Trump recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Trump is threatening to cut aid to nations that vote in favor of condemning his actions at the UN. According to Nikki Haley, the US' ambassador to the UN, "At the UN we're always asked to do more and give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thursday there'll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names." Trump has also said "They take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars, and then they vote against us. Well, we're watching those votes. Let them vote against us. We'll save a lot. We don't care"

Haley has also apparently sent threatening letters to UN member states, urging them to vote against the motion.

Dr. Thrax:
Trump is threatening to cut aid to nations that vote in favor of condemning his actions at the UN. According to Nikki Haley, the US' ambassador to the UN, "At the UN we're always asked to do more and give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thursday there'll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names." Trump has also said "They take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars, and then they vote against us. Well, we're watching those votes. Let them vote against us. We'll save a lot. We don't care"

Haley has also apparently sent threatening letters to UN member states, urging them to vote against the motion.

Looks like that didn't pan out for them, the UN voted overwhelmingly in support of the motion, with I believe 128 countries choosing to decry the U.S.'s decision, some 30-odd abstaining, and only nine voting as the United States wanted, two of which of course were the US and Israel. The latter of course was quick to insist that every other country we are having their strings pulled by their Palestinian masters, apparently oblivious to the irony that the US had been frantically trying to pull those very strings. =P

That being said, on my mobile so I can't going into my usual wordiness, but one somewhat encouraging development over these months has been the fact that the international community doesn't seem to be completely handicapped by the Trump administration. When the US had initially announced its intention is to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, I had been morosely convinced that so many other countries would fall in line, the entire thing would fall apart. Regardless of what a nation's individual leaders might have thought of Trump or his administration, the US is still a massive trading partner, and my concern was that this above all else would shape its international influence. This recent development with the UN has pretty much demonstrated an overt attempt by the United States to throw its weight around in order to get what it wants. 'You shouldn't side with me because you agree with me, you should side with me because I told you to' sorta dickery.

But on the contrary, the rest of the planet seems quite willing to simply move on without the United States if necessary. Quite literally in fact, as I don't believe the United States was even invited to the climate change summit being held in Paris this month, as they have made their position quite clear and wouldn't really bring anything to the table but disruption.

Dr. Thrax:
Trump is threatening to cut aid to nations that vote in favor of condemning his actions at the UN. According to Nikki Haley, the US' ambassador to the UN, "At the UN we're always asked to do more and give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American people, about where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thursday there'll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names." Trump has also said "They take hundreds of millions of dollars and even billions of dollars, and then they vote against us. Well, we're watching those votes. Let them vote against us. We'll save a lot. We don't care"

Haley has also apparently sent threatening letters to UN member states, urging them to vote against the motion.

I'm sitting at my home and I just realized we've had a year of childish tempter tantrums being disguised poorly as diplomacy, and it just hit me that, baring impeachment or Trump having a heart attack because he's a 70 year old that eats even worse than I do (and I eat pretty fucking bad) we're gonna have three more years of Trump dragging America's reputation through the mud and burning every bridge that refuses to suck him off.

I don't think we're gonna be able to come back from this one...

SeventhSigil:
The latter of course was quick to insist that every other country we are having their strings pulled by their Palestinian masters,

Yes, it's amazing how a few million destitute Middle Easterners somehow manage to wrap the whole world around their little finger.

Whereas Israel, even despite representation of major lobby groups like AIPAC, are almost powerless...

SeventhSigil:
two of which of course were the US and Israel.

The list I have for the rest of the "No" vote is: "Guatemala, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo" [Reuters]. I am deeply disappointed with Canada, Australia and Mexico's governments for abstaining, however the rest are unsurprising (most of whom are big recievers of U.S. aid, who could have guessed).

OT: From that list it certainly seems as though Trump/Haley's threats have had some sort of impact (unless Micronesia of all places has a very strong, totally not economically motivated opinion on the status of fucking Jerusalem).

I'm really confused as to how Haley thought this would play out, frankly. Its almost unbelievable that she thought anything concrete would be gained from throwing a tantrum like this. Constantly repeating that "Its a soveriegn nation's right to move its embassy where it likes!" as if anyone sensible cared about the embassy, rather than the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital without mention of Palestinians.

It reminds me of the most unflattering aspects of Tereasa May, repeating something obviously false or misleading in a desperate attempt to garner support. Except that its not a bunch of under-informed British people that she's trying to persuade, its what could be considered the diplomatic regulars from around the world. Its gunboat diplomacy without the guns. Or rather, its gunboat diplomacy where everyone knows that you don't have any bullets.

ineptelephant:
I'm really confused as to how Haley thought this would play out, frankly...

I suspect she probably thought it would play out like "If I act like just like that overgrown baby in the White House throwing a tantrum, then he might make me Secretary of State". (Because there totally aren't any rumours he's going to fire Rex Tillerson, oh no.) After all, the guy in charge sets the tone.

To be fair, it probably mitigated the defeat, about about 10-20 countries or so.

ineptelephant:

The list I have for the rest of the "No" vote is: "Guatemala, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo" [Reuters]. I am deeply disappointed with Canada, Australia and Mexico's governments for abstaining, however the rest are unsurprising (most of whom are big recievers of U.S. aid, who could have guessed).

Abstaining in situations like these makesgood political capital sense. To put it bluntly, our government outrightly said it would not be emulating the U.S. and said it would be keeping its embassy in Tel Aviv. Australia is kind of in a precarious position with Israel ever since we basically asked their top Mossad official to pack their bags in Canberra after it turned out Mossad used the passports of the Australian Jewish community vacationing in Israel without their knowledge. All in order to gain secretive access to various countries to assassinate various people.

Israel then refused to relieve their intelligence delegate despite our government keeping tabs on them due to mistrust and their deception and perversion of Australian law.

Australian passports entertained a high degree of freedom and acceptance worldwide, precisely because our government doesn't pull stunts like that. This isn't helped by Israel counterfeiting and outrightly stealing them in order to gain access to countries in order to assassinate distant naysayers.

The situation has been 'frosty' since then, by abstaining and remaining critical the Australian government hopes not to spend political capital on a fight it doesn't want to wage but also signal on the quiet to our neighbours like Indonesia and Malaysia that we don't have a dog in this fight nor are we looking for one to enter.

After all, we're still cleaning house after that 2010 stunt Mossad pulled. Assassination is a cowardly act, and using another nation's passports to do it in the attempt to evade the repercussions is even more so and certainly not the actions of an ally.

The politics of the South Pacific are a farcry from those in the New World and the Northern Hemisphere in general. Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation on Earth and respresents probably the biggest potential destabilizing element of the South Pacific. And there's been no shortage of potential flashpoints in the past given the relative youth of South East Asian nations and their various moments of independence from either European colonialism or in terms of their own internal squabbles.

Keeping the peace in a land made up of Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and more with zero regard to geographical borders in a part of the world where all nations are young and champing at the bit for whatever net positives to geostrategic interests is a precarious enough act.

Thailand (if we're including old Siam) is the only independent nation in the South Pacific over 117 years old. Small nations like Nauru saying 'No' is precisely because of wanting to 'keep the peace' on their own doorstep and to secure Indonesian trade. As big as U.S.Aid is, it doesn't compete with keeping regional enmity low.

I agree that abstaining is a pissweak response, but it's about as strong an answer as you could ever expect.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Abstaining in situations like these makesgood political capital sense. To put it bluntly, our government outrightly said it would not be emulating the U.S. and said it would be keeping its embassy in Tel Aviv. Australia is kind of in a precarious position with Israel ever since we basically asked their top Mossad official to pack their bags in Canberra after it turned out Mossad used the passports of the Australian Jewish community vacationing in Israel without their knowledge. All in order to gain secretive access to various countries to assassinate various people.

Israel then refused to relieve their intelligence delegate despite our government keeping tabs on them due to mistrust and their deception and perversion of Australian law.

Australian passports entertained a high degree of freedom and acceptance worldwide, precisely because our government doesn't pull stunts like that. This isn't helped by Israel counterfeiting and outrightly stealing them in order to gain access to countries in order to assassinate distant naysayers.

The situation has been 'frosty' since then, by abstaining and remaining critical the Australian government hopes not to spend political capital on a fight it doesn't want to wage but also signal on the quiet to our neighbours like Indonesia and Malaysia that we don't have a dog in this fight nor are we looking for one to enter.

After all, we're still cleaning house after that 2010 stunt Mossad pulled. Assassination is a cowardly act, and using another nation's passports to do it in the attempt to evade the repercussions is even more so and certainly not the actions of an ally.

The politics of the South Pacific are a farcry from those in the New World and the Northern Hemisphere in general. Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation on Earth and respresents probably the biggest potential destabilizing element of the South Pacific. And there's been no shortage of potential flashpoints in the past given the relative youth of South East Asian nations and their various moments of independence from either European colonialism or in terms of their own internal squabbles.

Keeping the peace in a land made up of Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and more with zero regard to geographical borders in a part of the world where all nations are young and champing at the bit for whatever net positives to geostrategic interests is a precarious enough act.

Thailand (if we're including old Siam) is the only independent nation in the South Pacific over 117 years old. Small nations like Nauru saying 'No' is precisely because of wanting to 'keep the peace' on their own doorstep and to secure Indonesian trade. As big as U.S.Aid is, it doesn't compete with keeping regional enmity low.

I agree that abstaining is a pissweak response, but it's about as strong an answer as you could ever expect.

While I do agree that from a typical political standpoint, abstaining might be a prudent half-measure for a country that doesn't necessarily want to throw themselves into a given conflict, I'm rather curious as to whether the U.S. and Isreal will just end up lumping those that abstained into the same pile as those who voted against them anyway. Unless I'm mistaken, reports were suggesting that the U.S. wasn't just trying to pressure the other nations not to vote in favor of this measure, it was pressuring them to vote against it outright, something that technically speaking the abstaining countries didn't do either. Given how particularly, er, combative the current American administration is, it wouldn't surprise me to see the old adage 'You're Either With Us, Or Against Us' come back with a literal vengeance.

If Trump could...and I hope he cant, he would take the US off the Security Council and think that somehow made him strong as China and Russia move to carve the world in 2 between them while England and France just go Ugh =. =;;

Agema:
I suspect she probably thought it would play out like "If I act like just like that overgrown baby in the White House throwing a tantrum, then he might make me Secretary of State". (Because there totally aren't any rumours he's going to fire Rex Tillerson, oh no.) After all, the guy in charge sets the tone.

That is a very good point. I was na?vely looking at it from a "benefits to the U.S." perspective, rather than from a "benefits to Nikki Haley" one. I almost feel sorry for the state department at this point... this is what a potential candidate for most senior diplomat does and its applauded. No wonder they struggle to fill so many positions. At this rate Boris Johnson might lose the title of "least appropriate diplomat on the world stage".

To be fair, it probably mitigated the defeat, about about 10-20 countries or so.

I think that was their reasoning too, but the amount of political capital wasted on what was still a resounding defeat beggars belief. I understand its damage control for the manchild-in-chief, but Putin and the Chinese political elite are going to be using this example forever. And most irritatingly, they will be completely right.

I imagine the Art of War isn't mandatory reading in any of the Trump run departments, but the old adage "fight where you can win" seems appropriate.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Abstaining in situations like these makesgood political capital sense. To put it bluntly, our government outrightly said it would not be emulating the U.S. and said it would be keeping its embassy in Tel Aviv. Australia is kind of in a precarious position with Israel ever since we basically asked their top Mossad official to pack their bags in Canberra after it turned out Mossad used the passports of the Australian Jewish community vacationing in Israel without their knowledge. All in order to gain secretive access to various countries to assassinate various people.

I did not know about that specific problem with Mossad using passports... That's absolutely fascinating. I was aware that Mossad had a bad reputation for assasinations but Christ on a bike. What a good way to endear yourself to the rest of the world, especially people you would like to call your allies.

The situation has been 'frosty' since then, by abstaining and remaining critical the Australian government hopes not to spend political capital on a fight it doesn't want to wage but also signal on the quiet to our neighbours like Indonesia and Malaysia that we don't have a dog in this fight nor are we looking for one to enter.

That makes sense. While it would have been delightful to watch Trump squirm as the U.N. near-totally voted "yes" to proposition "piss off Trump, you knob", at some point it becomes more about joy and less about affecting change on the world stage. Frankly, I imagine that nothing short of an upset to Trump's base will ever have any bearing on his strategy or mental state, an overwhelming rebuke from the U.N probably doesn't even register across any measurable brain activity.

The politics of the South Pacific are a farcry from those in the New World and the Northern Hemisphere in general. Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation on Earth and respresents probably the biggest potential destabilizing element of the South Pacific. And there's been no shortage of potential flashpoints in the past given the relative youth of South East Asian nations and their various moments of independence from either European colonialism or in terms of their own internal squabbles.

Keeping the peace in a land made up of Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, and more with zero regard to geographical borders in a part of the world where all nations are young and champing at the bit for whatever net positives to geostrategic interests is a precarious enough act.

Thailand (if we're including old Siam) is the only independent nation in the South Pacific over 117 years old. Small nations like Nauru saying 'No' is precisely because of wanting to 'keep the peace' on their own doorstep and to secure Indonesian trade. As big as U.S.Aid is, it doesn't compete with keeping regional enmity low.

In my opinion, smaller nations have a free ticket to pointlessly vote with the U.S. due to their implied vulnerability. It would be somewhat rich of a citizen of the U.K. to get uppity over that, considering that we may become essentially vassals depending on how Brexit turns out. All we (as in the world) can hope is that one day, we won't need big brother U.S. to come around to both keep the peace and break/take everything.

I agree that abstaining is a pissweak response, but it's about as strong an answer as you could ever expect.

You're right. Like many challenging geopolitical problems, there is no "good" solution, only "less worse" ones. Otherwise you would assume that someone would have solved it already.

SeventhSigil:

While I do agree that from a typical political standpoint, abstaining might be a prudent half-measure for a country that doesn't necessarily want to throw themselves into a given conflict, I'm rather curious as to whether the U.S. and Isreal will just end up lumping those that abstained into the same pile as those who voted against them anyway. Unless I'm mistaken, reports were suggesting that the U.S. wasn't just trying to pressure the other nations not to vote in favor of this measure, it was pressuring them to vote against it outright, something that technically speaking the abstaining countries didn't do either. Given how particularly, er, combative the current American administration is, it wouldn't surprise me to see the old adage 'You're Either With Us, Or Against Us' come back with a literal vengeance.

Well the Israelis have already proven they're no friend to Australia. And the relationship we have with the U.S. is already a jeopardy to our sovereignty at best, at worst it's parasitic. America's wars require us far more than we have ever received in kind, but neither would we wish to receive it in kind.

We don't receive U.S. aid, we don't benefit either directly or indirectly from the wars the U.S. drags ud into, nor the wars that we enable due to the unique geostrategic qualities of Australia itself (that is, stable dominance over the skies of half the Southern Hemisphere) making it a phenomenal 'listening station' and for organising electronic warfare, military communications and surveillance assets... Which is kind of critical with a hypothetical war eith China over the Sunda and Malacca straits that we border.

So what exactly is the U.S. going to do?

Putting it frankly... in all legitimate criticism we'll take Haley's and Trump's whiny nonsense over the veiled threats that Obama spouted off about. How if we continued to open up freer trade with China rather than buying into all that ridiculous nonsense of 'Australia's pivot to China' rhetoric of mid term strategies of economic and military encirclement, Obama might push to house more marines in Australia if we didn't play ball.

It's an impotent gesture coming from this Nikki Haley compared to that

Moreover, if they pretended to have Australian interests at heart they would recognize why the Australian government wants nothing to do with Israel's cowardice. We've been burned before... with serious political consequences.

The U.S military brass know just how important it is not to persist with alienating rhetoric towards Australia espoused political standpoint East Jerusalem should be the capital of the Palestinian state proper. That that is the only way to peace and greater regional stability. I'm certain someone would yank on someone's chain rather than jeopardise that. If the U.S. was silent when Canberra sent Israeli diplomats packing in 2010.... they'll be silent with us abstaining supporting Israel's desire to remove East Jerusalem from the Palestinians.

There is zero to gain from participating in this madness by playing into thr hands of Protestants believing that if there's enough Jews in one place Christiand can convert them all and summon forth New Jerusalem.

Yeah... it's as stupid as it sounds, yet it's been a belief for fucking centuries.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Abstaining in situations like these makesgood political capital sense. To put it bluntly, our government outrightly said it would not be emulating the U.S. and said it would be keeping its embassy in Tel Aviv. Australia is kind of in a precarious position with Israel ever since we basically asked their top Mossad official to pack their bags in Canberra after it turned out Mossad used the passports of the Australian Jewish community vacationing in Israel without their knowledge. All in order to gain secretive access to various countries to assassinate various people.

Well, shit. Yeah, you guys made the right call on this one. No sense putting yourself in the blast radius.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Well the Israelis have already proven they're no friend to Australia. And the relationship we have with the U.S. is already a jeopardy to our sovereignty at best, at worst it's parasitic. America's wars require us far more than we have ever received in kind, but neither would we wish to receive it in kind.

We don't receive U.S. aid, we don't benefit either directly or indirectly from the wars the U.S. drags ud into, nor the wars that we enable due to the unique geostrategic qualities of Australia itself (that is, stable dominance over the skies of half the Southern Hemisphere) making it a phenomenal 'listening station' and for organising electronic warfare, military communications and surveillance assets... Which is kind of critical with a hypothetical war eith China over the Sunda and Malacca straits that we border.

So what exactly is the U.S. going to do?

Putting it frankly... in all legitimate criticism we'll take Haley's and Trump's whiny nonsense over the veiled threats that Obama spouted off about. How if we continued to open up freer trade with China rather than buying into all that ridiculous nonsense of 'Australia's pivot to China' rhetoric of mid term strategies of economic and military encirclement, Obama might push to house more marines in Australia if we didn't play ball.

It's an impotent gesture coming from this Nikki Haley compared to that

Moreover, if they pretended to have Australian interests at heart they would recognize why the Australian government wants nothing to do with Israel's cowardice. We've been burned before... with serious political consequences.

The U.S military brass know just how important it is not to persist with alienating rhetoric towards Australia espoused political standpoint East Jerusalem should be the capital of the Palestinian state proper. That that is the only way to peace and greater regional stability. I'm certain someone would yank on someone's chain rather than jeopardise that. If the U.S. was silent when Canberra sent Israeli diplomats packing in 2010.... they'll be silent with us abstaining supporting Israel's desire to remove East Jerusalem from the Palestinians.

There is zero to gain from participating in this madness by playing into thr hands of Protestants believing that if there's enough Jews in one place Christiand can convert them all and summon forth New Jerusalem.

Yeah... it's as stupid as it sounds, yet it's been a belief for fucking centuries.

That's fair; hopefully it didn't sound like I was trying to criticize Australia for its decision, as honestly I do get it. xP Heck, my country has the distinct displeasure of having to share a border with the U.S., along with a whole buncha interconnected trade matters Trump's administration have already taken potshots at here and there, so while I might be a little disappointed with Canada's decision to abstain, I do get that this isn't really a hill to die on. Particularly given the vote was essentially symbolic finger-wagging and ultimately was going to have no impact other than scolding the U.S. lightly. (Which makes it all the more odd that this was apparently the hill the U.S. had chosen to die on, as ultimately the vote can't actually STOP or even punish them for their decision, making their over-the-top attempts to forcibly influence it all the more puzzling.)

I'm just also not sure that Israel and the U.S. won't simply look to drag those countries into this mess regardless, by demanding they pick a side. (Well, specifically demanding they pick THEIR side.) We'll see I guess.

I didn't know about those details with regards to the Mossad, though, thanks for that! Always interesting to learn about that kind of stuff, albeit in a disquietly terrifying sorta way.

ineptelephant:

I did not know about that specific problem with Mossad using passports... That's absolutely fascinating. I was aware that Mossad had a bad reputation for assasinations but Christ on a bike. What a good way to endear yourself to the rest of the world, especially people you would like to call your allies.

Israel has been doing its darndest not to endear itself to the rest of the world. Funny how they claim their militancy is 'required' to kill people far snd wide and inflict collateral damages with such ready acceptance, because 'terrorism'. What the fuck do you call a group of people willing to blow up hotel rooms and use the passports of visiting foreigners to commit murderous acts?

It's cowardice, plain and simple. True cowardice in all its ugliest dimensions as the word used to mean. Not merely being fearful of one's own shadow, but to commit horrific acts in service solely for one's skin without regards for basic decency, dignity and grace. The innocent lives of French citizenry, German, Spanish, Australian... they used and gambled them all with that stunt and that rightly should poison the well of accommodation. They'll turn it into a victim narrative while their hands are still slick with another's blood, however.

If the U.S. doesn't get why that is awful, then it's no failure on the world's part.

Israel acts like a rogue state and then cries wolf about how this breeds antipathy...

That makes sense. While it would have been delightful to watch Trump squirm as the U.N. near-totally voted "yes" to proposition "piss off Trump, you knob", at some point it becomes more about joy and less about affecting change on the world stage. Frankly, I imagine that nothing short of an upset to Trump's base will ever have any bearing on his strategy or mental state, an overwhelming rebuke from the U.N probably doesn't even register across any measurable brain activity.

....

In my opinion, smaller nations have a free ticket to pointlessly vote with the U.S. due to their implied vulnerability. It would be somewhat rich of a citizen of the U.K. to get uppity over that, considering that we may become essentially vassals depending on how Brexit turns out. All we (as in the world) can hope is that one day, we won't need big brother U.S. to come around to both keep the peace and break/take everything.

We don't need the U.S. now.

There was a fairly secretive Australian white paper that was formed for the explicit purpose of exploring future defence pacts and geostrategic alliances that conform to the idea of 'natural alliances' to meet the new threats of tomorrow. India was found to be a better strategic partner for Australia and New Zealand, as well as solidifying support in South East Asia through longterm normalizing of continued trade and cultural exchange.

The only problems presented was just how this powerplay would look to traditional sllies of Australia and India forming into a co-defence pact due to naturally inclusive strategic focuses such as the Malacca strait. The optics were bad, because the U.S. is still playing big brother.

The glowing outright problems were Australia didn't have enough quick response light aircraft carriers. Which is a roughly 10 year problem that can be remedied, but once again... the optics look bad from a U.S.-centric perspective if we started building and training crews for it tomorrow.

Apart from that and the question of whether Australia needs nuclear weapons or whether India is a suitable enough deterrent to enforce China's NFU pledge. And they havr no reason to jeopardise growing economic inclusiveness solely to control waterways they wouldn't be able to hold in the first place due to the overwhelming electronic warfare assets they would face.

The threats to tomorrow with or without a U.S. have already been quantified and explored.

BeetleManiac:

Well, shit. Yeah, you guys made the right call on this one. No sense putting yourself in the blast radius.

Voting outwardly against Israel-U.S. interests invites an intelligence and diplomatic battle none are willing to see to its conclusion. Abstaining while running thr same two state solution with a Palestinian East Jerusalem is s quiet way of saying; "We still disapprove, but we don't want anything to do with it."

The really antagonistic move would br countries sending ambassadorial-esque 'Palestinian liaison officers' to set up offices in East Jerusalem. After all... you can't bar Palestine emigres to their respective nations from meeting with diplomatic officers assuming Israel doesn't want to see rolling diplomatic sanctions if they attempted to close them down.

Would be fun to use Haley's whining baby arguments against U.S. and Israeli interests.

But then again, 'for shits and gigs' is a bad reason to do anything so overtly antagonistic.

ineptelephant:

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Abstaining in situations like these makesgood political capital sense. To put it bluntly, our government outrightly said it would not be emulating the U.S. and said it would be keeping its embassy in Tel Aviv. Australia is kind of in a precarious position with Israel ever since we basically asked their top Mossad official to pack their bags in Canberra after it turned out Mossad used the passports of the Australian Jewish community vacationing in Israel without their knowledge. All in order to gain secretive access to various countries to assassinate various people.

I did not know about that specific problem with Mossad using passports... That's absolutely fascinating. I was aware that Mossad had a bad reputation for assasinations but Christ on a bike. What a good way to endear yourself to the rest of the world, especially people you would like to call your allies.

IIRC, it wasn't just Australia, they used passports from a number of nations, including the UK. I seem to recall an Israeli representative deflecting UK criticism by saying the UK is the home of James Bond, they are used to that sort of thing, which is an impressively bad defence.

But yeah, glad to see Australia not following the US's lead, even in a sorta wishy washy way. Mind you, Trump is threatening those that opposed him, so I'd not expect anything more.

Guatemala is going all out on their obligation with the US it appears. That leash...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42475253

Xsjadoblayde:
Guatemala is going all out on their obligation with the US it appears. That leash...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42475253

I mean we have already overthrown their democratically elected government once this century. With Trump in charge and him taking any non-support as a personal insult, they're probably just hedging their bets...

Our record overall in Central America is pretty invasion-heavy in general too.

Avnger:

I mean we have already overthrown their democratically elected government once this century. With Trump in charge and him taking any non-support as a personal insult, they're probably just hedging their bets...

Our record overall in Central America is pretty invasion-heavy in general too.

That does put things into a far more understandable/sympathetic light. I wonder what the citizens are feeling about it all at present. It's not a healthy position to be in.

Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since forever, and trying to make peace and appease terrorists is not a winning strategy.

People saying conflict could spark over this, oh like the one they've been having for years?

Loved Trump/Haley's statements to the UN. The UN has been spamming motions against Israel, the only decent country to emerge in that shithole.

Delicious Anathema:

People saying conflict could spark over this, oh like the one they've been having for years?

No, worse. There are degrees of severity or intensity in ongoing conflict, and this has--quite demonstrably-- made that situation worse.

To argue that if a conflict already exists then events cannot spark further conflict is monumentally simplistic.

Loved Trump/Haley's statements to the UN. The UN has been spamming motions against Israel, the only decent country to emerge in that shithole.

Trump and Haley have tied their obligations to the UN to political support for their foreign policy; tried to browbeat an international body into acting as a rubber stamp for their own national ambitions. That spits in the face of diplomacy-- it is an outright call for corruption.

Anybody who does not believe the UN should be reduced to an instrument of aggressive US foreign policy should find their attitude appalling.

Delicious Anathema:
Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since forever, and trying to make peace and appease terrorists is not a winning strategy.

Because as everyone knows, there are only two kinds of people living in the Middle East: Jews and those dirty brown-skinned terrorists.

People saying conflict could spark over this, oh like the one they've been having for years?

So when can we expect you to enlist? I mean, I can only assume that if you want bloodshed this badly, you're heading straight for the nearest recruiting office to get your guns and kill infidels like a man oughtta.

BeetleManiac:

Delicious Anathema:
Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since forever, and trying to make peace and appease terrorists is not a winning strategy.

Because as everyone knows, there are only two kinds of people living in the Middle East: Jews and those dirty brown-skinned terrorists.

People saying conflict could spark over this, oh like the one they've been having for years?

So when can we expect you to enlist? I mean, I can only assume that if you want bloodshed this badly, you're heading straight for the nearest recruiting office to get your guns and kill infidels like a man oughtta.

You sure love to bring up race for no reason. The terrorists are the palestinian authority.

You assume a lot as well. There has been conflict for the longest time, and Israel even tried to approach Palestine, giving territory, with disastrous results for the people living there. I think it's time they gave up appeasing to them.

Delicious Anathema:
You sure love to bring up race for no reason. The terrorists are the palestinian authority.

The Palestinian "authority" encompasses all of the Middle East that is impacted by this? What about the Christian minority living in Palestine who have said that this move on Trump's part makes their lives a lot more difficult? Don't they get a say in this?

There has been conflict for the longest time,

Less than a century, let's at least be less vague. It's a result of a bunch of old white dudes post WWI promising land to several different people, colonizing them, dividing them up along arbitrary fucking lines and then leaving them to figure it out. I'm sure we all know the beats of the story by now. The violence didn't start in the 60's, but that's when it started to escalate. The majority of the conflict is still in living memory.

BeetleManiac:

The Palestinian "authority" encompasses all of the Middle East that is impacted by this? What about the Christian minority living in Palestine who have said that this move on Trump's part makes their lives a lot more difficult? Don't they get a say in this?

It does not. I said the palestinian authority are the terrorists, why are you implying they're all of the impacted middle east? The Christian minority saying that, is more reason to not negociate with terrorists. They were anti-semitic terrorists before this decision, they are now and they will be whatever happens. Even under british rule (Mandatory Palestine), jews were attacked for bringing chairs to the wailing wall for fucks sake. When Palestine still ruled Jerusalem, the group that would become the Palestinian Authority had the goal to destroy Israel. Having Jerusalem or Israel under Arab rule is guaranteed disaster. The Jerusalem being capital is an excuse for violence, there would be without that factor, and there would be if Jerusalem was in Palestine's hands as there has been before under the same authority.

Palestinian Christians don't have a say in how the US recognizes Jerusalem, that's the US' view on it and no countries are being forced to adopt it.

BeetleManiac:

Less than a century, let's at least be less vague. It's a result of a bunch of old white dudes post WWI promising land to several different people, colonizing them, dividing them up along arbitrary fucking lines and then leaving them to figure it out. I'm sure we all know the beats of the story by now. The violence didn't start in the 60's, but that's when it started to escalate. The majority of the conflict is still in living memory.

Again the race lol. Conflict is already happening there. Trump pushed for a position that Bill Clinton, George Bush and Obama said they were going to adopt and the senate decision from 1995, and again, that's the US' position, the rest of the world can recognize it as Palestine's capital for all americans care.

Delicious Anathema:
Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since forever, and trying to make peace and appease terrorists is not a winning strategy.

Unfortunately, the terrorists have superior local military power and don't seem to want to fuck off back to Europe and the United States.

Seanchaidh:

Delicious Anathema:
Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since forever, and trying to make peace and appease terrorists is not a winning strategy.

Unfortunately, the terrorists have superior local military power and don't seem to want to fuck off back to Europe and the United States.

What makes it more galling is the basis power behind that is Evangelical Christians influencing foreign affairs. The baseline support for Israel's militarism is far stronger in Evangelical camps thsn either American Jews or Catholics. Effectively you have the U.S. giving billions on hardware, not to mention direct financing, for the sake of Biblical literalism.

And that Biblical literalism doesn't come from a 'good place' ... Christian Zionism comes from a really dark fucking place in Protestant religiosity. To put it bluntly, there is a reason why so many *Western* Jews do not like Evangelical Christian 'support'... because knowing those Evangelicals, many would probably settle for shipping Jews in chains to Israel just to make apocryphal eschatology a thing.

What's good for Israel as a thing, is not good for Jews in general that don't want to participate with the grand religious experiment. After all... pretty sure Israel wanting to pump up Evangelical Christisnity further in the West makes it a hell of a lot more dangerous for them. Given no shortage of religious whackjobs that think the start and end of a Jew's worth is moving to Israel and converting to Christianity at the Second Coming... nog only that, on the flipside you have Nazi scumbags pointing to that Evsngelical & State support, pretending like every Jew is in on the "conspiracy" to promote Christian Zionism.

Pretty sure that's a type of crossfire no one wants to be in the middle of.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Seanchaidh:

Delicious Anathema:
Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since forever, and trying to make peace and appease terrorists is not a winning strategy.

Unfortunately, the terrorists have superior local military power and don't seem to want to fuck off back to Europe and the United States.

What makes it more galling is the basis power behind that is Evangelical Christians influencing foreign affairs. The baseline support for Israel's militarism is far stronger in Evangelical camps thsn either American Jews or Catholics. Effectively you have the U.S. giving billions on hardware, not to mention direct financing, for the sake of Biblical literalism.

And that Biblical literalism doesn't come from a 'good place' ... Christian Zionism comes from a really dark fucking place in Protestant religiosity. To put it bluntly, there is a reason why so many *Western* Jews do not like Evangelical Christian 'support'... because knowing those Evangelicals, many would probably settle for shipping Jews in chains to Israel just to make apocryphal eschatology a thing.

What's good for Israel as a thing, is not good for Jews in general that don't want to participate with the grand religious experiment. After all... pretty sure Israel wanting to pump up Evangelical Christisnity further in the West makes it a hell of a lot more dangerous for them. Given no shortage of religious whackjobs that think the start and end of a Jew's worth is moving to Israel and converting to Christianity at the Second Coming... nog only that, on the flipside you have Nazi scumbags pointing to that Evsngelical & State support, pretending like every Jew is in on the "conspiracy" to promote Christian Zionism.

Pretty sure that's a type of crossfire no one wants to be in the middle of.

It also helps that the United States is a genocidal settler colonial state itself.

Delicious Anathema:
Even under british rule (Mandatory Palestine), jews were attacked for bringing chairs to the wailing wall for fucks sake.

Under British rule, Jews literally blew up government buildings and murdered police officers. Many of the leaders of the organizations which carried out or supported these activities went on to make up the political and military leadership of independent Israel.

Heck, Menachem Begin, who ordered the bombing of the King David Hotel (the administrative headquarters of the mandate) ended up serving as Israeli prime minister. 91 people died in that bombing, including 17 local Jews. It was supposed to concide with another simultaneous terrorist attack, which was cancelled at the last minute.

What exactly is your definition of terrorism? Because if you're confused as to why people keep bringing race into this, it certainly sounds as if you think that you think terrorism only "counts" when certain types of people do it..

Delicious Anathema:
When Palestine still ruled Jerusalem, the group that would become the Palestinian Authority had the goal to destroy Israel.

Sure, and long, long before that Jewish Zionist leaders had been openly advocating an irredentist policy with destruction of Palestine as a goal. Today, it's hardly uncommon to see pro-Israeli pressure groups advancing the policy that Palestine as a country doesn't even exist. Fortunately, there's a difference between "having the goal" to do something and actually doing it, which people seem perfectly willing to accept when it comes to Israeli irredentists in positions of political or military influence..

The problem is not "goals", the problem is the lengths to which people will go to achieve their goals. Both sides have used terrorism and ethnic cleansing over the past century to try and achieve their respective goals (albeit at a completely different scale, and with completely differing success) the difference is that only one of those sides expects international support, not just for its goals in theory, but for whatever means are used to put them into practice.

So sure, the US can do what it wants. But the US will always be politically isolated on this, and it will always serve as a concrete demonstration of the abject hypocrisy of any US claim to moral guardianship in its role as the only (current) superpower. For now, that may seem trivial, but take it from a resident of a former colonial superpower, things have a way of changing..

Seanchaidh:

It also helps that the United States is a genocidal settler colonial state itself.

Mass migrations tend to have that effect. Whenever you get human displacement, death and iniquity. 85% of Jewish peoples are either in the U.S. or Israel as it stands. Given such concentrations you can see how this fuels Evangelical base in one place, and the ardent Zionists willing to consider Evangelical groups as if shadowy, highly temporary allies as if for the 'common goal, not a common vision'.

Essentially Palestine hasn't a shot in hell in assuming their capital to be East Jerusalem and guarantee their protected mobility rights. The most annoying facet of this clinical retardation of ardent Zionism in both camps. The cost of something can outweigh any perceptible benefit, and when the key benefit is housed in Protestant literalism of apocrypha and eschatology... that's a frightening vision to throw billions in hardware at.

Protip; No country simply deserves to exist. Countries rise and fall. Forgotten all but to history.

Australia could fall. Its constitution and the Commonwealth will inevitably collapse. And even as a former enlistee, it means nothing to me personally. Because if my country continued the path of its sordid past it doesn't deserve to survive when something better might be realised.

You have people, innocent people, being shot, starved, and kept in a persistent state of their presence slowly being cleansed out of places where they have buried their ancestors for thousands of years... populations being kept in perpetual isolation amd barred from very basic human rights such as the right of mobility or even basic representation in the form of UNHR observers being able to freely enter and monitor the situation.

You have embargoes against their alleviation of this.

To highlight just how petty this is, a Palestine football league had to be cancelled because Israel forbade FCs from going to West Bank. Heaven forbid if they might help give some form of entertainment to a group of people left powerless. Some measly spark of togetherness and joy irrespective of the iron walls that have split them apart. Israel has also barred Palestinian students leaving to go to the U.S. They even stopped the top Palestinian Olympics team chief from being able to travel abroad.

The message is quite clear ... keep it out of the media.

These are human rights violations for which are inexcusable. That no civilized nation can break without looking like some two-bit North Korea. When a country violates these basic conditions of liberty then it is nothing less than hostile occupation and detention. And the conditions in Gaza is a fucking war crime akin to the Nanking Massacre. If they weren't the world could send observers.

I guarantee you, if the U.S. does slow or stop its funding, and the rest of the world put sanctions on Israel, the people in Gaza will be treated as little better than hostages and bargaining chips.

When it gets to the point that Hamas has spent more money on social welfare programs for Gazans than Israel ever did ... you gotta start questioning just how wretched something has to be before people look to solutions for actual peace.

These people are corraled into cities like cattle. They have face decade long shortages of essential medicine, educational resources, food, denied basic access to travel, denied fuel resources to keep generators functioning, no trash collection, poor water supply... The fact that a ragtag Palestinian militia group has been documented to provide more relief to Gazans than any Israeli contingent in the history of Palestine ... that should speak volumes.

I've seen coups before ... I've seen people terrorised by the powers that be ... and Israel complains about them smuggling weapons, while neglecting to note that those weapons were the only thing that stopped the IDF dead in their tracks from breaking up families, terrorising schools and bulldozing homes in 2007. It's not a great feeling to have to play devil's advocate, but maybe when you have professional soldiers putting the boot into your parents or siblings, maybe they deserve the smuggled bullets coming out of smuggled guns.

Sucks when the oppressed fight back, doesn't it? Heaven forbid if they have to be a bit more callous with their actions and their rhetoric is one born of the hatred they have in turn faced.

I'm sorry ... what happened to all those right wing ammosexuals saying they keep guns, and that they should be made accessible, because they want/need them to fight tyrants? Very certain that feeling is mutually applicable...

Delicious Anathema:
It does not. I said the palestinian authority are the terrorists, why are you implying they're all of the impacted middle east?

Your words, not mine.

The Christian minority saying that, is more reason to not negociate with terrorists. They were anti-semitic terrorists before this decision, they are now and they will be whatever happens.

Gonna need a citation on that one.

Even under british rule (Mandatory Palestine), jews were attacked for bringing chairs to the wailing wall for fucks sake. When Palestine still ruled Jerusalem, the group that would become the Palestinian Authority had the goal to destroy Israel.

Israel wasn't even a thing until the 1940's, so how could Palestine destroy Israel before it was a thing? You make shit up. You really do.

Palestinian Christians don't have a say in how the US recognizes Jerusalem, that's the US' view on it and no countries are being forced to adopt it.

So you're with Trump in the idea that diplomacy is for non-men or something?

Again the race lol.

Are you disputing this account of events?

Conflict is already happening there.

And your point is what exactly?

So in a move surprising no one who was paying attention, the Likud party in Israel have made it explicitly clear that they want to torpedo the 2-state solution and turn Palestinians into second-class citizens via apartheid in their own homelands.

This is a fucking awful idea. Netanyahu's calls for annexation of territory would result in Israeli settlements surrounded on all sides by Palestinian borders, making it a logistic nightmare to try and supply, govern and militarily protect those settlements. It will also displace a lot of people into refugee status, further destabilizing the Middle East. Increased violence will almost certainly follow.

Likud are using sneaky language to annex the West Bank without calling it annexation, but that's what it is. It would also create a significant problem in that Israeli citizens in the West Bank, if this passes, would be subject to Israeli law, but the Palestinians living in the area would be subject to military rule.

BeetleManiac:
So in a move surprising no one who was paying attention, the Likud party in Israel have made it explicitly clear that they want to torpedo the 2-state solution and turn Palestinians into second-class citizens via apartheid in their own homelands.

And on top of this, Trump is doing his thing again. You know, that thing he does a lot. No, that other thing.

Trump is threatening to cut aid to Palestinian territories unless they agree to resume peace negotiations with Israel, as well as claiming that "Jerusalem is now off the table" despite earlier statements saying that the US recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital would not impact the final status of Jerusalem in peace negotiations.

Welcome to The New American Strategy, world.

Dr. Thrax:
snip

That tweet is pretty delicious. I love watching DT act so surprised that the Palestinians don't want to negotiate after he just unilaterally declared that they don't have a right to Jeruselem. This part is my favourite:

As an example, we pay the Palestinians HUNDRED OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS a year and get no appreciation or respect.

Ah yes, appreciation and respect. That's why most people give international aid. To assuage their desperate insecurities. He sounds more like a budget impersonation of a Sopranos boss than an international diplomat. Perhaps that's what he thought the job would be like?

Anyway, the Israeli's are having a mixed reaction to the developments. On the one hand, the right wing establishment is being rather predictable:

Israeli Culture Minister Miri Regev, a member of Netanyahu's Likud party, welcomed Trump's aid comments, saying on Army Radio: "I am very satisfied ... (Trump) is saying the time has come to stop saying flattering words (to the Palestinians)."

The ol' "no more flattering words, only flattening bombs" treatment. How very cultural of you, Regev.

While on the other hand in the opposition:

But Tzipi Livni, an Israeli opposition politician and a former peace negotiator, said "a responsible and serious (Israeli) government" should quietly tell Trump that it would be in Israel's interest to prevent a "humanitarian crisis in Gaza" and to continue to fund Palestinian security forces cooperating with Israel.

Who do you think has the better idea? Quotes from Reuters, found here.

From looking at what I suppose must be called Trump's "diplomacy" it seems that either A) he thinks the U.S. will be safer when its president acts like a braggadocious imbecile or B) he thinks that his rule would be cemented by furthering foreign alienation to the U.S.

Personally, I find B) scarier.

Wish this wouldn't have been such an obvious outcome, but here we fucking are as per fucking usual. Did Donaldo-boy only recently realise that Palestinians are majority Muslim, I wonder, and then became aware he could double-finger his supporters' prejudices in this political sphere while simultaneously taking public focus off the pesky investigation, at the cost of however many foreign lives necessary?
The longer this crap continues, the more ridiculous defenders and deflectors become, that it has to be something deeper that emotional investment in just not being proved wrong, there are some worrying forms of conditioning that certain right-wing media have been consistently hammering into their readership, I've no idea how you would begin to help. Too much money to be made in stirring up hate and distrust away from those who really hold the power and wealth.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 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