And here's this in the NYT: "Kerry’s Blunt Words for Israel Denounced by Lawmakers in Both Parties."
“While he may not have intended it, I fear Secretary Kerry, in his speech and action at the U.N., has emboldened extremists on both sides,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, the incoming Senate Democratic leader.
A bipartisan chorus of lawmakers, upset with President Obama’s decision last week to allow the passage of a United Nations resolution condemning Israel’s construction of settlements in disputed territory, made clear that they were looking past the departing administration.
Posts
327 comments:
1 – 200 of 327 Newer› Newest»What's a Leppo?
John Kerry would be my quick answer.
Would Obama's lame duck UN action have happened had Hillary won?
No medals for you.
Obama has a plan to induce the Russians to shut down the American power grids on inauguration day, as well.
"Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state with secure, recognized, and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided." - Presidential candidate Barack Obama to AIPAC, June 4, 2008.
And if you like your healthcare plan...
"I fear Secretary Kerry, in his speech and action at the U.N., has emboldened extremists on both sides." Ah yes, those Israeli "extremists" who would like to negotiate peace without having the "international community" shove a deal down their throats.
John "Gigolo" Kerry will be gone in about 22 days.
Every damn thing he and Obama has done will be reversed. China and Russia have grave problems Trump can exploit, as well as most UN members. Their arms can be twisted, and if need be, broke.
In 22 days, fuck Obama. And once he is gone he as no immunity from prosecution. Search his emails.... bet there is a trail going somewhere.
Obama's legacy.
The only thing now: Who will get a pardon?
A fitting final statement from one of the worst politicians of all time. I hope to never see or hear from this guy again.
I'm sure he will be enjoy his life of luxury on his yacht and many homes.
Would Obama's lame duck UN action have happened had Hillary won?
Depends on what the highest bidder would have wanted.
I tried listening to Kerry, but I found the hectoring and condescension embarrassing. What, if anything, did he hope to accomplish? Was he just lashing out in his last hours?
I bet Obama loved it.
Wait a second ... Jennifer Rubin hated it? Now I'm conflicted. I must now choose between Kerry and Rubin?
Life is so unfair.
The awfulness on arrogance on display. Kerry believes in lies just because he is the one who says them.
Kerry needs to be in a Zoo. He is a European Aristocrat redux playing with war games like the 1914 European Aristocrats did until they utterly destroyed the place. The EU wants its own Military again now.
And guess who resists the idiocy, the survivor Russians who suffered the most from that idiocy since 100 years ago.
John Kerry, Obama School of Negogiation graduate.
Trump is going to have a busy Inauguration Day. As soon as he's sworn in, he can announce repeal of all executive orders since January 20, 2009; defunding of the UN; cancellation of Title IX "guidances"; approval of Keystone XL; reversal of EPA "endangerment" finding; and firing of top 5 layers of management at IRS, Energy, Education and EPA. And then it will be time for lunch.
Fortunately, I don't think this will cause much damage. This administration will be gone in three weeks. And it's not like the Palestinians can be any more intransigent.
"Schumer says Kerry may have "emboldened extremists" in his speech."
Kerry poured gas on the bonfire Obama lit in 2009 with his Cairo speech.
"Kerry , Kerry, Kerry."
No, Obama
Rubin - "9. The speech was pointless, simply an empty rhetorical jab designed to respond to criticism of the administration.
Yep.
He has made the move to defund and kick out the UN far easier.
This is what happens when a President refuses to put competent people into positions of power.
I hope we defund the UN and call it the Kerry Bill when doing so.
Original Mike: "...I don't think this will cause much damage." I hope you're right but apparently this Security Council resolution is categorically worse than the almost-routine condemnations by the General Assembly over the years. It will enable legal actions against Israel and of course will inflame the worst elements to continue and expand the endless war. Even if it were reversed tomorrow the bell can never be un-rung.
While certainly tragic and possibly wrong, defunding the UN will look mighty tempting.
What's the matter with Kansas?
Kerry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more
Once I rose above the noise and confusion
Just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion
I was soaring ever higher, but I flew too high
Though my eyes could see I still was a blind man
Though my mind could think I still was a mad man
I hear the voices when I'm dreaming,
I can hear them say
Masquerading as a man with a reason
My charade is the event of the season
And if I claim to be a wise man,
Well, it surely means that I don't know
On a stormy sea of moving emotion
Tossed about, I'm like a ship on the ocean
I set a course for winds of fortune,
But I hear the voices say
Kerry on,
You will always remember
Kerry on,
Nothing equals the splendor
Now your life's no longer empty
Surely heaven waits for you
@Owen - I was just referring to Kerry's temper tantrum.
Aleppo? Tens of thousands of civilians brutally killed or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of citizens innocently caught up in the cross fire of brutal undemocratic factions? Yawn. Crickets. Nada.
Building houses in Palestine? Outrage! Beyond the pale! It needs full, unprecedented (in lame duck period) US President and diplomatic focus and world attention.
Anyone see anything amiss here?
I dread the SOS Kerry tag. It reminds me of the Kerry ist unser ungluck situation we have found ourselves in over these many years (years? feels like a lifetime...). It's like an unexpected letter from the IRS in the mailbox.
About to years ago Althouse used the tag on a post regarding Foreign Policy magazine's ranking of Secretaries of State over the last half-century, and the Washington Post's reportage of same. Anne took the WaPo to task over their claim that FP ranked Kerry dead last, when if fact he was merely tied for dead last. Recent developments will resolve that ambiguity methinks.
Imagine this gigolo as President.
Kerry seeks to raze Israeli settlements in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis (pronounced Jenjis) Khan.
Original Mike said...I tried listening to Kerry, but I found the hectoring and condescension embarrassing.
Peggy Noonan's line, again: "we are patronized by our inferiors."
Count me among those who stopped paying attention to Rubin several months ago--the constant attacks against anyone insufficiently anti-Trump just got tiresome. In August she attacked National Review (they of the Against Trump issue, home to #NeverTrumpers like Jonah Goldberg, etc) with a tweet saying "David Duke and NRO pleased. One of these should know better" in response to some Trump statement on immigration. At that point (the point where you're smearing people nominally on the same "side" as you as racist) it's fair to stop treating a pundit whose main purpose for their position is being "a counterpoint from the Right" as worth listening to, much.
She's right here, of course; Obama's actions and Kerry's lame speech to justify those actions are stupid, cowardly, and shameful.
President Obama is one unwise dude.
"It's like an unexpected letter from the IRS in the mailbox."
I've experienced that twice in my life. It really does suck.
Both times they were wrong, and they apologized! (OK, I made the second part up.)
He is a European Aristocrat redux playing with war games like the 1914 European Aristocrats did until they utterly destroyed the place.
Sorta like Count Leopold Berchtold, the guy who got Kaiser Bill to sign that "blank cheque"?
typo alert: to should read two. It's my fault this time.
Why would anybody listen to Obama's foreign policy team.
I wish the LA Times would release the tape now. Surely Hillary hates Obama enough now that she'd give the go-aheaad.
Here's a question for all those people who think the electoral college should be abolished because it is not one-person, one-vote:
Why should anyone care what the UN decides on any issue?
I think the movement to defund the UN and maybe expel the headquarters has been given real life by this action of Obama and Kerry.
If so, this would be their one accomplishment in foreign affairs.
I think Foreign Policy magazine is more left wing than Foreign Affairs but both lean hard left.
It's interesting that FP would rank Kerry last.
Not all FSOs are lefties. If you want to find a few who aren't, look here.
Well, we accidentally stumbled into a video of the speech last night, and it was pretty awful.
Kerry seemed to be touting a "two state solution." So all this "inclusiveness, tolerance, diversity" stuff is good for us, but those Semites (Arabs and Jews) are still at the "separate but equal" stage?
Obama's actions and Kerry's lame speech to justify those actions are stupid, cowardly, and shameful.
One would think that with his legacy in tatters Obama would prefer to exit the scene on an applause line... Here's an upbeat theory that even Abie Someone would find agreeable: Maybe Obama is making a self-sacrificial gesture on the altar of National Unity, by making an absolute clusterfuck of the Middle East (an accomplishment in itself given the recent history of clusterfucks) Obama hopes to reassure the SJWs, the PC snowflakes, and the #NeverTrumpsters that things could indeed be far worse (i.e. Hillary elected) and that they should face the New Year with optimism! [insert stupid emoj here]
And it's not like the Palestinians can be any more intransigent.
This is the key to everything. Even the most liberal, progressive profs I had when I went back to school (2003ish) complained about the Palestinians. Not openly...no, no, that's wrongthink, but in private conversations, absolutely.
NPR this morning covered the Kerry speech thusly: first they had on a "Palestinian journalist" (calling from Oman) who said Kerry's speech was great and that its mild criticism of Pali. actions (like murder, bombings, rocket attacks, etc) was offbase since "resistance" and support for Hamas is valid and just and anyway is nothing compared to the brutality of "occupation" and the illegality of settlements. The interviewer let that stand, of course. For a counterpoint they brought on a Lefty US former diplomat to...also support Kerry and criticize Israel.
Think I'm exaggerating? Give it a listen.
Boy it'd be heartbreaking if the Trump administration moved to end all federal funding (direct and indirect/through state & foundation grants) to NPR. I'd just be all torn up.
I will be so pleased on January 20th when the nest of vipers currently infesting the executive branch of our government will be shown the door. Good riddance!
Well, like I've said before, leftists absolutely love the idea of dead Jews for whatever reason. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, John Kerry: all do everything they can to attack Jews and put their enemies in charge of them.
I think it's because leftists, generally speaking, hate the Judeo-Christian God and have some sort of vague idea that if they exterminate the Jews then Jehovah goes away.
I doubt they'll have any better luck than Sargon II or Nebuchednezzer, or even the Romans.
--Vance
"Not all FSOs are lefties."
An old college friend recently retired from State. He has been waxing wroth on Obama, Kerry, Clinton, official State Dep't. policy, Democrats, and liberals in general for some time now on Facebook. Given his attitudes (apparently hangs the Stars & Bars out for Robert E. Lee's birthday), I'm surprised he lasted until retirement.
We all seek the grace of God in different ways. Hamas holds that it is a mitzvah to stab random Jews in the neck. Driving heavy vehicles into crowds is also an act fragrant to the nostrils of God. The Israelis want to build settlements on contested ground.......It's difficult to define with precision right and wrong in these thorny theological debates. Thank God we have Kerry to guide us. It's hard to say which is more determinative of his wisdom on this issue --his superior intellect or his moral grandeur. They're both so stunning.
Schummer? Feh. He recognizes one of his key voting blocks when he sees it.
This recognition has led him to one of his (rare) correct statements.
"If you like your Wailing Wall you can keep your Wailing Wall."
Ah, but in how many ways is Jennifer Rubin awful. Like David Brooks admiring the crease in Obama's pants, Jennifer is a leftist's view of what a "proper" conservative blogger ought to be. They'd do well to fire her and replace her with someone more like you -- left of center but still open-minded. (Not that you'd be crazy enough to relocate to DC.)
Sure sure much more profound, but was Kerry's speech worse than Rubin's column starting thus:
Opinions
The Jeb Bush standard
By Jennifer Rubin September 5, 2011
It is fair to say that if his last name were not Bush, he would have been the consensus choice for president in 2012. Jeb Bush says that he isn’t running, and unless the current field collapses (always possible) and he can be dragged into the race he is not going to be the nominee this time around. However, he can tell Republicans a lot about what sort of candidate they should look for.
See also: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/09/he-is-chris-christie-without-bombasts.html
80% of American Jews voted for this including Jennifer Rubin. So you gentiles should keep quiet. American Jews got exactly what they voted for. No bailouts!
I propose an alternative, two-state solution.
We should seriously consider selling California to the Israelis. We could pay down our national debt and they could get the hell out of the middle east. Win-win.
These shenanigans by Obama (the israel deal is pretty serious stuff) leads me to thinking we should eliminate the lame-duck period between the election and the inauguration.
It is pretty obvvious that Obama waited on this until the election, but that is par for this shady character.
I expect Trump will devote less personal attention to the Israel-Palestine problem in 4 years than Kerry has since the election.
I am (Orthodox) Jewish and I voted for Trump. Not only that, but the local paper reported that my area in Rockland County, which is very heavily Orthodox, when 90% for Trump to 10% for Hillary. Orthodox Jews overwhelmingly supported Trump. The vast majority of non-Orthodox supported Hillary. Orthodoxy is still a small minority of American Jewry, but with our high birthrates, that will change.
2016 has restored my belief in the power of prayer. I prayed that the Cubs would come back from two games down to win the World Series, and they did. I prayed that Trump would win the election, and he did. Now I'm praying that President Trump takes decisive action against the UN, i.e. defunding and/or expelling it.
Stand by, people. I'm on a hot streak.
I'm conflicted. Who's a bigger moron? Jennifer Rubin or John Kerry? She's just horrible.
Blogger readering said..."I expect Trump will devote less personal attention to the Israel-Palestine problem in 4 years than Kerry has since the election."
Considering we can't fix things, but we can make them worse, I'd say that's a good thing.
De-fund John Kerry.
When offered everything they asked for in past negotiations during the Clinton administration, the Palestinians still declined to agree. What they really want is a single state with the Jews driven into the sea.
I used to read with amusement, criticisms of George Bush along the lines that he was attempting to fulfill and cause the events that would (according to what the critics' purported were Bush's beliefs) trigger the return of Christ.
The great irony being that even if, hypothetically, Obama believed Bush's actions were thusly motivated, and Obama consciously rejected any action in the region that would mirror Bush's actions (as a repudiation response to Bush), Obama's alternative actions and results in the region seem to feed the bible prophetic narrative as much or perhaps even more than Bush's did.
But this is an interesting question for secularists and folks who reject the bible as scripture: How is it that this book written thousands of years ago pretty much points to Jerusalem as the center of future events, calling it a cup trembling, and that all nations would be fixated on the geography of Jerusalem, and now here we are? [Timing is not clear and people can disagree, but one read of these things - the read I side with - is that they are still yet to come.]
For example:
"See, I am about to make Jerusalem a cup of reeling for all the surrounding peoples; it will be against Judah also in the siege against Jerusalem. 3On that day I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it shall grievously hurt themselves. And all the nations of the earth shall come together against it."
Or in Joel, poetic but melancholy language of how he Lord will bring all nations down into the valley of decision.
Come quickly,
all you nations all around,
gather yourselves there.
Bring down your warriors, O Lord.
12 Let the nations rouse themselves,
and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat;
for there I will sit to judge
all the neighbouring nations.
...
14 Multitudes, multitudes,
in the valley of decision!
For the day of the Lord is near
in the valley of decision.
15 The sun and the moon are darkened,
and the stars withdraw their shining.
These are not events that anyone I know, or of which I know, state or have a motive to want to bring about. The Jews don't fare well in most of the prophecies so I don't see them as wanting or trying to bring these things about. The Muslims and secularists don't really believe in the prophecies, so they have no reason to try to bring them about.
Yet here we are, with plenty of bits and pieces that look a lot like things are going pretty much as foreseen.
Explain that, progressives and secularists.
"Explain that, progressives and secularists."
These prophets had never really prophesied before so...beginner's luck?
Its amazing how high stupid people can rise if they are capable of deceiving themselves and others, Obama and Kerry are two current examples.
"Explain that, progressives and secularists."
Trival. Self fulfilling prophecy.
PB: "When offered everything they asked for in past negotiations during the Clinton administration, the Palestinians still declined to agree. What they really want is a single state with the Jews driven into the sea."
"Min al-nahr ila al-bahr" is the wonderfully euphonious Arabic phrase, meaning "from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea," meaning that the Jews must be driven into the sea. Core doctrine for many.
Original Mike, so you are saying that the Jews are self fulfilling a prophecy from 3000 years ago that they are going to get the crap beat out of them for a sustained period of time, and only 1/4 or 1/3 of them will survive and eventually prevail with God's help?
But all along the way of that self-fulfilling actions, they are acting pretty much the exact way the prophecies said they'd act (relying on their own strength, and being belligerent and stubborn) right through it all to the unexpected end?.
That's what you're saying?
Is it too late to see if we can reactivate Kerry to the Navy and then court-martial him? Can we nail him on the affected pronunciation of Genghis Khan? Would that be sufficient to keep in him isolation for the remainder of his life? Someone throw me a bone here, lie to me, tell me "Hell yeah, we can do that."
Obama and Kerry are just trying to burn down the joint before they are evicted. Leave a steaming pile of destruction in the Middle East and possibly start WWIII.
They are shameless, selfish, destructive traitor. People are going to die because of this petty shit. People already have died because of Obama and Hillary's thoughtless foreign policy, Europe is is a melt down, terrorism rises and....Obama and Hillary don't even care.
Quayle, I'm saying when a religious text points to a plot of land as sacred, it's no surprise that in the future it's being fought over.
Obama/Kerry: evicted and fucking up the apartment the best they can before the sheriff's deputy shows up to kick them out.
Shit like this making the outgoing Clinton administration look like amateurs for just removing the W keys.
Hah! Kentuckyliz and I.....great minds think alike.
Obama and Kerry are being evicted and are trashing the place out of vindictiveness.
"These prophets had never really prophesied before so...beginner's luck?"
Nice.
"There is genocide occurring in Syria. Russia has invaded multiple countries. Iran is chiseling away on the JCPOA and seeking to destabilize multiple countries. Egypt and Turkey are engaged is an unprecedented crackdown on civil liberties."
America has substantially caused and contributed to the slaughter going on in Syria. America has invaded many countries, by drone and/or by troops on the ground. America has destabilized many countries going back decades. America has been stripping away our civil liberties in the post-9/11 era. Why does Ms. Rubin ignore our own bloody criminality?
Oh...but we're the good guys and they're the bad guys. Never mind.
Cameron Grey tweets: In summary, John Kerry, who opened up relations with Cuba and shipped palettes of cash to Iran is lecturing Israel on the right thing to do.
quale and omike.. you guys are not reading the same bible that i'm reading... the old covenant with moses is over and a new one was created with God and his son and the 'spiritual nation of israel' ... so anything that happens to israel and for that matter the jews would be the same as any other race or nation... nothing special about that area any more...
Remember that Alynsky taught the "Community Organizers/COs" how to do this.
First a Community must be divided into warring factions and incited to fight it self. Then the COs offer to mediate between them for a price. The key to real wealth extraction is to keep the sides hiring you, but never allow peace between them to happen...that would end the Grift.
Clinton/Soros/Obama are Masters at this Grift. Trump basically ended the game by unifying the Americans with their tradition of being the winners. That ends the Grift.
Jennifer Rubin being hysterical and overwrought on the subject of Israel? Shocking!
The only remarkable thing about this whole fracas is how utterly banal UN 2442 is. It did nothing but reiterated an opinion that's been part of UN language since at least the 1970s, was widely recognized in the drafting of the resolution regarding the settlement of the conflicts post-1967, and was the position of legal counsel to the Israeli foreign ministry in 1967.
@ J.Farmer at 11:42 AM
YEP!
Let me add the ole "It's a rental" while trashing the transmission of a rental car.
John Kerry has been a blatant liar and remarkable ignoramus on foreign policy since the Reagan administration.
What does it say about a party that gives him a Senate sinecure, a POTUS nomination and a job as SOS?
This is well beyond absurdity. How can anyone take the Democratic party seriously?
I guess having the MSM in your pocket helps.
Jennifer Rubin being hysterical and overwrought on the subject of Israel? Shocking!
Based on your comments yesterday, I'd look in the mirror.
Leftists adore death cultists. Leftists adore eternal victims with ever-lasting chips on their shoulders. The left, as fellow victims, understand.
See- Jews are intolerable to live next to. But we Americans are supposed to welcome angry radicalized Jew-hating Islamic men with open arms.
Fresh.
Jennifer Rubin being hysterical and overwrought on the subject of Israel? Shocking!
And then:
Blogger Robert Cook said...
YEP!
Well, if you've gained Robert Cook, you may want to reassess a bit...
I guess having the MSM in your pocket helps.
Let's be honest - if the US media were just moderate instead of Dem operatives, the country would be as conservative as Oklahoma or Utah.
@I Callahan:
Quote something I wrote that you thought was either "hysterical" or "overwrought," and I'd be happy to address it.
Well, if you've gained Robert Cook, you may want to reassess a bit...
The fact that he and I disagree quite a bit politically does not prevent me from recognizing when he is right on a matter of historical fact. Basing your position on tribal affiliation is about the worst way I can imagine at answering empirical questions.
Basing your position on tribal affiliation is about the worst way I can imagine at answering empirical questions.
I think Cook's intentional ignorance of fact, history, and human nature constitute a worse way.
I like the fact that Trump is direct, in this case revealing that the UN is simply a place for [impoverished] foreign emissaries to have a good time. Like a cruise ship and whorehouse rolled into one. With enough American cash to challenge even Robert Mugabe visiting women's prisons with fistfuls of pardons. Or Barack Obama pissing away $83-million on vacations.
The bottom line being that the UN is not to be taken seriously, although spreading cholera is extremely serious.
"John Kerry sticks his tongue out dozens of times during anti-Israel speech"
Snake.
@Pookie Number 2:
I think Cook's intentional ignorance of fact, history, and human nature constitute a worse way.
That very well maybe. I know he considers himself on the left, so imagine a wide gulf in our politics on certain questions. But the notion that someone who I disagree with agrees with me on a matter of historical and verifiable historical fact is no cause for me to question my own conclusions, as commenter Callahan suggested.
J Farmer: Never satisfied until an Israeli Jew is murdered, and the US can say "Not our problem!"
But the notion that someone who I disagree with agrees with me on a matter of historical and verifiable historical fact is no cause for me to question my own conclusions, as commenter Callahan suggested.
Agreed. I was only pointing out a method worse at answering empirical questions than tribalism.
(On the other hand, I think you'd do well to read Ephraim Karsh in terms of understanding why some of what Benny Morris wrote is incorrect.)
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Here's a question for all those people who think the electoral college should be abolished because it is not one-person, one-vote:
Why should anyone care what the UN decides on any issue?
I imagine a Venn Diagram would show an enormous overlap between those two group right now. But then, cognitive dissonance is nothing new to them.
@Unknown:
J Farmer: Never satisfied until an Israeli Jew is murdered, and the US can say "Not our problem!"
If you want to talk about any of the substantive issues on the topic, I'd be more than happy to oblige. But this kind of unhinged hysteria is pointless. I guess Shlomo Ben-Ami must also want every Israeli Jew murdered, since we have roughly the same position on the settlement of the conflict.
Why should anyone care what the UN decides on any issue?
Well, a couple of reasons. The US is a signatory to the UN Charter, which is the UN's foundational treaty. Article VI of the US Constitution states, in part: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"
Now, as it is widely known in the area of international law, the problem becomes one of enforcement. But the UN charter does obligate member states to abide by UN Security Council resolutions.
"We should seriously consider selling California to the Israelis"
Or declare the entire coastline up to 50 miles inland as a new National Monument to the stupidity of leftist overgovernment.
JFarmer wrote:
"But the UN charter does obligate member states to abide by UN Security Council resolutions."
And what is the enforcement mechanism? The United States is a sovereign nation.
@Lewis Wetzel:
And what is the enforcement mechanism? The United States is a sovereign nation.
As I said in the first sentence of the very next paragraph "Now, as it is widely known in the area of international law, the problem becomes one of enforcement."
The question of the 1948 Nakba is a complicated one, but I think the weight of historical evidence is supportive of the new historian's depiction.
Agree on the complicated part, and that there are solid people on both sides. Marsh's books are still worth reading.
@Pookie Number 2:
(On the other hand, I think you'd do well to read Ephraim Karsh in terms of understanding why some of what Benny Morris wrote is incorrect.)
I have never read Karsh's books, though I have read some of his articles and Morris' responses. There are several other writers on the topic, such as Joel Migdal, Baruch Kimmerling, and Shlomo Sand, who are broadly in agreement with Morris. It's worth noting that while Karsh largely criticizes Morris from his right, Morris is also frequently criticized from his left. The fact that Morris is a strong Zionist and supporter of Israel, and basically admitted that the uprooting of Palestinians was justifiable since it was necessary for the Jewish state, I think is good evidence for argument against interest. The question of the 1948 Nakba is a complicated one, but I think the weight of historical evidence is supportive of the new historian's depiction.
Lem said...
"John Kerry sticks his tongue out dozens of times during anti-Israel speech"
I also noticed that. Why does he do that? Is it his inner snake trying to escape? Weird.
For the first thirty-odd years of its existnce Israeli policies were rather crosswise with Washington and consequently got scant support from the U.S. yet did quite well for itself.
It would have been wise, I think, if it had just built on that and made its own deals with its neighboring states and the "Palestinians," but Ariel Sharon wanted "it all" and went to the United States to seek financing for his own political career and his vision of "Jewish power" with no compromise.
The result has been that Israel has become way to dependent on the United States - private and government - and I think the panicky uproar now comes from the realization that the Obama administration might have refused to go to war on Israel's behalf, and another U.S. administration may well do so in the future.
It is always risky for a small nation to become a client state of a bigger one.
@Pookie Number 2:
Marsh's books are still worth reading.
I'll keep it in mind, though admittedly I haven't read deeply on the topic for over 10 years. In the early 2000s, when I was still a teenager, I briefly fell under the rhetorical spell of liberal internationalists like Christopher Hitchens, Paul Berman, and George Packer, even though I was a fairly conventional conservative type then, advocating for muscular US foreign policy and an activist, interventionist policy. I backed off pretty quickly in the ensuing years and settled into the roughly paleocon point of view of my former self.
J Farmer, let's face it: You play lip service to the Palestinians needing to reform; but you are constantly here harping on how evil Israel is.
That's it.
You claim that the US has no business protecting Israel, and that we should leave them to the world's full fledged anti-semitic "tender mercies." You argue that UN member states must obey UN Resolutions... and you say that the US should never, ever protect Israel from them. You insist that we, the US, abandon our ally completely; if not force them to surrender to the Arabs who are literally slavering at the mouth to kill the Jews.
And then you get offended that people say you are anti-Jewish. You claim that you have the exact same views as "Prominent Jew XXXX" so you must not be anti-semitic. Well, by that rubric Hitler and Himmler weren't against Jews either. Again, you always attack Israel as being the bad actor here, and if only Israel gave up this, surrendered that, and just trusted the Palestinians who are peaceful saintly people.....
What is wrong with this doctrine: Make the Palestinians prove they want peace by actually keeping the peace first, before Israel gives up anything?
Why do you insist that Israel must unilaterally disarm? Why do you never insist that the Palestinians disarm first? They are the ones killing Jews! That, however, doesn't bother you, because we all see your "Well, since you insist, yes, I think that firing missiles into Hebron is bad... but Israel must disarm! Stop the Settlements! Give up the Wailing Wall for destruction!!!!! Obey every single UN resolution passed condemning them, put forth by violent Jew killing Arab nations! And by golly, the US should never, ever protect the Jews! " That's pretty clear, isn't it?
--Vance
I'll be gung-ho on Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem the moment that the UN is equally gung-ho on Turkish settlements in Cyprus. Those also involve population transfers.
@Hagar:
It is always risky for a small nation to become a client state of a bigger one.
Agree completely. I wonder when the cranks when come out of the woodwork and declare you a murderous Jew-hater. US-Israeli relations were quite cold until after the Yom Kippur War, when Israel demonstrated it could be a useful client state due to its ability to project military power in a vital region of the globe. The advent of the evangelical constituency in Republican politics also helped elevate the status of Israel, in my opinion.
@Vance:
As William F. Buckley once remarked of John Kenneth Galbraith, you are "a pyromaniac in a field of straw men." If you want to quote something I say and take issue with it, I'd be more than happy to engage with you. But I am not going to try to correct your histrionic ranting that is minimally reflective of anything I've actually said here or anything I actually believe.
Farmer: I just read your posts. The last thread on this subject, and your continued attacking of Israel for existing here is quite plain. I even quoted your post where you demanded that Israel is legally obliged to obey every UN resolution, no matter how biased against Israel it is.
Every poster here has called you out on your anti-semitic or hatred for Jews. Maybe you should consider why you are coming across as a guy who sheds a tear of sorrow that Auschwitz is closed. The only person standing with you is Robert Cook, the very epitome of racist anti-Jewish sentiment from the left. That's the company you are keeping, right now.
If you truly don't hate Israel and the Jews, you certainly are doing a fine, fine job of hiding that fact.
--Vance
GWash thinks God's promises come with expiration dates like Obama's do. Perhaps GWash is confused about which is God.
J. Farmer:
The catnip got you, didn't it?
@Michelle Dulak Thomson:
Here is a list of all UN Security Council resolutions condemning the Turkish invasion, occupation, and division of Cyprus.
Smooth Transition go BOOM!
@Birkel:
J. Farmer:
The catnip got you, didn't it?
No, but your endless infatuation with me personally is amusing. Strange how I never try to describe you as a person or attack your character or your motives. Psst....it's because I don't care.
@Vance:
Maybe you should consider why you are coming across as a guy who sheds a tear of sorrow that Auschwitz is closed.
Statements like that are precisely why I don't take you seriously and consider you unhinged.
But let me try once more (probably in vain) to engage you in a rational manner: David Ben-Gurion, considered the modern founder of the State of Israel, had the exact same position as I do regarding settlements in the West Bank with the exception of Hebron. How do you explain his position?
J. Farmer: "But the UN charter does obligate member states to abide by UN Security Council resolutions."
What is pure fantasy, Alex? I will take other widely held myths for $800.
J. Farmer: "Now, as it is widely known in the area of international law, the problem becomes one of enforcement."
What is self-refutation, Alex? Anti-_______ for $1000.
The main issue Israel faces is that the Palestinians lack the capacity to deliver the assurances that Israel justly requires. They are puppets. The actors controlling them are behind a wall. These actors would like to destroy Israel and kill millions of Jews. If they are ever able to do that, "Western Civilization" will be dead and buried too.
Don't feed the troll, people.
@Birkel:
The lack of an enforcement mechanism is distinct from the question of legality vs. illegality. I made this point before you and you helpfully ignored it, so I'll repeat. If a legislature passes a law, and the executive refuses to enforce it, it does not mean that the law doesn't exist, only that it cannot be enforced. I made the same point by invoking Jackson's aprocyphal remark about John Marshall.
Article 25 of the UN Charter: "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
Article VI of the US Constitution: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
J. Farmer:
I take it to mean you think slavery is still part of the law of Virginia, correct?
J. Farmer:
Or that Blacks only get 3/5th a vote?
Farmer: David Ben-Gurion was wrong, that's all. His position, in the abstract, is probably correct: Israel shouldn't encourage settlements, if that was the only consideration.
But it's not. Now we have Israel under constant attack, by people you demand Israel should put first in all its plans and not look after it's own citizens. We have a world where Europe is actively importing millions of people who want to bring back Hitler's Jewish policies.
Israel was set up so that the Jews could have a home, where they were in charge and not dependent on the French government to protect them. And guess what: That wisdom is more and more evident. Jews are pouring into Israel precisely because Islamic militants are making Europe look an awful lot like 1936 again. Those Jews need homes. Where, precisely, (besides Auschwitz, of course) do you propose they stay?
But then, you've argued repeatedly that Israel should never have existed, that the Jews shouldn't have a country of their own unless taken out of Polish or German territory (apparently, in your mind the Germans and Polish people moved out of the way don't matter. Only Palestinians who murder Jews have any rights to land.).
Do you honestly think that the guy who set up Israel to be a home for Jews, free from the threat of the camps, would be all "Oh no, we cannot have more Jews immigrating because they are fleeing for their lives from anti-semitic forces in Europe!" David Ben-Gurion would have no problems with today's settlements, I am sure.
Tell us, Farmer: You blame the US for interfering? Funny, you haven't condemned Kerry and Obama for writing and ramming through this anti-Israel UN security Council resolution. They openly took Hamas's side here. Where amongst all your cries for "Neutrality!" have you condemned that? Everyone must have missed it. US interference against Israel is, apparently, perfectly fine for you. You don't condemn that!
--Vance
@Birkel:
No, because it was vitiated by the 13th amendment.
J. Farmer:
But it is written down!! And if it is written down, that counts. Right?
Points for using a big word when a small word would have done. Negative points.
J. Farmer: "If a legislature passes a law, and the executive refuses to enforce it, it does not mean that the law doesn't exist, only that it cannot be enforced."
Do, go on.
J Farmer: "But let me try once more (probably in vain) to engage you in a rational manner: David Ben-Gurion, considered the modern founder of the State of Israel, had the exact same position as I do regarding settlements in the West Bank with the exception of Hebron. How do you explain his position?"
In the same way that I would explain how anyone who died 43 years ago might not be quite up to speed on what has happened during those 43 years and how events might alter ones viewpoint.
But you go right ahead and keep referencing people who were not around when the arabs were offered everything they wanted, save 1 thing, and turned it all down on multiple occasions.
Oh, what is that last thing the arabs desired? To push every jew into the sea.
Keep it up Farmer. You aren't fooling anyone.
I know jack shit about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and I intend to keep it that way.
Let me help you, J. Farmer.
If a legislature passes a bill that is duly signed into law by some executive, and either that or some future executive refuses to enforce the law, that makes the executive... What? A criminal? Lawless?
And if lawlessness cannot be avoided within a self-contained system, then what is the law?
Even given your problem defining precisely how you mean to formulate the above, you call equivalent the law inside a sovereign state with the non-existent law between states. There is no law except that which both sides agree to enforce. If a sovereign does not abide, then there is no law because there is no agreement.
Finally, tell me more about how one set of laws overrides another. You say the 13th Amendment vitiates precedent laws. Does not the Constitution itself prevent some U.N. positions from enforcement within the United States? And if that is so, does not the same hold true for other sovereigns?
Or does answering all that get easier when you just don't like one particular group? I am asking, sincerely, because I have never tried that method of argumentation.
@Vance:
Your harangues confuse and conflate so many different issues. If you want to back and look over the previous thread, you will see where I make the following points probably half a dozen times:
1) Israel is a state under international law entitled to collective self-defense and national self-determination
2) Israel is every right to maintain an immigration policy to maintain it as a distinct Jewish state
3) I don't believe that Israel should have built civilian settlements in the West Bank
Position #3 was the position of David Ben-Gurion and the chief counsel to Israel's foreign ministry in 1967. Since then, the US and all of our major allies have agreed that the resolution of the conflict ultimately involves a withdrawing of territories from the West Bank, East Jerusalem as a capital of a future Palestinian state, and the Palestinians giving up the right of return.
UN 2334 simply reiterated what has been the standard consensus for well over 30 years.
Now, I just plainly stated what my position is on the issue and my understanding of the history. As for what I want the US government to do? Nothing. I don't want it to give money to the Israelis or the Palestinians, and I don't think we should be involved in trying to facilitating negations between the parties. I think the US government should stay out of it.
There are obvious thoughtful people who have disagreements with any or all of what I have just said, and I am more than happy to discuss and debate legitimate disagreements. But I will not try to refute the absurd rantings and personal attacks you make against my character when you know nothing about me and seem to have difficulty faithfully reproducing my actual arguments in a coherent manner.
I know jack shit about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and I intend to keep it that way.
That's easy to do - just listen to Obama and Kerry.
(Of course, lots of innocent people will die because of their limited understanding and their anti-Israel bias, but I still don't think that conveys any obligation on you to learn more about it.)
birkel, if we are speaking of the same God, Jehovah, then i would direct you to Jeremiah 31:31 where Jehovah states that he is going to make a new covenant and to Luke 22:20 and 29 where his son Jesus declares a new convenant that supercedes the old convenants with Abraham and David by virtue of his 'ransom sacrifice... if i'm wrong let me know...
@Birkel:
Resolving some of the conflicts you describe is precisely what a judiciary is for and why the independence of the judiciary is usually important for the rule of law to function well. As for international law, I've said numerous times already that it has a particular conundrum because of the enforcement mechanism. But what you've said holds true for all international agreements. What is the point of having an international agreement if they can be ignored at any time at the whim of the state? That does, in fact, happen, because we live in an imperfect world. And to return to an analogy from domestic law, how does that US Supreme Court enforce its actions? Or to jump back to international, how does the WTO enforce its rulings?
2016 UNGA Resolutions Against
Israel: 20
Syria: 1
Iran: 1
N Korea: 1
Russia: 1
So J. Farmer provided a link above to all the U.N. resolutions involving Cyprus. That is 31 resolutions since the start of the 2000s.
Only one this year against a rogue state which has systematically starved its own people (North Korea).
Only one against a country that used chemical weapons on its own people (Syria).
GWash:
I assume you are aware that The New Testament is not part of the Jewish religious texts. Should I assume less in this instance?
@Drago:
Keep it up Farmer. You aren't fooling anyone.
Well, that's good, since I have no desire to fool anyone. I say precisely what I think, and I say it as clearly as I possibly can.
And I will just point out once more how none of my comments involve attacking other commenters personally. The ad hominem fallacy seems to be pervasive among a certain subset of commenters here.
J. Farmer: "And to return to an analogy from domestic law, how does that US Supreme Court enforce its actions?"
That is easy. The answer is "the consent of the governed."
J. Farmer: "Or to jump back to international, how does the WTO enforce its rulings?"
That also is easy. It doesn't without the consent of the various sovereigns. See, e.g., North Korea.
@Birkel:
The General Assembly is meaningless, as its resolutions are qualitatively different, as describe in the UN Charter, from Security Council resolutions.
Farmer: I quote you:
7. Since then, the US and all of our major allies have agreed that the resolution of the conflict ultimately involves a withdrawing of territories from the West Bank, East Jerusalem as a capital of a future Palestinian state, and the Palestinians giving up the right of return.
UN 2334 simply reiterated what has been the standard consensus for well over 30 years.
Now, I just plainly stated what my position is on the issue and my understanding of the history. As for what I want the US government to do? Nothing. I don't want it to give money to the Israelis or the Palestinians, and I don't think we should be involved in trying to facilitating negations between the parties. I think the US government should stay out of it.
End of quote.
While in theory that's reasonable, why then do you insist that Israel do all its duties before Palestine and the Muslims do any of theirs? Israel has to bulldoze the settlements, withdraw to the 67 borders, Give up the Wailing wall, and then and only then do you even consider asking the Palestinians to stop launching missiles at them or give up the right of return. And if they say "no?" Oh well, we tried. Good thing we waited until Israel had to do everything first. Palestine wins, right?
Why should the US stay out of it when the entire world wants to see Israel erased from the map, only being held back by us? And now you want us to stop that. To stop protecting Israel from the rest of the world, right? That's a pretty fair statement of your position: The US should let Israel hang and leave them to the violent, howling mobs of the world.
And that, you say, is "neutrality." Go pull the other one, it has bells on. Your position is quite similar to the case of a pretty young girl, whom is being targeted by a large gang of gang robbers/rapists, who want to rape and murder her. The local cop, however, has been protecting the girl for weeks or months.
Now, you say that the "neutral" thing to do is for the cop to hand the girl a can of mace and walk away, whistling. Never mind the screams and cries coming behind him, as the mob assaults and brutalizes the girl, then kills her. The cop "Took no sides and was neutral. That's the moral and right position."
Is it? Or can we say that the cop just switched sides and wanted the girl raped and murdered because he withdrew his protection, knowing full well what the gang wanted to do and that only the cop's presence was protecting the girl? That's what is really at stake here.
And then you think you aren't biased because you are allowing the murder, rape and torture of Israel at the hands of the rest of the world.
--Vance
Since then, the US and all of our major allies have agreed that the resolution of the conflict ultimately involves a withdrawing of territories from the West Bank, East Jerusalem as a capital of a future Palestinian state, and the Palestinians giving up the right of return.
I think I agreed with the way you phrased this. The resolution of this conflict requires the emergence of a Palestinian leadership committed to living in peace with Israel. If that happens (and Obama's current pettiness makes it even less likely), then it will also involve the other factors you listed.
J. Farmer: "What is the point of having an international agreement if they can be ignored at any time at the whim of the state?"
Perhaps you should ask Chevron, Exxon, Gulf, Mobil, and Texaco, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch/Shell. They all had agreements with sovereigns. How did that go for them, exactly?
@Birkel:
It doesn't without the consent of the various sovereigns.
That's precisely my point. UN 678 declared Iraq to be in violation of the UN charter for invading Kuwait and permitted and authorized use of force against Iraq. Had no country decided to use force against Iraq, then the resolution wouldn't mean much, but it wouldn't change the fact that Iraq had, in fact, violated the charter.
Birkel, oh,,, sorry i thought we were talking about Jehovah not just the old testament... in that case the Jeremiah reference is still relevant.. '31 “Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant.+ 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt,+ ‘my covenant that they broke,+ although I was their true master,’* declares Jehovah.”
33 “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them,+ and in their heart I will write it.+ And I will become their God, and they will become my people.” Referring to the Christian congregation that accept the ransom sacrifice ... So true to his name Jehovah can change the convenant if he wants...
@Vance:
While in theory that's reasonable, why then do you insist that Israel do all its duties before Palestine and the Muslims do any of theirs
I have never insisted on any such thing.
And then you think you aren't biased because you are allowing the murder, rape and torture of Israel at the hands of the rest of the world.
And yet again we have lift off from the real world and into the realm of paranoid delusion. Israel is a wealthy, advanced, successful society. Have you ever been there?
J. Farmer:
So we can agree that "without the consent of sovereigns" does in fact mean there is no international law, right?
Also, why mention the invasion of Iraq? Are you advocating something? What is that something?
GWash:
So you believe the promises in Jeremiah have been delivered? How very New Testament of you.
one of my pet peeves with our relationship with israel (and it will only get worse with his orangeness at the helm - you know the smart one that does need the daily security briefings because you know - he's smart) ... i dont mind supporting israel when the situation calls for it but for goodness sake why are they 'controlling' our foreign policy, and we do what's in our best interest? israel's interests and ours do not always intersect... we should be there for them if they need us but not when they are making a very bad situation worse.. i thought this blog would be more US centric in this case...
I think it can safely be said that the ruling “elite” in all the rest of the world is pretty much against Israel, and has been for a very long time -- remember the French diplomat who called it a "shitty little country"? You can bet your bottom dollar he wasn't alone in that sentiment. In such circumstances, loftily stating that the U.S. should be "neutral" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is tantamount to saying it should join the rest.
@Birkel:
Also, why mention the invasion of Iraq?
It's called an analogy. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, people said that it had violated international law. Were the correct or were they wrong, in your opinion, to make that judgment?
well birkel,,, i have been raised a christian and still am... so thanks! :))
The settlers don't want a two state solution and they position their settlements to make a two state solution increasingly unlikely. And by making a leading US supporter of the settler movement his ambassador to Israel just because he happens to be a friend, and by agreeing to the inflammatory relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem, just because he happens to think it would be a niche gesture, Trump signals that he is okay with that (allowing things that make a two state solution increasingly unlikely). Hence the abstention and the speech. But folks on this site seem to be okay with that too, plus they reflexively hate Obama and Kerry, who have shown throughout their careers great affection for Israel, but great antipathy to the Netanyahu administration. Just like many foreigners have great affection for the US while having great antipathy for either the Obama or Trump administrations depending on their perspectives. Plus folks on this site seem to think that come January 20 Trump will be walking around on water.
Jew haters.
Disgusting.
Drudge took notice of Kerry's lizard tongue. Besides Israel, what was missing in Kerry's oral dump was his update on the rest of the Middle East. I can't imagine why he didn't mention our stelar progress in Syria, Libya, Somalia etc..... Jan. 20th can't get here too soon.
So J.Farmer says that Israel is capable of facing off the entire world. Really? Name any friends Israel has. Jordon is probably closest! Not Obama's America, that's for sure.
And the UN spends most of its time criticizing Israel and calling for them to die. And no one--except the US, historically -- speaks against it.
You are perfectly fine with the entire world ganging up on Israel. You really are. Why? Why do you want the US to join the chorus of people attacking Israel? Why do you argue for the US to cease protecting Israel from the depredations of the rest of the world? If Europe falls to the Muslims and they all declare war on Israel, you want us to stand by and let Israel and the genocide happen, correct? If Iran wants to drop nukes on Tel Aviv, you would be whistling as you worked, pleased that the US is obligated to defend Iran under Obama.
--Vance
J. Farmer: "It's called an analogy. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, people said that it had violated international law. Were the correct or were they wrong, in your opinion, to make that judgment?"
Extend the analogy. Let's see if it holds.
Readering - you're generalizing inaccurately about what the settlers want.
More importantly, the settlers would be politically irrelevant if mainstream Israelis believed that a peaceful two-state solution was attainable. The reason Netanyahu is Prime Minister is precisely because the Palestinians have repeatedly demonstrated that they prefer war to peace, and Obama's antipathy to Netanyahu demonstrates Obama's indifference to this reality.
@Birkel:
Extend the analogy. Let's see if it holds.
Well it ended with a question that you ignored. Was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait a violation of international law or not?
J. Farmer:
Given my repeated position that international law is a useful fiction, I cannot understand your question.
You are free to assume that I answered both yes and no, and proceed forward with the analogy.
@Birkel:
Membership in the UN is conditional on consenting to the UN charter. So I'll rephrase, did Iraq violate the UN charter by invading Kuwait?
"The resolution of this conflict requires the emergence of a Palestinian leadership committed to living in peace with Israel."
This will never, ever happen, not in any way other than a very short term phenomenon.
The problem here is not the leadership but the people, the culture itself is resolutely committed to killing off the Jews. In the past they were willing to let the Jews live, as a subservient community, and designated victims available to harass or otherwise let off steam against. But the Jews humiliated Islam, by winning wars against them and otherwise showing them up in every way, and this cannot be forgiven. Now they must all die.
That can't be changed without a profound cultural change, essentially the mass conversion of these peoples to some other religion, and maybe not even that will work. No Muslim/Arab state can control or suppress this fundamental need.
There will always be some reasonable persons who truly are willing to like Jews, and even more willing to live and let live, but likewise there will always be bitter and self-sacrificing fanatics against them, and the bulk of the people will always be open to being whipped up to violent rage, especially as the bulk of the Arabs are condemned, culturally and biologically, to a third rate cultural and economic status. They will always have reasons to resent.
@Birkel:
If you sign a contract and then subsequently refuse to abide by any of the conditions of that contract, then you are in violation of that contract. The fact that one party to the contract may not be able to compel your compliance does not negate the violation.
Buwaya - I am a little more optimistic, based on the examples of Egypt and Jordan. And maybe Morocco and Bahrain. But I agree we're not close, and Obama's preference for Palestinian violence over Israeli settlements makes it even less likely. But his fundamental flaw has always been his inability to respect - much less understand - views other than his own, and the world will be paying for that for a long time.
J. Farmer @ 2:20 PM:
Do you have a bot that types your immaterial asides for you, or do you waste your own time writing them?
More specifically, an unenforceable set of promises is not a contract. Do you even law?
@Birkel
I know being a snide prick comes exceptionally easy to you; I'll just chalk that up to bad parenting.
Was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait a violation of the UN charter, or not? It's a very simple question.
"based on the examples of Egypt and Jordan."
Both Egypt and Jordan are separated from the Israeli population by physical obstacles and heavily guarded military frontiers - walls, fences, deserts, constant patrols and every technological surveillance method.
On the matter of Israel and Jews both the Egyptian and Jordanian governments are keeping the lid on feelings that would and sometimes do break out on their own. And the governments of both Egypt and Jordan are constantly in danger of being overthrown whenever the whim takes their peoples.
"We should seriously consider selling California to the Israelis."
This is actually a brilliant idea.
@Pookie Number 2:
How do civilian settlements increase Israeli security?
J. Farmer - I'm not sure they do.
"Pookie Number 2 said...
I think I agreed with the way you phrased this. The resolution of this conflict requires the emergence of a Palestinian leadership committed to living in peace with Israel."
The only time this happens is when the fuckers run out of rockets.
@Vance:
If Iran wants to drop nukes on Tel Aviv, you would be whistling as you worked, pleased that the US is obligated to defend Iran under Obama.
The US has no such obligation, but spitting out rapid fire errors of fact seems to be your MO.
@Pookie Number 2:
J. Farmer - I'm not sure they do.
Agreed. If anything they are a drain on Israeli security resources because they require IDF protection. In the late 1970s, there were perhaps 4,000 Israelis living in West Bank settlements. Today, it's over 400,000.
Physical settlements as I understand it are of two types - the bulk of them are physically contiguous with existing Jewish communities, being mostly in and near Jerusalem and it's approaches from Tel Aviv, hence they are already inside the perimeter.
Just a few are deep in Indian country, and these are armed camps. Israel has always had a tradition of armed settlements as part of Frontier security.
So here we go again, a reprise of yesterday's (this morning's?) discussion, dancing jerkily in circles, never a meeting of minds.
Utterly fascinating how seamlessly a mere conversation about Israel becomes a microcosm that mirrors the behavior of the world's players in relation to Israel.
We could imagine the participants here are like countries, some support Israel, others oppose Israel or want to destroy it. Then there are writer(s) asserting neutrality but deeply suspected of wanting to wipe Israel off the map, kind of like the UN.
I would name names, but I imagine you know who you (and the others) are. As for me, ATM I'm the mythic distant observer sharing the meta-view. Of course we all know the lofty precedents, roles are subject to change without notice.
@Curious George:
The only time this happens is when the fuckers run out of rockets.
The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank works closely and cooperatively with Israel on security issues:
"Senior IDF officers hold regular joint meetings with Palestinian police chiefs and the army says the good relations between the forces have prevented violence."
Handover signals growing cooperation between Palestinian security force and IDF.
@jrapdx:
Equally "utterly fascinating" is some commenters absolute obsession with trying to divine hidden, secretive, or unspoken motives. If you want to be a mind reader, set up a booth at a carnival and charge people $5 a head for it.
Agreed. If anything they are a drain on Israeli security resources because they require IDF protection. In the late 1970s, there were perhaps 4,000 Israelis living in West Bank settlements. Today, it's over 400,000.
I know. And with few exceptions that will be abandoned if and when credible peace is in the offing, they don't preclude a contiguous Palestine.
I'm not suggesting that Israel has done nothing wrong, or has made no mistakes; it's a country populated by mortals and led by politicians. But I do say - with complete confidence - that if a credible peace with Palestine was possible, there would be virtually no momentum to political opposition within Israel. The only reason that most people support the settlements is because they believe - with significant evidence - that the Palestinians don't distinguish between Ginat Shomron and Tel Aviv, and that this intransigence isn't worth honoring.
@Pookie Number 2:
I'm not suggesting that Israel has done nothing wrong, or has made no mistakes; it's a country populated by mortals and led by politicians.
Agree completely, and I think there is a large consensus in Israel for a two-state solution. I think the right of return is the most significant obstacle, since each side has very entrenched reasons for its position on the topic. Other issues seem difficult but not insurmountable.
I am not sure why commenter jrapdx keeps insisting that there has been no "meeting of the minds." You and I seem to agree on quite a bit.
A truly independent West Bank and Gaza could, overnight, bring in mobile SAM systems that would shut down civilian air traffic over Israeli airspace. And that's if they are being nice. There are much worse things they could do, given the ability to travel and import. Of course, the Israelis would be able to retaliate, but that would mean yet another war.
Modern technology makes such built in enmity a permanent danger and no immediate political accomodation will end it. Israel really can't permit these people state power.
I can't read jrpadx's mind either, but I think the Palestinian refusal to accept a right of return to what would be Palestine is itself grounded in the hope and belief that Israel won't last.
@J.Farmer: The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank works closely and cooperatively with Israel on security issues
A 2016 update from Al Jazeera -- What Palestinian-Israeli security cooperation? Effective policing and cooperation cannot be provided under the occupation.
@Lydia:
Did you actually read the article you just linked to?
Yes, I did read the full article. It is all over the place, however, jumping from saying there is cooperation and it's working to saying just the opposite. Its final summation, though, supports the headline.
Agree completely, and I think there is a large consensus in Israel for a two-state solution.
but the Palestinians reject a two state solution, and have already come out and attacked Kerry's speech because he proposed one.
John Forbes Kerry, the Doo-Dah Man of the Worst Administration in American History. Whadda legacy!
People who use Heinz Ketchup are guilty by association.
@Gahrie:
but the Palestinians reject a two state solution, and have already come out and attacked Kerry's speech because he proposed one.
You're right. It's a total quagmire and one of several reasons why the US should not be front and center.
@Lydia:
"Its final summation, though, supports the headline."
The article was making the case that PA cooperation will eventually break down as the prospect of a two-state solution becomes more dismal. The writer is making a prediction about the future rather than commenting on the current state of cooperation.
I say precisely what I think, and I say it as clearly as I possibly can.
We all see how prolix you are. And we all see what those words are straining to cloak. It doesn't take mind reader to do it, despite your feeble protestations.
@Rocketeer:
If you have something substantive to say about any argument I've made, go right ahead and say it.
As far as what you think of me personally, that's your problem, not mine. Unlike many others here, I understand that an argument stand on its own merit, not the character of the person making the argument.
Now I'm waiting on the post about the Russian diplomats kicked out and the reasoning why.
BTW, we've known for years that the Russian compounds in NY and MD were used for espionage. Suddenly, it's important.
J. Farmer:
For a commenter who steadfastly rejects ad hominem you sure don't mind insulting another person's parents. The mind boggles.
BTW, I did answer your question about the illegality of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Did you miss it? I will restate it: The useful fiction of international law has no enforcement mechanism.
Do you suffer an inability to draw the one and only conclusion possible from that premise?
@Birkel:
The fact that you're a snide prick and that it reflects poorly on your parents is completely beside the point to the argument; it was just an observation.
My question was whether the Iraqi invasion was a violation of the UN charter; I asked that question twice and am still waiting for an answer.
J. Farmer:
You have your answer. Do you wish me to generate another more to your liking? I'm afraid I only have the one.
@Birkel:
Go ahead and amuse me and answer it again. Was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait a violation of the UN charter?
J. Farmer:
"The useful fiction of international law has no enforcement mechanism."
@Birkel:
So then by your own reasoning, no country can ever be in violation of any treaty ever?
J. Farmer:
Are you suggesting a country may not leave a treaty on a whim?
@Birkel:
Not at all. But that's not my question. Can a country ever be in violation of a treaty for any reason since international law is just a "useful fiction?"
J. Farmer:
There is no international law. It is a useful fiction. A country may withdraw on a whim from any agreement. Other countries can only exert pressure as they wish, up to and including war.
Your question is nonsensical given the reality outlined above.
@Birkel:
So I'll repeat. Is it an accurate summation of your view to say that no country can be in violation of any treaty ever?
Being in violation of the terms of a treaty is quite separate from withdrawing from that treaty.
J. Farmer:
"The useful fiction of international law has no enforcement mechanism."
How tedious.
Madison Man wrote: "The only thing now: Who will get a pardon?"
Offenders convicted after being afforded due process. Obots will say, "low level drug offenders. And Benghazi was about a video. And if you like your doctor,...." We can find clues by looking at the offenses committed by illegals his minions have released. Murders. Rapes. Robberies. Multiple DUIs.
@Birkel:
So I'll repeat. Is it an accurate summation of your view to say that no country can be in violation of any treaty ever?
Simple yes or no question, Birkel. I'm waiting.
J. Farmer:
Any country that wishes to hold itself in violation is in violation.
Any country that wishes to hold itself not in violation is not in violation.
Post a Comment