a recessionary crisis.

Which should tell us something. Namelythat the fundamentals of the economy are sound.

Now admittedly the economy slowly busting is going to generate its own little pockets of conservative, isolationist rhetoric as all economic hardship does. But the thing is there's plenty of media ammunition to fight that ... and moreover, the economic incentives to reach out to Southeast Asia and India to drive up exports is going to grow. No qualms about it.

The U.S. has more tariffs on Australian goods than many of our Asian neighbours ... and when there is a significant correction ... our neighbours will be the first to buy up depreciated Australian goods. There will be plenty of political ammunition by then to point to growing our political capital with SEA and India.

That's just the way the markets will unfold. But then the question remains about how we wish to spend that political capital. My money is, just like the horrors and economic instability of the Pacific War, we will increase of intimacy with our neighbours to cope with it. That was a winning ticket to get us out of the economic slump caused by WW2.

The thing is Australia has to think big on regional concerns. Not necessarily isolationist from the wider world, but if the 20th Century taught us anything it should be distrusting any European or American calls to battle in the Middle East and on the hypothetical geostrategic games Russian front via Syria, or Iran.

There was a concept that one of my lecturers brought up during my first run at uni. "The Cold War as a concept didn't exist until much later than it started..." The idea of the way we think of history and comparing it to contemporary events is divorced from reality, and it will be divorced from thereality of us looking back on them even only 10 or twenty years later.

And we have to be very, very mindful of that going into the future.

How often is it that people say; "The uncertainty of modern alliances..." or something along the lines? Wehave to be very, very careful playing into that self-styled paranoia when met by the very real possibility that Australia may have to journey into somewhat dangerous geostrategic games to further cement longterm interests of transforming India and the South Pacific into a close knit society of trading nations on what are to become the most strategically important waterways of the planet.

The defence pact with India. Government white papers say it will be a positive step ... yet we don't take that step purely because we assume the rest of the Western world will see it as a powerplay. But then again, will it mean all that much in 5 years time? How about 10 years time?

evilthecat:

inu-kun:
But Israel can still allow Muslim and Christians to pray in those site in peace, which cannot be said the other way around.

The same was true in mandatory Palestine, and the result was that Jewish leaders (many of whom went on to be Israeli politicians) blew up a hotel with no warning, murdered police officers and attempted to assassinate the prime minister of Great Britain. Because this isn't about access to holy sites, it was never about access to holy sites, it's about ownership of holy sites.

Ehm, the event was a retalitation against the English mandate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Agatha
Not about "control"

inu-kun:
And Israel is not secular, it's a democratic and jewish country.

And yet, you expect us to believe that Israel, which you argue is an explicitly religious state and a national personification of Jewish identity, having control of Jerusalem, a city which as mentioned is sacred to all Abrahamatic religions, is the best option for everyone. Is this an argument you would accept in reverse?

In reality, Israel is for the most part a secular state. It's far more secular than Saudi Arabia and a good bit more secular than Iran, for example. There are religious influences in government, but that's true of the USA and Britain as well. Unlike these places, however (and to paraphrase Chompsky) there does seem to be a cultural tendency to flip between presenting Israel as secular or religious depending on the situation.. when demanding acceptance from the international community, Israel is a modern secular country. When special treatment is needed, Israel is a religiously particular country which can't be held accountable to the standards of a normal, secular country..

The thing is Israel only has religeous courtrooms for maritial issues (and have their own versions for Islamic and Druze population) and has laws like Sabbath for businesses. Besides of that there is political power for religeous parties because we have the same system as the UK. regardless comparison to countries that murder gay people is pretty hurtful. I don't really know of cases for people to flip flop on definition but in general the topic is hughly debated which side is more important.

inu-kun:
Discounting the war we had some years ago "monthly civilian death tolls in the thousands" is just false.

That was Operation Protective Edge, in 2014, which was exceptionally bad. However, the civilian casualties are always disproportionate.

Does that make the violence towards israelis justified? There were several deaths I didn't write about as well as cases where it might be murder but cannot be proven (like running over people).

inu-kun:
And the equivelance in general is just bizarre, should Israel be bombarded by rockets until we have a "fair" amount of deaths?

I don't know, you were the one talking about how non-violence is the only way to peace, right. What do you think?

That they shouldn't launch rockets at civilians or try to kidnap soldiers and then it might actually build trust. But this is Gaza, which is run over by Hamas who is literally genocidal towards jews.

inu-kun:
What about economic and psychological damage of having a chance to be murdered randomly.

We all have an infinitesimally small chance to be murdered randomly (and a slightly higher chance to be murdered non-randomly). Demanding that people be non-randomly murdered in huge numbers to alleviate your sense of psychological distress at the minute possibility strikes me as a fairly troubling response, and not one which suggests any great commitment to non-violence or, for that matter, to peace.

Try to live in this situation and then try to say that. One of the reason for the low casualty rates is people going to shelters and after every alarm I had a torrent of calls from my parents and friends. As for the economic issue, what do you think the consequences of people stopping to hide every hour or so or closing of the only airport?

Again, it is the strange logic that on one hand a country and its people have the right to defend themselves, and on the other hand it falls to people to embrace non-violence while under occupation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict
Protective edge wasn't done because we wanted to kill arabs for fun.

The stated aim of the Israeli operation was to stop rocket fire from Gaza into Israel, which increased after an Israeli crackdown on Hamas in the West Bank was launched following the 12 June kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers by two Hamas members

inu-kun:
Like I said above, there never have been a political figure between palestinians who was for peace through non violence.

Well, the way you're talking it sounds like non-violence actually just means abject surrender.. so in a way that doesn't surprise me. Non-violence only tends to be successful when it actually provides a way to accomplish political goals.

Why is it surrender? Do we go with a macho mindset that the only way to settle thing is through violence otherwise you "lost".

inu-kun:
I wonder how full rights of citizenship work for Jews in France.

They work the same way they do for everyone. That's literally what secular citizenship means.

Also, what is your obsession with France? Do you think France is the only country with anti-Semitism? Do you think France is a blasted hellscape where roving packs of genderfluid Muslim communists roam the streets sucking the blood from innocent Jewish children? In case you didn't notice, this thread is about a US president who, when confronted by people chanting "Jews will not replace us" and literally wearing SS uniforms, tried to claim there were "two sides". That wasn't in France.

That it's a good example of a country where the jewish population starts to move away from because of fear for their lives, I have a feeling the UK is not far behind.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
But who's actually arguing for this?

The grand bulk of former Prime Ministers on both sides of the battlelines of both the 90s and 00s that don't have to take flak and can speak openly on the matter. None of them have anything glowing to say about the continued alliance.

Nobody legitimately believes the U.S. going into the future would legitimately help us in a direct confrontation. And what exactly do we get from the U.S. alliance? Access to technology? Well how long has it taken the U.S. to fulfill their F35 order we put in with them? Not only that, much like Vietnam, the U.S. withheld equipment on the basis of securing our support. Who is legitimately going to target us in the Asia-Pacific? China won't. At least not yet, primarily because we've given them no reason to.

And even then how many of these supposed shadowy pro-U.S. politicians actually complained when we pushed through the Darwin Port System rental to Chinese corporations under an Obama presidency... not even a Trump presidency? Nobody really complained, precisely because no Australian pollies see it as a bad deal. To put it plainly ... Australia isn't a small fish in a big pond. It's an appropriately sized fish in an appropriately sized pond. There are numerous other countries that will sell us weapons tech, and even then ... the U.S. isn't going to stop selling us arms even as we pivot to regional alliances.

Even taking the most American-esque right wing eurocentric garbage you see in Australia, it doesn't measure to you average American congressman.

Even the most ugliest, racist nonsense you see in Australian politics ... it's still couched in an idea of Australian sovereignty ... not in terms of some grander eurocentric ideology. To put it plainly, what Australian Federal MPs have you seen seen pull out a tenth of Trump's trade war rhetoric about China? A nation that if itwere legitimate threat to the West, that would have Australia solidly in its crosshairs well before actually imposing itself on the U.S. much less Europe?

I don't think Howard was that particularly racist ... but he was the last truly supportive Alliance supportive PM we've seen in the last ... shit, 40 years? And while you have a legitimately conservative arsehole like Abbott ... even he didn't mouth off about the Alliance anywhere near that of Howard. If Abbott is our baseline super-conservative, the guy that pushed ahead the, I'm pretty sure we're safe from a Trade War-Trumpesque pollies in Australia.

Moreover, Abbott didn't survive 2 years in office due to public hatred of him that it almost cost the Libs everything.

Certainly, I didn't mean that Australian politicians would follow Trumps example, more that Australia is affected by US culture and Australians often follow the US's lead on cultural things. Lots of Australians will ape US issues that get more coverage online than local issues, Trump is bringing bigots out of the woodwork. Enough of those and they can affect the political landscape.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Nobody is questioning the need for defence. But then again, there is a significantly high degree of difference one can see in a force composition designed to repel an invading force rather than one preparing to invade, to strike unimpeded and with minimal repercussions.

Building anti-ballistic missile shields on Russia's doorstep is a pretty quick way to rile Russia up, for instance.

Hence why peace is best served when politicians realises the guns are best silent. The capacity to wage war is less enticing.

First, a lot of this is going to be quibbling that is quite unrelated to the OP at this point. Just to warn you.

In modern warfare, it is difficult to distinguish between forces intended to attack and those intended to defend. The proportions will change, sure, but you still need long range strike capability, you still need the ability to assault occupied areas for counter-attack purposes.

And arguably, the ability to bring destruction to the production lines within a hostile state is a far better deterrent than a row of cannons lined up by the border. So long as you don't allow people to start treating war like chess, that should usually be enough to be a serious deterrent.

There were, but it certainly didn't help that nations weren't merely stocking guns. They were actively courting the capacity to actually maintain an invasion.

Yeah. Many many issues behind WW1. The arms race was a symptom of these. I would point out I said "let those who desire peace prepare for war". I said nothing about those who desire war. Because they look pretty similar from the outside.

A better example I would have used is the Washington Naval Treaty if I was arguing your point, and then comparing that to entities like the Empire of Japan breaking it regardless. But then again that doesn't actually nullify what I said did it? There is a direct corresponding element to just how prepared a nation is to secure victory through force of arms and then doing so.

I'm pretty sure if you went through the statistics, you could find a similar correlation between those unprepared for war and those which were occupied. Pointing back beyond 60 years or so becomes largely meaningless due to how the world has changed, though. The imperialistic tensions have gone. Beyond North Korea and arguably Russia, the aggressively militaristic states have all pacified.

As much as we'd like to pretend that any nation could secure an adequate defence to the machinations of people dreaming of empire, it just so happens those nations that maintain warmachines create war as it's suddenly economically viable to do so.

The economic viability is proportionate to your ability to wreak havoc in return.

Although considering the outcome of the last few decades worth of conflicts, I'm not sure economic viability really has anything to do with it. At least at a state level.

It's amazing how often all those people who desired peace through the capacity to wage war do not seem to actually contribute to a more peaceful world. It tends to lead to things like, say, the U.S. occupation of the Philippines as soon as they """liberated""" it from the Spanish...

Again, two points - one, see statement above about those who prepare for war. Two, age of imperialism, very different from now (arguably three - US inherent racism).

Surely it's of little compensatory knowledge that the Philippines should have just 'prepared hard enough'. I'd say that any basic understanding of history would kind of write off that possibility of them being adequately capable of resisting the U.S. Moreover, of even greater surprise was that those shackles were entirely removed through largely peaceful revolt. Probably the most peaceful revolution in history.

Sure, the Philippines got screwed over. I'm not saying having an army is a magic cure all. I'm saying it helps.

Speaking about Korea ... just how safe do you think the world will continue to be if every two bit dictator scared of the U.S. gets nuclear weapons they can deliver to 'hostage cities' nominally allied with the West? Sure, it 'secures peace' ... but I'm willing to bet that the only shot in hell we have of not inviting unthinkable horror and hardship might rely on people hopefully realising that they can never be used again.

Again, it is still better to be prepared to counter it yourself than to be completely unprepared. Otherwise you are at the whim of nutjobs.

I mean, how prepared is prepared? Nuclear weapons and posturing with them, creating a culture of paranoia seems pretty prepared for war ... but frankly I doubt the world could survive three or four more North Koreas ... much less nearly 200 of them. Dare I say, maybe we should aim at reducing the number of paranoid, nuclear-armed states.

You are missing the point. It's not about the particular means of defence / offence. It is about having a means. The particular type of weaponry is a whole separate issue for people to argue about.

Nuclear weapons don't even frighten me as much as some of the biological weapons programs people were tinkering with ... fortunately we thought that level of preparation was probably overdoing it. We actually got together and decided conclusively that maybe these guns are too big for any country to prepare for war with.

ID50 rate upon inhaled exposure of but only 1-10 germ particulates that is exceedingly hard to kill under any Earth-like environmental conditions. With a long incubation period, high mortality, high disability rate that allows maximum infection rates of an exposed populace?

Is that prepared enough?

Well, if you are considering having biological weapons for defence, the fact that it could easily kill countless of your own people is something that would dissuade you from doing so.

But you are going all ad absurdum. You might as well say "but a Death Star is no good for defence". The point remains that being prepared to defend yourself is far more likely to result in peace than not being.

Seanchaidh:

inu-kun:

Seanchaidh:

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.

Regardless, if people suspect he didn't recieve a fair trial they have the right to do it.

And I have the right to judge them for wanting to pardon someone who is clearly a contemptible racist murderer, not a "hero".

You can't prove it was racist, it was definitely not a murder (unless the guy was psychic).

inu-kun:

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.

I'm sorry that unless the Palestinians ever decide to go to peace route they will never the country they want.

The timeless cry of the oppressor, "If only they would be peaceful". Meanwhile, oppressor proposes legislation allowing hunger-strikers to be force fed. Normal concern for normal country. And AIPAC lobbies politicians in the United States to outlaw participation in the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement. Nonviolence has 'em spooked, I'll give you that.

OMG we don't let people kill themselves, we surely are monsters.

inu-kun:

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.

1) "Apartheid and cleansing", what you say does not happen in reality.

https://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/1.671538
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/palestinian-ghettos-were-always-the-plan.premium-1.495144

Haaretz is about the same political level as Breitbart, which raises a question of how such an evil country let free hourmalism run amok. Regardless give actual events rather than opinion pieces.

inu-kun:
2) You mean Israel does what every country does, use its might to keep its borders. Or do you want to return Texas to Mexico?

Texas doesn't belong to Mexico anymore than it belongs to Spain. Caddo, Pueblo, Comanche, Kiowa, Karankawa, Apache, and other tribes have a claim to Texas, and the United States has not done right by its indigenous population. The United States is the situation Israeli colonialists dream of: a depopulated graveyard to build their state upon. The indigenous population of the United States sits at around 1% and is generally ignored. The indigenous peoples of the United States deserve better than they've gotten, certainly. Some think the various tribes should be given back their land (though, at this point, I'm not certain how that would ever happen, due to the power structures in place).

In any case, BUT THOSE OTHER COLONISTS GOT TO isn't an excuse. Israel doesn't get to model its behavior on the American genocidal precedent anymore than it does the Roman genocidal precedent.

There are plenty of other countries considering human history is built on conquest, as well as the palestinians never accepted the UN decision in 4.

inu-kun:
3) Justice led by a continent which murdered a third of jewish population in an act that solidified why a Jewish country is necessary.

The holocaust isn't license to steal land from Arabs.

Land they don't live in currently and a lot of times even historically, Israel was a wasteland when the first Zionists came.

inu-kun:
4) The Palestinians never agreed to UN decision to part Israel, quite the opposite in fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#The_vote

That doesn't indicate that they were consulted in the decision..? And the UK abstained?

But anyway: Yeah, and? Arab states in general didn't agree to a plan to take land from Palestinians, therefore..?

Even before the "conquest" they didn't want peace, so the idea of Israel always being the aggressor falls flat.

inu-kun:

Indeed.

You both realize that there is a Muslim populace in Israel, right?

There is an invading settler colonial state exerting military control over Palestine.

There are also native Americans living in the United States and Armenians living in Turkey.

And there is currently no Armenian genocide or native american genocide (not that there ever was a palestinian genocide). And that's before going the question if the Palestinians were ever an "ethnicity". Regardless ask a muslim in Israel if he prefers life there or in a caliphate, I think human rights and freedoms wins in that case. Even better, ask a Muslim LGBT.

inu-kun:
Ehm, the event was a retalitation against the English mandate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Agatha
Not about "control"

A retaliation against trying to disarm terrorist organisations and arrest violent paramilitaries whose goal was always the establishment of a Jewish state.

Again, you are jumping to arguments which demonstrate the hypocrisy of your other arguments. It was okay for Israeli settlers in mandatory Palastine to arm themselves and conduct acts of violence and terrorism against the government, that was just something the government should have accepted. They were only defending themselves from totally unjust colonial oppression, you see. Remember though, violence is never the answer..

inu-kun:
The thing is Israel only has religeous courtrooms for maritial issues (and have their own versions for Islamic and Druze population) and has laws like Sabbath for businesses.

Yeah, it's the same in the UK. There are religious courts which act as mediators for the secular courts, that's a normal arrangement despite the recent anxiety over "sharia courts". Being a secular country doesn't mean noone is religious.

inu-kun:
Regardless comparison to countries that murder gay people is pretty hurtful.

As is homonationalism, and the idea that being tolerant of LGBT people functions as a moral justification for acting oppressively, or when the civil rights of LGBT people functions as a symbol of national and civilizational superiority rather than what it actually is, a tenuous right fought for by generations of activists against an overwhelmingly hostile society, a process which in many countries is ongoing.

Also, the comparison was pointing out the difference, those countries are not secular countries (Saudi Arabia more so than Iran), being not secular is more than just having religious people living in your country.

inu-kun:
Does that make the violence towards israelis justified? There were several deaths I didn't write about as well as cases where it might be murder but cannot be proven (like running over people).

Again, my point is not really about whether violence is justified but whether the tolerance or condemnation of violence is applied universally. If your view is that no violence against civilians is justifiable, then the indiscriminate bombing or shelling of built up areas should disgust you, the use of live ammunition during civilian confrontations or raids and the routine "accidents" in which civilians, children and peace activists are shot by soldiers who know they will protected from culpability, these should disgust you. "Kneecapping", the practice of deliberately disabling civilians with shots to the lower body and legs so they won't show up as civilian deaths, should disgust you. It doesn't though, because you think it is justified by the fact that some of them engage in violence. If a kid throws a stone, or some militants launch an unguided rocket, then it's okay to fire indiscriminately into a crowd using live ammunition or drop bombs onto civilian housing, because nothing can justify violence..

inu-kun:
That they shouldn't launch rockets at civilians or try to kidnap soldiers and then it might actually build trust. But this is Gaza, which is run over by Hamas who is literally genocidal towards jews.

Richard Spencer is genocidal towards Jews. Nick Griffin is genocidal towards Jews. I have no doubt that both have participated in or knowingly advocated violence or harassment directed against Jews. Somehow, people have managed not to indiscriminately bomb and shoot their entire communities. The simple fact is, if Hamas is literally genocidal against Jews (which has been denied many times by Hamas' representatives) then they are really, really bad at genocide, certainly compared to the IDF which manages to rid the world of vastly, vastly more Palestinian civilians than the "literally genocidal" Hamas manages to do in reverse.

It matters what you do, not just what you say. Plenty of regimes have denied ethnic cleansing or genocide while carrying it out. If an outsider were to try and assess which of these two parties was acting in a genocidal manner, genocide being the attempt to remove (in whole or in part) a particular group of people through systematic murder, depopulation or breaking up families, neither would come out as innocent, but I'm not sure Hamas would come out as the more genocidal one.

inu-kun:
Try to live in this situation and then try to say that.

A fair criticism, and one which I'd be much more sympathetic to if you hadn't previously argued that "mass terrorism" is taking over in Europe because we let the Muslamics in. But I'll take the point and acknowledge that it's going to be a lot harder to remain detached when you're actually in this situation.

inu-kun:
That it's a good example of a country where the jewish population starts to move away from because of fear for their lives, I have a feeling the UK is not far behind.

But that's literally been happening for decades all over the world.. at this point, there are barely any Jews left in France or the UK to move away. Antisemitism never went away. It doesn't change the fact that Jews who choose to remain are undeniably citizens, they may be persecuted and mistreated by other citizens (like a lot of marginalized demographic groups, such as those gay people you were talking about earlier) but they have the same rights as everyone. Persecution has no bearing on their citizenship.

All I can say is "oooohhh boy. There's going to be a lot of angry fight-back over this and any chance of peace has gone out the window". :(

aegix drakan:
All I can say is "oooohhh boy. There's going to be a lot of angry fight-back over this and any chance of peace has gone out the window". :(

The aftermath of the extermination of all human life in nuclear war would be very peaceful.

Lonely, but peaceful.

On the one hand, this is an entirely symbolic gesture likely to have little practical effect coming from a president prone to making symbolic, disruptive gestures solely to make it appear as if he's doing something. Withdrawing from Paris, for example, or banning transgender people from the military.

Nothing will really change. Netanyahu will continue to look the other way as the West Bank is settled; his allies in the Jewish religious right will continue to back him as a result. The Palestinian government will continue its dysfunctional, separated existence. The Saudis will tolerate it because Israel will want to stick it to Iran; Iran will get annoyed and probably start up their nuclear program again. Everyone will continue to ignore the problem until the Palestinians just kinda vanish, presumably.

inu-kun:

Ehm, the event was a retalitation against the English mandate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Agatha
Not about "control"

That doesn't legitimise a terrorist act. We're talking about a terrorist attack on a non-strategic target: that cannot be justified by some bullshit appeal to wider policy. It is abominably cruel the second it foregoes tactical value in the pursuit of terror.

CM156:

The aftermath of the extermination of all human life in nuclear war would be very peaceful.

Lonely, but peaceful.

Catnip1024:

In modern warfare, it is difficult to distinguish between forces intended to attack and those intended to defend. The proportions will change, sure, but you still need long range strike capability, you still need the ability to assault occupied areas for counter-attack purposes.

I can tell you there is a significantly high difference between the capacity to launch a complex invasion with many moving parts and a defensive force composition. Things like force multiplication require stuff like aircraft carriers in the former as opposed to the latter, for instance. The latter is suitably met by something like airfields in terms of maintaining a permanent aerial presence and quick response times, backed by suitable communications systems.

Problem is you can't just move airfields.

After decades of largely stagnating military spending, Australia had to get creative managing the logistics of the East Timor offensive despite having an extensive total force composition. Primarily because we hadn't been expected to launch an attack on another landmass since the Cold War.

RESPFOR ultimately used Indonesian trucks on ground to secure consistent road-based transport of people and materiel once they had been inserted. Which was a clever answer to the problems of supply, but it's not an ideal solution.

I'm pretty sure if you went through the statistics, you could find a similar correlation between those unprepared for war and those which were occupied. Pointing back beyond 60 years or so becomes largely meaningless due to how the world has changed, though. The imperialistic tensions have gone. Beyond North Korea and arguably Russia, the aggressively militaristic states have all pacified.

That has everything to do with the rise of global markets. But let's not pretend where so much of the current civil conflicts being waged have their origins. The origins being, precisely, colonialism. Which has been the largest generator of conflicts in the 20th Century.

The growing peace has been bought by extensive diplomatic operations and the growing access to strategic resources on global markets. What it hasn't been bought by is simply the capacity to wage war.

The economic viability is proportionate to your ability to wreak havoc in return.

Clearly not, because there's plenty of developing nations that don't have a shot in hell.

Their peace is bought precisely through making their invasion for resources pointless. Which was a staple of why mercantilism was so thoroughly, inherently, a violent market model.

Again, two points - one, see statement above about those who prepare for war. Two, age of imperialism, very different from now (arguably three - US inherent racism).

Age of Imperialism? Marcos was the 1980s. Australia has mobilised more forces in foreign lands in the 21st century than the three last decades of the 20th Century.

Thaluikhain:
Certainly, I didn't mean that Australian politicians would follow Trumps example, more that Australia is affected by US culture and Australians often follow the US's lead on cultural things. Lots of Australians will ape US issues that get more coverage online than local issues, Trump is bringing bigots out of the woodwork. Enough of those and they can affect the political landscape.

Ehhhh? I don't think so. I don't know, I've never been to the U.S. ... but I have travelled throughout Asia, Europe and North Africa.

I think Australia is fairly divorced of the same cultural watermarks, and I think even now we probably have far more to do with the English cultural legacy. It's safe to say the BBC has always dominated our viewership ... and I think we also occupy that weird spot of cultural sensibility.

There is a gulf between Australian humour and cultural sensibilities in comparison to either the U.S. or English backgrounds. We don't have the ingrained and institutional reverence to class divides that you find in either country.

We don't have the same reverence to career politicians. As Paul Keating put it more eloquently last year; "Our society is simply better..." And honestly that resonates pretty strongly with your average Australian mindset. We tend to have a habit of running our PMs out of office ... and Turnbull is next. I don't see him surviving till the next election. And that would persist now a decade long tradition of running multiple PMs out of office without even serving a full three years.

Usually such persistent political turmoil would shake most democracies to their core.

You wouldn't see such a thing in the U.S. or the UK, or much less most countries in the EU, without people screaming; "The end is nigh!" Even the culture is volatile to political dynasties. Doctor Who for example. That show sucked so much Churchill dick despite how fucking monstrous he was.

And frankly that wouldn't fly in Australia.

There is none of that obsequiousness to the politically powerful that you find in the UK or the U.S.

I think the political language in Australia is s hell of a lot different. Australia flat out told Israel it ain't budging its embassy in Tel Aviv... and that hasn't transformed into some grand narrative of conservatives pretending it represents anti-semitism or being 'anti-Israel', for instance. For starters it was 'our conservatives' that said as such and it was 'our conservative' like Howard that did things like liberate Timor Leste and the gun buyback scheme. The political language and landscape is inherently different.

When push comes to shove, people will look at conservatives like Howard as opposed to a Cory Bernardi assuming they want to be successful.

Well, it's their country.

If they want Jerusalem to be their capital, that's up to them.

I get that it's contentious, of course.

But, I think at this point, we have to accept that Jerusalem is within Israel's borders and it's up to them what they do with it.

The Lunatic:
Well, it's their country.

If they want Jerusalem to be their capital, that's up to them.

I get that it's contentious, of course.

But, I think at this point, we have to accept that Jerusalem is within Israel's borders and it's up to them what they do with it.

I don't think you understand. Israel has considered Jerusalem to be its official capital basically since 1948. What has changed is that now the US has announced that they consider Jerusalem to be Israel's capital.

This is not a question of "let the Israelis have their capital wherever they want it." This is a question of what other countries recognise as Israel's capital. The PLO spent ages calling themselves a state without it being recognised by anyone; when they finally got observer status in the UN it was a big deal because it meant that the UN implicitly recognised their statehood.

Similarly, Trump officially recognising Jerusalem as Israel's capital is a big deal because Trump has essentially signaled to the Palestinians that ownership of Jerusalem is off the negotiating table. Both Israel and Palestine want Jerusalem to be their capital. That's a perennial problem, but not an intractable one; you could declare Jerusalem a shared international zone, administer it with a semi-autonomous mayoral government composed of representatives from both states, and allow both Israeli and Palestinian citizens free passage in or out.

Trump has basically removed that possibility from negotiation. Is he just recognising the facts on the ground? Yeah, probably. That doesn't mean it was a good decision. He's basically telling the Palestinians that no compromise can be reached and co-operation will only work to their detriment. The motherfuckers are all gonna vote for Hamas after this, watch. You thought Gaza was bad; wait until the sequel moves to the Holy City.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Age of Imperialism? Marcos was the 1980s. Australia has mobilised more forces in foreign lands in the 21st century than the three last decades of the 20th Century.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the immediate period where the Phillipines changed hands from Spain to America? Because clearly, one can't build up a defence capability whilst currently occupied.

Does he just wake up every morning and ask himself "How can I be as destructively incompetent as possible today?" I don't really have a dog in the Israel/Palestine thing but this has got to be the worst possible way he could have handled it. Heaven forbid one of the world's most delicate geopolitical flashpoints be handled with any tact.

Zontar:

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

You understand that people could die because of this, right? There's a reason no one before now has done this.

An examination of the (bi)partisan politics is relevant:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/09/senate.2000/hrc.jerusalem/

... if nothing else, making Schumer's support less surprising. Would Hillary Clinton have done the same as President? Hard to say. She didn't campaign on it in 2016 as far as I know (and I don't think Trump did either, if I'm not mistaken? It's possible they both campaigned on it and I just never noticed because reflexive agreement with Israel is so unsurprising), but she did support doing the same in 1999 and pledged to pursue it as a Senator. Maybe moving the embassy was her public position, and status quo was her private position. I don't know.

In any case, moving the embassy to Jerusalem wasn't exactly an off the wall out of the mainstream idea in D.C. Let's not pretend that Trump is the only reason that, or the driving force behind why this happened. There are deep structural reasons for this and many other dangerous and harmful decisions that we should address with more than just a new coat of paint. This is another issue where the standard of Not GOP is Not Good Enough.

Supporting the Israeli right wing and its grinding colonial machine is a bipartisan issue inside the beltway. Solving this problem is more than just a matter of which party is in power.

Catnip1024:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Age of Imperialism? Marcos was the 1980s. Australia has mobilised more forces in foreign lands in the 21st century than the three last decades of the 20th Century.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the immediate period where the Phillipines changed hands from Spain to America? Because clearly, one can't build up a defence capability whilst currently occupied.

Marcos was a U.S. puppet. The EDSA Revolution ended it in 1986.

But quite the opposite you see. Marcos was given arms by the U.S. turning that military support into the tools to assassinate rivals and enforce his martial law. In essence the military was probably strongest under Marcos than ever before. The difference is the primary target was the people.

renegade7:

You understand that people could die because of this, right? There's a reason no one before now has done this.

Yes, but the thing is that due to the fact I, unlike many in the West, believe Muslims have agency, hold only them accountable for their actions when some of them respond violently to something like this. When that Danish cartoon was made and there where riots, the riots where not the fault of the cartoonists.

Zontar:

renegade7:

You understand that people could die because of this, right? There's a reason no one before now has done this.

Yes, but the thing is that due to the fact I, unlike many in the West, believe Muslims have agency, hold only them accountable for their actions when some of them respond violently to something like this.

That doesn't change the fact that the violent response will occur and would be entirely avoidable if our leaders were more competent at dealing with diplomatic issues.

And by the way, if it's the future of the Jewish people you're concerned about, I'd caution you to be aware of the specific reasons that the Christian right in the US is so eager to support Israel. They don't actually like you.

.
I heard this place was dead. I'm glad Yahtzee is keeping the lights on. Although it is sad that most of my stuff in RP got deleted. It's fun reading what kind of shit I was up to six years ago.

It's funny there are several different discussions going on simultaneously in the thread. That's a major reason why I liked this community.

Anyways. There's so much stuff I can't figure out the reason as to why Trump decided to do this. It seems like a decision made for gaining some benefit inside the US, not abroad. The decision is entirely self-destructive to the general foreign policy of the USA. It goes directly against Obama's foreign policy and the mark he made in the middle east while in office. At the same time we know Trump is capable of destroying US foreign policy goals on a whim. I read that Trump is looking for domestic support from his core-base, and he is looking to combat some sex scandal of a republican senator. There's also the Jewish conspiracy, octopus with the beard laying its limbs all over the globe, controlling the 'leader of the free world'. I'm talking about his family and close advisors here. It could also be he got a temper tantrum and decided to stick a middle finger to Obama yet again. This man seems to be driven by spite.

On the Palestinian side, this move means the US can no longer be considered a reliable mediator. It will incite protest, and then violent protest, which will lead to deaths caused by IDF and Israeli police. It could flare up an armed conflict in Gaza, but the chances are low for it to happen without outside assistance. This would serve to aid Palestinian efforts in combating Israel with the help of the EU and Arab nations. If you thought Israel was getting closer to Saudi Arabia in an attempt to form an anti-Iran alliance, think again! This move will put a wrench in that plan. PLO could use this to convince the EU to force Israel into actual concessions, since the EU will no longer see the US as a neutral broker.

On the Israeli side, things are all roses and butterflies. Then again, placing myself for a moment as an intelligence officer in the IDF, I'd say this brings only trouble with no real gain. The move by the US was unilateral, and would not be recognized by the resounding majority of the world's countries. This only gives a casus beli for the Northern Iran-lead alliance to have a go at Israel, 'saving Al-Quds' in the process. If such a scenario occurs, Gaza would join to create a two-front offensive, and unrest in the West Bank will go nuts. This is, of course, my own personal doomsday scenario, in which I try to be as harmless as possible and hope for the best. P.S. I'll most likely be in uniform during that.

BTW How have you guys been doing? Anything new? I'm curious to know.

PS I found the conversation about Australian politics fascinating.

-Iron

/Double Post. Some things never change/

renegade7:

That doesn't change the fact that the violent response will occur and would be entirely avoidable if our leaders were more competent at dealing with diplomatic issues.

These are the same people who did deadly riots when cartoonist drew a picture of their holy pedophile and who launch rockets at civilians from platforms built atop apartment complexes, schools and hospitals, they aren't exactly trying not to have a reason to commit these acts.

And by the way, if it's the future of the Jewish people you're concerned about, I'd caution you to be aware of the specific reasons that the Christian right in the US is so eager to support Israel. They don't actually like you.

Well then lucky me I'm not in the US, the Jews that are are mostly the type that can stay there instead of going back, and the alt-right is zionist (yet also hates what they perceive to be the leftist Jews problem when it's really just a leftist problem that has some high profile Jews financing it, one of which being a literal Nazi as ironic as that is)

TheIronRuler:

BTW How have you guys been doing? Anything new? I'm curious to know.

Oh shit, Iron Ruler's back. Nice to see ya.

This place has seen better days, mainly due to the fact that the place now has officially no staff outside of Yahtzee who are being paid and is all volunteer. When Kross was fired he gave everyone who wasn't suspended an upgrade to premium membership that doesn't seem to have shut off, and there's a new subforum called the Wild West that has its only rules be nothing illegal, no porn, and no posting information that could destroy the site (this last one was because some idiot posted the site's source code in a post with the intent of seeing how people would mess around with it).

Other then that it's more or less the same, though there are a few new faces and some older ones are gone, but that's to be expected as time goes on. This isn't SpaceBattle.net where making a new profile is impossible after all.

Zontar:
These are the same people who did deadly riots when cartoonist drew a picture of their holy pedophile and who launch rockets at civilians from platforms built atop apartment complexes, schools and hospitals, they aren't exactly trying not to have a reason to commit these acts.

The same people? Are all Muslims always the same, or just when they are fighting someone or something?

Thaluikhain:

Zontar:
These are the same people who did deadly riots when cartoonist drew a picture of their holy pedophile and who launch rockets at civilians from platforms built atop apartment complexes, schools and hospitals, they aren't exactly trying not to have a reason to commit these acts.

The same people? Are all Muslims always the same, or just when they are fighting someone or something?

The type of person who'd do something stupid over the recognition of a nation's capital are the same type who'd do something stupid over a cartoon of a pedophile. Lets not pretend a rational thinking civilized person who is the type who'd pass a proper immigration vetting is the type who would get violent over either act.

Zontar:

These are the same people who did deadly riots when cartoonist drew a picture of their holy pedophile and who launch rockets at civilians from platforms built atop apartment complexes, schools and hospitals, they aren't exactly trying not to have a reason to commit these acts.

Reason's got nothing to do with it. The entire basis for this conflict is two religious groups who believe the same things save a handful of technicalities killing each other over a materially worthless strip of desert because they think that a magic wizard in the sky told them that it's theirs.

The fundamental idea of international politics is to avoid conflict, even if the reasons for the conflict are stupid. To the people who are going to die, it's not going to matter who you think was in the right or wrong.

Well then lucky me I'm not in the US, the Jews that are are mostly the type that can stay there instead of going back, and the alt-right is zionist

Donald Trump is answering to his evangelical base, most of whom have next to no idea what the alt-right is.

And it doesn't matter that you're not in the US. They think that their god can't come back until they've 1.) moved every single Jew in the world to Israel and then 2.) killed them there. If they're given too many concessions, then conceivably they're going to come for you next.

And also lucky for you, since you're not in the US, you're not eligible to be drafted if this all goes to shit. I personally am not too keen on the idea of being sucked into a war over some dark age religious boondoggle.

renegade7:

Zontar:

These are the same people who did deadly riots when cartoonist drew a picture of their holy pedophile and who launch rockets at civilians from platforms built atop apartment complexes, schools and hospitals, they aren't exactly trying not to have a reason to commit these acts.

Reason's got nothing to do with it. The entire basis for this conflict is two religious groups who believe the same things save a handful of technicalities killing each other over a materially worthless strip of desert because they think that a magic wizard in the sky told them that it's theirs.

The fundamental idea of international politics is to avoid conflict, even if the reasons for the conflict are stupid. To the people who are going to die, it's not going to matter who you think was in the right or wrong.

Well then lucky me I'm not in the US, the Jews that are are mostly the type that can stay there instead of going back, and the alt-right is zionist

Donald Trump is answering to his evangelical base, most of whom have next to no idea what the alt-right is.

And it doesn't matter that you're not in the US. They think that their god can't come back until they've 1.) moved every single Jew in the world to Israel and then 2.) killed them there. If they're given too many concessions, then conceivably they're going to come for you next.

And also lucky for you, since you're not in the US, you're not eligible to be drafted if this all goes to shit. I personally am not too keen on the idea of being sucked into a war over some dark age religious boondoggle.

I think you're giving the Evangelical base way too much credit to assume they have a basic understanding of eschatology. Even back during the Ottoman Empire you had people point to things like the Battle of Megiddo and the horseback charges against Ottoman lines, and the needless slaughter of Ottoman formations ... As a sign of Armageddon. But it's not as if msny shared that opinion beyond the Baha'i faithful... and even then.

And it wasn't just a case of Middle Eastern religions ... people in various Protestant churches believed the Great War would scour the Earth. Doomsday prophecies of eternal conflict and the end of days. The Great War saw resurgent 20th century religiosity within Protestant ranks world wide. A direct consequence of the utterly threatened, violently collapsing way of imperialist European and Asian dynasties and their respective empires.

In terms of modern parlance, "fundamentalism" in a Christian context can be traced to the 1910s and 20s.

Moreover, Christian Zionism is purely an example of Protestant thought, not Coptic, Orthodox or Catholic schools of thought. Sure a handful of European and American political bases might go for it... but is it enough to turn the tide of basic empirical-based skepticism?

Zontar:

.
Oh shit, Iron Ruler's back. Nice to see ya.

This place has seen better days, mainly due to the fact that the place now has officially no staff outside of Yahtzee who are being paid and is all volunteer. When Kross was fired he gave everyone who wasn't suspended an upgrade to premium membership that doesn't seem to have shut off, and there's a new subforum called the Wild West that has its only rules be nothing illegal, no porn, and no posting information that could destroy the site (this last one was because some idiot posted the site's source code in a post with the intent of seeing how people would mess around with it).

Other then that it's more or less the same, though there are a few new faces and some older ones are gone, but that's to be expected as time goes on. This isn't SpaceBattle.net where making a new profile is impossible after all.

.
I didn't notice it before you mentioned it. Everybody has been promoted to premium members. I bet it feels bad to know your support as a premium member before the change wasn't enough to keep the escapist open. Looks like Forums like these are getting replaced by social media, but I was never a fan of twitter and the like. I like to keep my opinions and myself separate, least I get myself into trouble.

Do you know something about the Singularity-loving French Breton, I forgot his handle-name and I want to contact him.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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