The extremist Islamic State group’s branch in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula has taken a simmering dispute with the Palestinian Hamas group based in nearby Gaza to new levels, releasing a 22-minute video in which it calls on its followers to attack the group and shows the execution of a man it said was a collaborator....
“Never surrender to them. Use explosives, silenced pistols, and sticky bombs. Bomb their courts and their security locations, for these are the pillars of tyranny that prop up its throne,” says the knife-wielding narrator of the video, according to a translation distributed by the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors extremist websites.
The video cites Hamas’s crackdown on Islamist militant groups in Gaza and their failure to prevent the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as reasons for attacking the group. It begins with a video clip of President Trump’s announcement on Jerusalem last month.
४ जानेवारी, २०१८
So... Trump's recognition of Jerusalem got ISIS to fight Hamas?!
WaPo reports.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११६ टिप्पण्या:
"When thieves fall out..."
Nope. Still not tired.
Well, that certainly is an interesting development.
Trump is a disruptive force in the world, breaking old bonds and creating new ones. It'll be interesting to see how everything ends up after the dust settles.
ISIS and Hamas fighting each other? The NYT and Obama hardest hit. ISIS and Hamas are darlings of the left, so killing each other makes lots and lots of baby liberals cry.
Meanwhile, the rest of us can only cheer both sides and hope they both find much success in slaughtering the other side.
--Vance
I'll need more popcorn.
Nothing new.
ISIS does not play well with others.
Same thing happening in Afghanistan.
Crazy Arab Muslim Group A fighting crazy Arab Muslim Group B - news at 11:00.
This gets better and better, but would Allcott & Gentzkow call it fake news?
Shia vs Sunni? That's a new development. ..Not.
@PacWest:
Shia vs Sunni? That's a new development. ..Not.
ISIS and Hamas are both Sunni groups.
Trump is a disruptive force in the world, breaking old bonds and creating new ones. It'll be interesting to see how everything ends up after the dust settles.
Jonathan Bernstein wrote an oped for Bloomberg View, "Just a reminder: This isn't normal". No s%*t, Sherlock. That's why we voted for him. Trump was elected to take a sledgehammer to international institutions, traditions, and the status quo, because a lot of voters have decided that those institutions and traditions screw the little guy and favor the coastal "elite".
Need we see any more proof of how radically divisive President Trump is? Invoke the 25th Amendment now!
So... Trump's recognition of Jerusalem got ISIS to fight Hamas?!
No. Hamas and ISIS have been fighting since well before the Jerusalem deal, and there have long been hostilities between the two sides. For one, ISIS objects to Hamas' embracing of Palestinian nationalism. Also, ISIS sees Hamas as a fraudulent force not sufficiently Islamic. ISIS has also long proposed a far more aggressive attitude towards Israel than Hamas. Essentially, ISIS is playing the same game with Hamas that Hamas played with Fatah.
ISIS mad at Hamas for not preventing Trump's recognition of Jerusalem? Hahahaha!
@Mr Wibble:
That's why we voted for him. Trump was elected to take a sledgehammer to international institutions, traditions, and the status quo, because a lot of voters have decided that those institutions and traditions screw the little guy and favor the coastal "elite".
That is all fine and good, but what does entangling the US in foreign conflicts that have little or nothing to do with our national security or national interests have to do with any of that?
@Riley:
ISIS mad at Hamas for not preventing Trump's recognition of Jerusalem? Hahahaha!
ISIS has been making statements like this for a while now regarding Hamas. They are essentially trying to win converts to their side in the Gaza and are doing so by pointing out what they perceive to be Hamas' fecklessness in challenging Israel or operating on the world stage. The ISIS side basically says that any political or diplomatic maneuvering should be abandoned in favor of a more aggressive posture. Essentially, ISIS is waging a battle for hearts and minds in Gaza.
Hamas and ISIS killing each other and Trump is supposedly one of the causes of this? My God, the man is a miracle worker!
We need to remember that the people who are currently the liberal media are young and immature people who lack any real knowledge of history. They're young and dumb.
". . . releasing a 22-minute video in which it [ISIS] calls on its followers to attack the group [HAMAS]"
GO FOR IT.
Like the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s (like it ever stopped), ya want both sides to lose.
Farmer seems heavily invested in Islamic orthodoxy.
Hmmmm
It was not president trump's idea to move the embassy. All he did was refuse to continue 25 years of violating us law.
The house and senate passed a law requiring that the embasy be moved immediately. Overwhelming majorities in both houses.
Bill Clinton signed the law.
Clinton, Bush and Obama did not comply.
Trump is finally after 25 years, complying.
John Henry
@Michael K:
Farmer seems heavily invested in Islamic orthodoxy.
It's really a pity to see a man of your age and education routinely fall back on such petty, juvenile claptrap. How about refuting something I actually said or pointing out how I got some fact wrong. If you want to have a debate on the merits and attempt to hash out differences in opinion, I am more than willing to engage. That you have to so perennially rely on personal comment should give you pause in how confident in your actual position you are.
In other words, it's all Bill Clinton fault
John Henry
@John:
It was not president trump's idea to move the embassy. All he did was refuse to continue 25 years of violating us law.
That is completely wrong. First of all, the Jerusalem Embassy Act specifically allows the President to invoke a six-month waiver, which Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump have done during the course of their presidency. So in no way was any president violating the law. Second, the Congress has no power to demand that the President recognize some capital over others. The Executive has the power to recognize sovereignty over foreign territory, not the Congress.
That is all fine and good, but what does entangling the US in foreign conflicts that have little or nothing to do with our national security or national interests have to do with any of that?
What foreign conflicts?
What’s new other than Obama allowed Hezbollah free drug reign?
You're pissing in the wind, Farmer. Every President has vowed to do this thing but only Trump actually followed through. Your ire should be leveled at all his mealy-mouthed predecessors, not Trump. Maybe rethink the "completely wrong" tag above. Endless waivers are a dumb way to do government.
I thought the basis of moving the embassy was in the Oslo Accords?
@Mike:
Every President has vowed to do this thing but only Trump actually followed through.
No, every president has not "vowed to do this thing." The only president to verbalize some support for moving the embassy was Bush, and he signed the waiver 16 times during his presidency.
Your ire should be leveled at all his mealy-mouthed predecessors, not Trump.
No, my ire is at the Congressmen that voted for that foolish bill. First, Congress has no authority in that domain. The only thing it could hope to do was withhold funding from the embassy, but it does not have the power to recognize foreign capital. That power rests with the Executive.
Endless waivers are a dumb way to do government.
Not as dumb as having your legislature run your foreign policy.
How about refuting something I actually said or pointing out how I got some fact wrong.
I said I was not getting into a debate with you because I don't know what is going to happen.
You seem very certain you know what will happen and I find that interesting. Maybe you really do know.
Try not to be so paranoid.
@Michael K:
I said I was not getting into a debate with you because I don't know what is going to happen.
You seem very certain you know what will happen and I find that interesting. Maybe you really do know.
Try not to be so paranoid.
Nobody knows what is going to happen. That would be an absurdity. But I presume you have an opinion about what has happened. So do I. And I am prepared to defend it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Doesn’t President Obama at least get partial credit for this?
Smug doesn't think Israelis should be able to determine the location of their own capital city and have it recognized by other countries.
Israelis are somehow to be treated differently than everybody else.
Some factor determines why one group is treated differently.
Smug won't name the thing.
dreams: "We need to remember that the people who are currently the liberal media are young and immature people who lack any real knowledge of history. They're young and dumb"
That one will never get old.
Ben Rhodes goes full Kinsley!
Left Bank of the Charles: "Doesn’t President Obama at least get partial credit for this?"
LOL
@Left Bank of the Charles:
Doesn’t President Obama at least get partial credit for this?
Not really. And neither does Trump. I think it is a frequent mistake in foreign policy commentary to interpret anything a foreign power or group does as being in response to or because of something America did. The conflict between Hamas and ISIS was long-standing. Many radical Salafist groups consider Hamas apostate for any number of reasons, including their participation in democratic governance, their acceptance of nationalism, and their alliance with Iran.
@Birkel:
Smug doesn't think Israelis should be able to determine the location of their own capital city and have it recognized by other countries.
If Mexico declared Los Angeles their capital city, would we accept it? East Jerusalem is not Israel's land, and it has been recognized by not only the US, but every single one of our major allies, as such for the last 50 years.
Some factor determines why one group is treated differently.
Actually, my position is quite simple and consistent. I don't believe that the Israel-Palestine conflict involves American interests, and I think we should largely stay out of it. I also thought the same thing about the nearly 30-year long civil war in Sri Lankan. Do you think that this was similarly motivated by some kind of sinister ethnic hatred on my part? Anti-Tamilism, perhaps?
Smug won't name the thing.
If you want to accuse me of something, at least have the stones to actually say it. Your pussyfooting and innuendo just makes you look weak.
J.Farmer: You say that you want to debate these issues, but reading your posts gives the impression (to me, at least) that you are brushing off every other comment. It's all old news, ISIS was already fighting Hamas, and recognizing Jerusalem was not anyone's intention.
Didn't Clinton sign the bill to move the embassy? Didn't Bush say he would do it?
You sound like the lifers at the State Department. If you are so knowledgeable about these issues, how about some suggestions?
I'm not seeing a downside to this.
"That is all fine and good, but what does entangling the US in foreign conflicts that have little or nothing to do with our national security or national interests have to do with any of that?"
How does this entangle us in anything? Trump has done more to end the foreign entanglement that his predecessors started.
Obama's entanglement with Iran was a waste of treasure, but then I knew it from the start. And as history has revealed it was just a cover for criminal activity.
@johns:
J.Farmer: You say that you want to debate these issues, but reading your posts gives the impression (to me, at least) that you are brushing off every other comment. It's all old news, ISIS was already fighting Hamas, and recognizing Jerusalem was not anyone's intention.
That is not exactly what I said. I said that Hamas and ISIS had already been in conflict for years before the moving of the embassy. The moving of the embassy was a propaganda victory for ISIS, because it gives more ammunition to paint Hamas' strategy and tactics as an ineffectual and to advocate for a more aggressive, militant posture.
Didn't Clinton sign the bill to move the embassy?
No, he did not. Clinton was opposed and was rightfully worried that the bill would interfere with ongoing negotiations.
Didn't Bush say he would do it?
Not exactly. He voiced approval for such a move but declined to implement it (as the law allowed) the entire duration of his presidency.
If you are so knowledgeable about these issues, how about some suggestions?
Suggestions for what? I have routinely and consistently advocated for the US to stay out of the conflict. I don't believe in advocating for either side. US government policy should be to encourage both sides to seek peaceful diplomatic resolution of the dispute. Beyond that, I would have nothing to do with it. That means no US taxpayer money to Israel or the PA, and no attempts by the US to insert itself needlessly into the conflict.
J. Farmer:
Trump did not recognize East Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel:
"[Trump]stated explicitly that the American position on the boundaries of Israeli sovereignty had not changed, and said indirectly that American recognition of Jerusalem’s status as Israel’s “capital” only applied to that part of the reality that is not disputed by the Palestinians and Arab states. Moreover, while Israeli expressions of satisfaction with the American president’s move are justified, if the leaders of neighboring Arab states that are considered US allies – Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia – analyze his words carefully, they will understand they contain nothing that contradicts the Arab peace initiative."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-recognition-of-Jerusalem-as-the-capital-of-Israel-518226
J. Farmer said "I have routinely and consistently advocated for the US to stay out of the conflict."
If the U.S. stops contributing funds to the Palestinians, staying out of the conflict might help.
@Rusty:
I'm not seeing a downside to this.
Hamas being displaced as a center of power in the Gaza by ISIS would be a very troubling development. Luckily, I doubt there is much likelihood of that happening.
How does this entangle us in anything?
By recognizing East Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the US not only breaks with 50 years of its own position, but we have isolated ourselves from every single one of our major allies on this question.
Trump has done more to end the foreign entanglement that his predecessors started.
Trump has escalated the pointless war in Afghanistan, and he has given a complete blank check to Saudi Arabia in its destructive war in Yemen, which has empowered Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and he has supported Saudi Arabia's foolish efforts to diplomatically isolate Qatar, which hosts major US military resources.
Obama's entanglement with Iran was a waste of treasure, but then I knew it from the start
The JCPOA is not an "entanglement with Iran" anymore than the Chinese or Russians or Germans are entangled with Iran. It involved no "waste of treasure," since the money that Iran received was a result of sanctions relief and was oil money already owed to Iran but frozen in foreign bank accounts.
And as history has revealed it was just a cover for criminal activity.
And yet you cannot identity a single significant violation of the JCPOA by Iran.
I get the feeling that Farmer doesn't like Trump.
That explains most of it.
@Johns:
Trump did not recognize East Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.
"We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem." -Trump's speech to AIPAC, March 2016
"Under a Trump administration, [we] will finally accept the long-standing Congressional mandate to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel." -Trump's meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu, September 2016
"Today we finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel's capital." -Trump's speech in Diplomatic Reception Room announcing the change in US policy, December 2017
If the U.S. stops contributing funds to the Palestinians, staying out of the conflict might help.
Reread what I wrote: "That means no US taxpayer money to Israel or the PA, and no attempts by the US to insert itself needlessly into the conflict."
The capital of Israel is in West Jerusalem, always has been, so moving the US embassy to West Jerusalem is not an issue whatsoever about Israel claiming territory "illegally" as J.Farmer has argued. As Trump's administration has repeatedly stated, moving the embassy does not settle the conflict, which must be settled by the Arabs and Israelis. The issue is psychological for the Arabs who want to continue to stop the clock and ignore the reality of the existence of Israel, and Trump is saying, it's time to move forward, accept reality and settle up. (Proof of what I'm saying is the obsessive chanting of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" by BDS activists and Palestine supporters everywhere. They are not interested in two states, only one state, an Islamic state.)
@Michael K:
I get the feeling that Farmer doesn't like Trump.
That explains most of it.
Of course even if that were true, it would make no difference to whether my argument was correct or not. Why you cannot seem to grasp that fundamental point of logic I do not understand.
I am not an admirer of politicians, most often do not know them, and do not have much of an opinion over whether I would "like" someone or not. I judge Trump like I would judge any politician, on what he does and what he advocates.
I voted for Trump primarily for his immigration policy and also because I liked his skepticism towards so called "free trade" agreements. I have said repeatedly, including before he was president, that my biggest fear with Trump was his foreign policy. Also, if you explained why a particular policy of Obama's was wrong, and I respond, "IU get the feeling that Michael doesn't like Obama. That explains most of it." How convincing of a response would you consider that?
Michael K said...
I get the feeling that Farmer doesn't like Trump."
Actually, I believe Farmer voted for Trump. He can correct me if I am wrong.
Farmer is an isolationist and does not like Israel much.
@R.J. Chatt:
The capital of Israel is in West Jerusalem, always has been, so moving the US embassy to West Jerusalem is not an issue whatsoever about Israel claiming territory "illegally" as J.Farmer has argued.
That is not true. Israel does not recognize Jerusalem as West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel following the Jerusalem Law in 1980. This annexation was never recognized by the international community, and the final status of Jerusalem is to be left to future negotiations. Dennis Ross, derisively referred to as "Israel's lawyer," by the Arabs during the Oslo negotiations, pointed out that an undivided Jerusalem was a major point of contention in the Israel-Palestine conflict.
@exiledonmainstreet:
Farmer is an isolationist and does not like Israel much
I am not an isolationist. I am a nationalist and an anti-interventionist. As for not "liking" Israel, I find the entire notion absurd. I don't believe in giving taxpayer money to Israel, which is the same position I have about every other country in the world.
I've met my share of people who argue against US involvement in the Israeli/Arab conflict and who would be perfectly happy if Israel were whipped off the fact of the earth, not that they are Jew haters or anything. (That solution is sort of implied with the suggestion that US end aid to Israel, as if Iran would also end aid to Hezbollah and the other Arab states stop their support of Hamas. They wouldn't.) The main flaw in the argument is the suggestion that if Israel did not exist, there would be no conflict in the area. I mean, really? In reality if not for Israel, ISIS would be fighting in the West Bank and using it as a stronghold against Jordan. There would still be no Palestinian State, there would only be more conflict in the area. When did the Palestinians ever ruled themselves as a country? Never. Even now, their President Abbas is actually a dictator, his term ended in 2009, and Fatah is still fighting with Hamas and now ISIS.
This annexation was never recognized by the international community,
(Of thugs and dictators)
If every country got approval, we would never have existed.
West Jerusalem was the modern Jewish city even in 1947.
The Arabs never conceded even that to Israel, as the hinterland separating that from the remainder of the Jewish lowland settlements was Arab.
And there was the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of course, East Jerusalem.
Hence this was a focus of the fighting in 1947-48, Jerusalem besieged, Jewish attempts to break the siege, the overrunning of the Jewish Old City, Jewish attempts to break back in to the Old City, attack and counter attack of dominating positions around the City, etc.
The very popular journalistic work on this is of course "Oh Jerusalem", Collins & Lapierre. $4.99 on Kindle.
What's somewhat curious is when people argue against US involvement in the conflict and yet have a strong opinion about what Israel does with Jerusalem. Why would the division of Jerusalem matter to someone who doesn't have any vested interest? I really don't understand that.
No, he did not. Clinton was opposed and was rightfully worried that the bill would interfere with ongoing negotiation
And here we are a couple of decades later. Movement! We have movement!
@RJ Chatt:
I've met my share of people who argue against US involvement in the Israeli/Arab conflict and who would be perfectly happy if Israel were whipped off the fact of the earth, not that they are Jew haters or anything.
Then, perhaps, you should take up your disagreements with those "share of people," since being "against US involvement in the Israeli/Arab conflict" has nothing to do with being "perfectly happy if Israel were whipped off the fact of the earth."
(That solution is sort of implied with the suggestion that US end aid to Israel, as if Iran would also end aid to Hezbollah and the other Arab states stop their support of Hamas. They wouldn't.
Israel is a wealthy, technologically advanced nation that is the most powerful military in the region. Hezbollah and Hamas are pitifully outpowered in the conflict, which is why they have had to largely rely on assymetric tactics, which take advantage of their relative weakness.
The main flaw in the argument is the suggestion that if Israel did not exist, there would be no conflict in the area. I mean, really?
Who here has made that argument? Again, if you want to argue with phantoms, please go do that.
What's somewhat curious is when people argue against US involvement in the conflict and yet have a strong opinion about what Israel does with Jerusalem. Why would the division of Jerusalem matter to someone who doesn't have any vested interest? I really don't understand that.
Again, unable to speak for amorphous "people," I can tell you from my perspective that this has nothing to do with what "Israel does with Jerusalem." It has to do with what America does. In this case, US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital gets us nothing of strategic value in return and to the degree that it inflames tensions in the region it is a liability.
@Seeing Red:
And here we are a couple of decades later. Movement! We have movement!
Oh thank goodness. I know American national interests were really being hampered by having our embassy 40 miles away in Tel Aviv. I know when I vote for a populist, America First candidate it's so we can placate a foreign power.
East Jerusalem is not Israel's land, and it has been recognized by not only the US, but every single one of our major allies, as such for the last 50 years.
Yes it is. When one country invades another and winds up losing territory, the winner gets to keep that territory. The principle goes back before the time of the city-states of Mesopotamia. Otherwise there’s no downside to breaking a peace treaty and initiating an invasion.
Didn't Bush say he would do it?
Not exactly. He voiced approval for such a move but declined to implement it (as the law allowed) the entire duration of his presidency.
In short yes.
He acted as a politician.
Trump kept his word.
One person's appeasing a foreign power is another person's he kept a campaign promise I liked.
@Big Mike:
When one country invades another and winds up losing territory, the winner gets to keep that territory.
No, it does not. Israel is a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the UN Charter, which places it under certain obligations and responsibilities. UN Resolution 242 was passed unanimously by the Security Council, and Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem and civilian settlement expansion in the West Bank are clear violations of the resolution.
@Seeing Red:
He acted as a politician.
Trump kept his word.
Who is disagreeing with you? I gave quotes of Trump before he was elected promising to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. I thought it was stupid then, and I think it is stupid now.
[Big Mike:] When one country invades another and winds up losing territory, the winner gets to keep that territory.
[J. Farmer:] No, it does not. Israel is a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention and the UN Charter
Memory may be letting me down here, but wasn't North Vietnam a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention?
If so, that significantly qualifies "No, it does not."
@Hey Skipper:
Memory may be letting me down here, but wasn't North Vietnam a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention?
If so, that significantly qualifies "No, it does not."
First, North Korea's violations are widely known and reported on and are partly a cause for sanctions against regime. In regards to Israel, the Fourth Geneva Convention has to do with administration of the occupied territories. The construction of settlements in the occupied territory have widely been considered in violation of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, and this opinion was shared by Theodor Meron, chief legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry in 1967.
As for the notion that Israel can annex any of the land it wishes, that is direct contravention of UN 242, which was unanimously passed by the Security Council and which specifically declared "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."
[J. Farmer:] First, North Korea's violations are widely known ...
You misread me -- that's OK, it happens -- I referred to N. Vietnam.
As for the notion that Israel can annex any of the land it wishes, that is direct contravention of UN 242, which was unanimously passed by the Security Council and which specifically declared "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war."
Presuming my memory serves with regard to Vietnam, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is, in fact, quite admissible.
And memory aside, if the acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible, then it doesn't matter what N. Vietnam signed.
Or, it is admissible, depending on who is doing the acquisitioning, which lends weight to the argument that the UN is about as worthwhile as a kickstand on a tricycle.
And relying upon UN resolutions as any particular guide to anything is foolishness incarnate.
(BTW, while I disagree with many of your assertions, there's no denying you have a great deal of factual mastery, and have added a lot of value to this thread. Completely unlike Inga or TTR ever do.)
Who is disagreeing with you? I gave quotes of Trump before he was elected promising to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. I thought it was stupid then, and I think it is stupid now.
And I don’t.
(... your conclusions ...)
Smug will pretend. Smug will say things and pretend no logical conclusions can be formed. Smug just doesn't have the stones to say what is plain.
Isn't it hilarious that international law with corrupt thugs that is ignored on a regular basis matters when one particular thing is involved? But that means nothing.
He forced the issue. There is a correlation. Hamas, today. ISIS, tomorrow. The alternative is to sustain a progressive conflict. Time will tell if it ends with a social justice adventure, including mass abortion fields and immigration reform.
@Hey Skipper:
And relying upon UN resolutions as any particular guide to anything is foolishness incarnate.
It depends on what you mean by "UN resolutions." UN General Assembly resolutions are widely known to be unenforceable and are largely ignored by the major powers. Security Council resolutions are an important tool in international relations. See, for example, Trump's pursuit of resolutions against North Korea. UN 2397, for example, places restrictions on fuel imports and exports of numerous materials.
For the last 50 years, the US and everyone of our major allies (e.g. Canada, UK, France, Germany, and Japan) have all considered the annexation of East Jerusalem and the construction of settlements in the territories to be illegitimate.
Now you can assert that treaties mean nothing, if you wish, but you will need to white out a few lines in the US Constitution, which states "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;"
In Israel, it was the Israeli Supreme Court in the Shimshon case and then the Stampfer case that established the incorporation of customary international law into Israel's domestic law. For a thorough discussion of the topic, see International Law in Domestic Courts: Israel by David Kretzmer, professor of International Law at Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
@n.n.:
He forced the issue. There is a correlation. Hamas, today. ISIS, tomorrow.
With all due respect, that makes no sense.
There have been numerous cases of "conquest" since 1948.
Especially in cases of civil wars, revolutions, decolonization, and uncertain sovereignty.
The legalisms of UN resolutions have also, often, been moot.
And there is no question that they are selectively applied.
In the cases of Portuguese Goa or Dutch New Guinea for instance.
"See, for example, Trump's pursuit of resolutions against North Korea. UN 2397, for example, places restrictions on fuel imports and exports of numerous materials."
Now that is funny.
Law is a tool of the strong, used to bend the minds of the weak and reconcile them to the current state of power relations.
@Farmer, you don't believe that the Yom Kippur War rendered Resolution 242 moot? I think that's a minority position.
For the last 50 years, the US and everyone of our major allies (e.g. Canada, UK, France, Germany, and Japan) have all considered the annexation of East Jerusalem and the construction of settlements in the territories to be illegitimate.
Then why did Congress pass, and Bill Clinton allow to go into effect, the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995? This is US law, and I don't see that Donald Trump can be faulted for following US law?
Note the inconsistency and misdirection by J. Farmer: by justifying his position on UN Resolution 242, and referring to E. Jerusalem as "occupied" territory, he is deliberately ignoring the actual language of the Resolution which does not use this terminology. The Resolution was debated at length and deliberately left vague the term "territory" and did not specify any specific territory. I suggest reviewing the actual Resolution and not relying on J. Farmer's inaccurate and rather slanted interpretation. He really has not added a lot of value here unless people are motivated to investigate the topic rather than rely on him.
The fact that he does not perceive any strategic importance and value of Israel to the US is his opinion shared by some. Others have different opinions. Explained here for example.
It is also subverted by empire-building through proxy governments.
Both the US and the Soviet Union (and to a lesser degree Britain and France) kept close control of various subservient countries, and acquired and lost them, through puppet governments and proxy wars. China wants to do the same. The Saudis have made attempts in that direction, and Iran also.
Fig leaves will do, often enough.
"The fact that he does not perceive any strategic importance and value of Israel to the US"
This is an interesting question actually. Its not at all clear what the value of Israel to the US IS. Part of that is that its not exactly clear, beyond the obvious matter of the maintenance of the Pax Americana, what US foreign interests are, in general. Even taking a broad (but still realpolitik) POV, Israel is a problem. The US loses friends (assuming countries are friends) by challenging their popular opinions. And in many places it is an extremely popular opinion to hate Jews, to put it bluntly.
This is one reason why US governments till late-1968 were leery of getting too close to Israel, and certainly prevented arms sales or any significant official aid. Its also why Britain and France were eventually waved off from military sales and other support, pre-1967. Israel's international position, 1948-67, was very uncomfortable. It was largely Soviet propaganda and influence that ruined the US reputation among Arabs and made its hands-off relations with Israel irrelevant.
That whole thing is yet another of the meme-monsters of the Cold War, that outlived their creators.
@Big Mike:
@Farmer, you don't believe that the Yom Kippur War rendered Resolution 242 moot? I think that's a minority position.
It is not a "minority position at all." Resolution 338, which established the ceasefire in the Yom Kippur War stated:
"Calls upon all parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;"
Then why did Congress pass, and Bill Clinton allow to go into effect, the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995? This is US law, and I don't see that Donald Trump can be faulted for following US law?
I have addressed this numerous times in this thread, but here's once more. First, Bill Clinton could not have successfully vetoed it, so it was allowed to pass into law without presidential signature. Second, the law specifically included a presidential waver due to concerns of constitutionality. Third, the waiver was used by Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump. Fourth, the US Congress has no role in conducting US foreign policy. The power to determine sovereignty over territory is exclusive to the Executive. Even Bush, who personally favored the move, referred to Congress' role as "advisory."
To justify US support for Israel as a productive policy for the US one has to go to a level beyond realpolitik. That, however, is a nebulous area overlapping into philosophy and theology.
@RJ Chatt:
The Resolution was debated at length and deliberately left vague the term "territory" and did not specify any specific territory.
That is wrong. What the resolution left vague was the extent of the withdrawal. The "specific territory" always referred to "territories occupied in the recent conflict." The reason the pre-1967 border was not established as the final border was because of its irregularity in the south, and the expectation that there would be minor and mutual territorial swaps. And in case you are, like RJ Chatt, worried about my "inconsistency and misdirection," you do not have to take my word for it. Read the commentary of Lord Caradon, the principle drafter of 242 here.
Good reference by J. Farmer. Note that Israel withdrew from the Sinai which was about 90% of the territory acquired, because that made sense. Israel also withdrew from Gaza which was supposed to make sense, but turns out did not result in peace. There was never any intention that borders be returned to pre-1967 status, but rather that there be negotiations to result in “secure and recognized boundaries.” How anyone could imagine or advocate for a secure boundary within a divided city (of Jerusalem) is beyond me.
[J. Farmer:] It depends on what you mean by "UN resolutions."
Good point.
However, it seems that "inadmissable" can, indeed, be quite admissable.
So citing that as some sort of rule ignores a great deal of recent history, making relying upon it for policy regarding Jerusalem a perfect example of selective enforcement.
Why you cannot seem to grasp that fundamental point of logic I do not understand.
I know. Try to realize that I don't give a shit.
Iran may throw off the mullahs and it doesn't matter what you and I post about Islam in Iran.
It's 75 in Tucson today. My wife and I have been running errands. I am going to take the dog for a walk in a few minutes.
The tree has been taken down and the ornaments put away.
My bird feeders are all filled.
Life is good.
@RJ Chatt:
There was never any intention that borders be returned to pre-1967 status, but rather that there be negotiations to result in “secure and recognized boundaries.”
That is undeniable. The entire point of 242 was to lay the groundwork for negotiations between belligerent parties. Treaties with Egypt and Jordan were part of this process, and the principles of 242 were reaffirmed at Oslo in the mid-90s. None of this means that Israel is authorized to unilaterally annex land. That is the antithesis of 242, which Israel and all parties have agreed to, and which you rightfully point out, are to be a result of "negotiations." Israel also unilaterally began building civilian Israeli settlements in West Bank territory. This often involved the forcible seizure of other people's property and the placing of the local population under a military regime. This are widely regarded as violations of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, which prevent moving civilian populations into occupied territories. This is not just the opinion of some Jew-hating fringe. It was the opinion of the Israeli Foreign Ministry's legal counsel in 1967. It has also been the option of the government's of Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia, India, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, etc.
How anyone could imagine or advocate for a secure boundary within a divided city (of Jerusalem) is beyond me.
The final status of Jerusalem has always been one of, if not the most difficult issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The solution supported by the US and proposed in the UN partition plan was that Jerusalem be an internationally-administered city. That is a very unlikely proposition. But again, the disposition of Jerusalem is a vexing problem marred by all sorts of historical and cultural resentments. And seeing as it does not involve the vital national interests of the US, I see no reason why it should involve so much of our energy and attention.
Michael K:
I know. Try to realize that I don't give a shit.
For what it's worth, whatever has happened in your life to make you such a surly, bitter old man, I am sorry for.
Iran may throw off the mullahs and it doesn't matter what you and I post about Islam in Iran.
True. But when you make an absurd, fatuous claim about Islam being thrown off in Iran based on the flimsiest of evidence, you should be mature and gentlemanly enough to concede you were wrong. Reacting like a spoiled, petulant brat does neither of us any good.
It's 75 in Tucson today. My wife and I have been running errands. I am going to take the dog for a walk in a few minutes.
It's 19 in Knoxville. Fuck you.
Life is good.
Can't ask for much more than that.
@Hey Skipper:
So citing that as some sort of rule ignores a great deal of recent history, making relying upon it for policy regarding Jerusalem a perfect example of selective enforcement.
When Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait, it was in violation of the UN charter. I believe that and am prepared to defend that proposition. I presume you would agree with me. Does the fact that it's "selective enforcement" have anything to do with that question?
There is a plane question before us. Is Israel in violation of international agreements it willingly consented to? I think the evidence is clearly yes. And that has been the claim of every major power, including the US, for decades.
Resolution 242 called for a peace agreement to result from the principle that land could not be acquired by military force. Peace would only be achieved through mutual negotiation. That's fine. However, the fact that the PLO charter has still not been amended despite promises since 1968, to reflect a desire to live in peace with Israel as a neighbor is a major violation of Resolution 242. (Not to mention changes to the charters of Hamas and Fatah and now ISIS who has decided it is the legitimate upholder of Arab/Muslim nationhood, to return to the original topic.) That mindset by the PA, the PLO, Fatah, Hamas, ISIS, is a much more significant impediment to the peace process than moving the US embassy and seems to go unmentioned in these discussions that include how terrible it is that some Israelis are building homes and living in disputed territories, AKA ancient Biblical lands of Judea and Samaria. What it comes down to is some people can't handle the prospect of Israel winning and giving up the dream of destroying that pesky Jewish state. Fortunately many Arab nations are more realistic and forward thinking, in private at least. Time does move forward for most of us.
J. Farmer defending our enemies and attacking our allies and interests....it's nice to know there are some things you can rely on.
If Mexico declared Los Angeles their capital city, would we accept it?
It's already Mexico's second largest city. The only city with more Mexican citizens than L.A. is Mexico City.
Bravo, President Trump. Bravo.
surly and bitter =/= suffering smug easily
Smug will stamp feet and demand people care.
Ukraine, Tibet, Cashmere,
Get off my continent, non-Natives.
All borders must go back to their 600 BCE lines.
Arbitrary dates are fun for boys and girls.
J. Farmer: "When Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait, it was in violation of the UN charter."
So what? If the US had not decided to act not a single thing would have happened to Hussein.
In fact, John Kerry wanted Hussein left alone to consolidate Iraq's newest "province".
The UN is useless. I can't wait to see which oppressive nation gets to head up the Human Rights Commission next!
Bottom line: Hussein attempting to annex Kuwait went beyond a single republican President's acceptable limit and that is the ONLY reason why Hussein was removed.
@RJ Chatt:
However, the fact that the PLO charter has still not been amended despite promises since 1968, to reflect a desire to live in peace with Israel as a neighbor is a major violation of Resolution 242.
The PLO has affirmed Israel's right to exist in peace and security since at least the early 1990s in the sunup to the Oslo process. There are major obstacles to a negotiated settlement, the final status of Jerusalem and the question of the right of return being the thorniest. And yes, civilian settlement building throughout the occupied territories has been a major source of tension and a major obstacle to a resolution of the conflict. The Israeli occupation has been a major force of intransigence. And this has been recognized by pretty much ever major diplomatic corps of every major country in the world. The First Intifada did not begin until more than 20 years after the Six Day War.
@Gahrie:
J. Farmer defending our enemies and attacking our allies and interests....it's nice to know there are some things you can rely on.
I am doing neither. I am describing the world. If I have described something incorrectly, please point out where. But since you brought it up, perhaps you can explain to us what American interests are served by Jerusalem being Israel's capital?
@Drago:
The UN is useless. I can't wait to see which oppressive nation gets to head up the Human Rights Commission next!
The General Assembly and various splinter organizations are part of boilerplate diplomatic affairs. There is real power concentrated in the Security Council. And Security Council resolutions, such as the recent one adopted placing limits on North Korean petroleum imports, are a key part of how international sanctions function.
Bottom line: Hussein attempting to annex Kuwait went beyond a single republican President's acceptable limit and that is the ONLY reason why Hussein was removed.
That is completely irrelevant to the question. Did the invasion and annexation violate the UN Charter or not?
J. Farmer: "That is completely irrelevant to the question. Did the invasion and annexation violate the UN Charter or not?
On the contrary, it is the ONLY thing that is relevant.
Who cares how many rules are violated if there is never any penalty? The UN is basically corruption on a global scale.
So go ahead and keep it if it makes you feel better. It simply doesn't matter.
Can't wait until all the "enlightened" arab nations join together again to complain about Israel.
But since you brought it up, perhaps you can explain to us what American interests are served by Jerusalem being Israel's capital?
Giving the nation of Israel and the Israeli people the respect they deserve.
I note that J Farmer is again complaining that those Jews aren't voluntarily marching to the slaughter like they should.
It's the same con game that the NYT plays: All this focus on rules and breaking them and how it's always, always Israel that's at fault, just like only Republicans are lawbreakers.
I somehow doubt that when Hamas launches a few missiles into Tel Aviv that J. Farmer drones on about how it's a violation of the UN Resolutions. No, as I recall he complains that Israel retaliates and bombs a few launching sites. No matter what happens, it's always Israel that is at fault; just like for the NYT, it's always Republicans.
Israel was created because the Jews figured, rightly, that no nation would protect them. They have been proven correct. Only the US is even remotely an ally and not a hotbed of anti-semitism, much to J. Farmer's probable dismay, along with the number 2 Democrat who openly calls for the murder of every Jew in the world (Kieth Ellison).
J. Farmer asks "What is Israel's value to the US?" It's pretty simple, really. The US is a Christian nation. As such, most people here believe in Christ, who was a Jew and has promised to come back to defend the Jews. If you accept that... then being on the side of the Jews when the Lord of the Universe comes back to settle scores, I would prefer my country to not be on the "We loved killing Jews" list like Germany, Iran, Russia, China, etc.
Setting aside the religious reasons, though: Israel is a powerhouse of technology, freedom, and Western Values. Why should we conspire with the Muslims to eliminate and murder another 6 million Jews, like the Democrats and J. Farmer wants to have happen? Plus, Israel supports tourism to the Holy Land; the Arabs would destroy all of the holy sites except theirs which no one can visit. We saw what happened to Constantinople; it would be worse if the Palestinians got control of Jerusalem, etc.
And finally, a purely cynical reason to support Israel: as long as they are there, the murderous Muslims will focus more on them than on the "Great Satan" I.E. us. Without Israel right there, the middle east would be free to turn their efforts, such as they are, completely on us. I'd rather let the Jews keep them busy.
--Vance
The PLO has affirmed Israel's right to exist in peace and security since at least the early 1990s in the sunup to the Oslo process.
That's why they still publish maps and textbooks missing Israel...right?
There are major obstacles to a negotiated settlement, the final status of Jerusalem and the question of the right of return being the thorniest.
No..I'd say the biggest obstacle is the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to negotiate in good faith. Jerusalem will always be a part of Israel. There is no way an Israeli government would or could give it up. Palestinian access to Jerusalem is the most likely outcome. The right of return is no longer an issue. Most of those who left have died. Their descendants have no claim.
And yes, civilian settlement building throughout the occupied territories has been a major source of tension and a major obstacle to a resolution of the conflict.
All of the Palestinian bombings and suicide attacks aren't really worth mentioning.
The Israeli occupation has been a major force of intransigence.
They simply refuse to roll over and allow the Palestinians to kill and terrorize the Israeli people. Why can't they cooperate?
And this has been recognized by pretty much ever major diplomatic corps of every major country in the world.
You mean the ones that blame every bad thing that has ever happened anywhere at any time on the United States? Except when they're blaming Israel of course.
The First Intifada did not begin until more than 20 years after the Six Day War.
Are you claiming there was no Palestinian terrorism prior to the Intifada?
Look...I used to be on the side of the Palestinians. In high school I visited the PLO consulate in London. In college I hung out with the Palestinian Cultural Club when they held their meetings. I actually wrote an article in a Southern Californian magazine encouraging Muslims to vote for a certain political candidate because he was pro-Palestinian. I still think they deserve a nation. I also think they could have had that nation anytime in the last forty years if they were willing. The only thing preventing a solution is the Palestinian refusal to co-exist with Israel.
OMG! Is Farmer still at it ?
Good night.
I'll add to what Gahrie wrote. Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem sent two powerful messages. The first is to the Arabs: if you screw with me I'll make it hurt. Some might regard that as childish, but the Arabs have yet to demonstrate that they understand anything more adult.
The second message is to the Congress: don't pass laws you don't want to see enforced.
There's also a third message, of course, targeted at his voters: I say what I mean and I mean to keep my campaign promises.
Farmer will be at it until all the jews are dead.
Then he will complain the necks of those israelis were so unnecesarily strong that the blades of the arabs were very much dulled by the slicing of jewish throats.
For which Farmer might just demand restitution from the corpses of the israelis.
Its not the second or third, its more like the 6th or 7th, the firsr 1920, 1929, 1936-39, 1947, 1987 2000
But since you brought it up, perhaps you can explain to us what American interests are served by Jerusalem being Israel's capital?
By the way, Jerusalem has been Israel's capital for a while...we just finally acknowledged it by moving our embassy there.
@Vance:
I note that J Farmer is again complaining that those Jews aren't voluntarily marching to the slaughter like they should.
There is a lot of unhinged claptrap in your comment, but since they are all basically variations of the above theme, I'll just quote that and respond to it. I believe in treating Israel like I believe in treating any other country. I do not believe in having a "special relationship" with Israel. I don't think we should be involved in mediating the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I don't believe we should be giving money to Israel. It's that simple.
As such, most people here believe in Christ, who was a Jew and has promised to come back to defend the Jews.
Defend the Jews? Now I thought the only way to God was through Christ, which Jews do not accept. According to Christian theology, damnation is most likely waiting for the Jews. But I completely agree that most people like you are obsessed with Israel because you think magical events will happen there. It's obviously a complete matter of faith, but suffice to say that I think you are completely wrong. Somehow I just can't grasp the creator the universe designating a small patch of dirt on the eastern fringe of the Mediterranean as a magical place.
@Gahrie:
That's why they still publish maps and textbooks missing Israel...right?
That is actually a problem on both sides, and something both sides were encouraged to rectify. The Israeli curriculum is biased towards the Palestinians, and the Palestinian curriculum is biased towards the Israelis. It is unfortunate but completely expected. Japanese textbooks are biased towards the Chinese, and vice versa. They might be irritants to both sides, but they are not any form of obstacle to negotiation.
No..I'd say the biggest obstacle is the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to negotiate in good faith.
And your source for this information is what, exactly? I have read Dennis Ross' accounts of the negotiating process and Shlomo Ben-Ami, and neither cite an "unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to negotiate in good faith." What their writings do cover in great deal is the difficulty in negotiating an acceptable plan regarding the final status of Jerusalem and the right of return.
All of the Palestinian bombings and suicide attacks aren't really worth mentioning.
The first suicide bombing in Palestine was in the late 1980s, more than 20 years after the occupation.
They simply refuse to roll over and allow the Palestinians to kill and terrorize the Israeli people. Why can't they cooperate?
Right because building a settlement for religious fanatics in Hebron that requires placing the entire surrounding area under IDF control and administration really does something for Israeli security.
You mean the ones that blame every bad thing that has ever happened anywhere at any time on the United States? Except when they're blaming Israel of course.
No, I am talking about the foreign affairs of every single one of our major allies (e.g. Canada, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, etc.). Now perhaps you think the entire world is blinded by irrational hatred of the Jews, or it could be that most people are simply describing factual reality. And again, that was the opinion of the Israeli Foreign Ministry in 1967. They just must hate Israel, right?
Look...I used to be on the side of the Palestinians.
Good for you. I have never been on the side of the Palestinians or the Israelis. They're not my countries, and it's not my fight.
By the way, Jerusalem has been Israel's capital for a while...we just finally acknowledged it by moving our embassy there.
And for 50 years previously we advocated that the status of Jerusalem be a result of negotiations. The 1980 Jerusalem Law that annexed East Jerusalem was opposed by every major power (including the US). But of course, if the only way you can comprehend this is to invoke the SJW strategy of claiming ethnic hatred as the reason, then you will likely remain confused about the issue.
J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:
I'm not seeing a downside to this.
"Hamas being displaced as a center of power in the Gaza by ISIS would be a very troubling development. Luckily, I doubt there is much likelihood of that happening."
What happen in Gaza stays in Gaza. It is a state of their own making. Let them sort it out.
How does this entangle us in anything?
"By recognizing East Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the US not only breaks with 50 years of its own position, but we have isolated ourselves from every single one of our major allies on this question."
So. You're saying that the old ways are the best ways? Not very progressive of you. As for our allies, well. They'll just have to keep up
Trump has done more to end the foreign entanglement that his predecessors started.
"Trump has escalated the pointless war in Afghanistan, and he has given a complete blank check to Saudi Arabia in its destructive war in Yemen, which has empowered Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and he has supported Saudi Arabia's foolish efforts to diplomatically isolate Qatar, which hosts major US military resources."
"When you kill your enemies they can no longer wage war against you." Your opinion is duly noted. Trump has gotten the middle states to fight each other and that is now somehow bad?
Obama's entanglement with Iran was a waste of treasure, but then I knew it from the start
The JCPOA is not an "entanglement with Iran" anymore than the Chinese or Russians or Germans are entangled with Iran. It involved no "waste of treasure," since the money that Iran received was a result of sanctions relief and was oil money already owed to Iran but frozen in foreign bank accounts.
And as history has revealed it was just a cover for criminal activity.
And yet you cannot identity a single significant violation of the JCPOA by Iran.
As I have stated from the beginning my problem with the agreement is a moral one. I'm sure that all conditions are being met-not really. As it turns out , much like the ACA, the American people had to be lied to and criminal activity had to be overlooked in order for the agreement to go forward. It will be interesting to see how many nuclear and missile engineers in N. Korea are Iranian.
I won't be so crass as to question your morality, but I will ask you this one question.
How big of a navy does the United States need?
@Rusty:
What happen in Gaza stays in Gaza. It is a state of their own making. Let them sort it out.
No, what happens in Gaza can easily spill over into Egypt, Israel, or Jordan.
So. You're saying that the old ways are the best ways? Not very progressive of you.
I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, "progressive."
As for our allies, well. They'll just have to keep up.
Right, because it makes so much strategic sense (especially in a time of relative decline and rising powers) to isolate major allies in order to placate a tiny client-state.
"When you kill your enemies they can no longer wage war against you." Your opinion is duly noted. Trump has gotten the middle states to fight each other and that is now somehow bad?
How is Yemen our "enemy?" Qatar is our "enemy," even though it's a major staging ground for US military operations in the region? Saudi Arabia is empowering Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That's not killing our enemies.
As I have stated from the beginning my problem with the agreement is a moral one. I'm sure that all conditions are being met-not really. As it turns out , much like the ACA, the American people had to be lied to and criminal activity had to be overlooked in order for the agreement to go forward.
What were the American people lied to about? And even ignoring that, the American people have nothing to do with the JCPOA. The purpose was an agreement among major powers to place significant restrictions on Iran's nuclear production capacity (above and beyond even what Iran is permitted under the NPT). So far, the agreement has worked, and Iran has been in compliance with its obligations. That is why fanatically opponents of the agreement, like yourself, have to invent ever more absurd notions to oppose it.
"No, what happens in Gaza can easily spill over into Egypt, Israel, or Jordan."
Only if Egypt, Israel or Jordan let it.
"I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, "progressive.""
No you are not. your a stalwart defenders of the status quo.
"Right, because it makes so much strategic sense (especially in a time of relative decline and rising powers) to isolate major allies in order to placate a tiny client-state."
What are they afraid of? Muslims?
We have absolutely nothing to fear from the Islamists. To use your phrasing.
"How is Yemen our "enemy?" Qatar is our "enemy," even though it's a major staging ground for US military operations in the region? Saudi Arabia is empowering Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That's not killing our enemies."
I didn't say we were. They're doing the righteous work of middle east peace for us. Like you like to say, "We have no reason to be involved.".
"What were the American people lied to about? "
Uh. How about the criminal activity that would be overlooked if the US decided to go along with this fiasco.
But the agreement wasn't just for nuclear arms was it.
@Rusty:
No you are not. your a stalwart defenders of the status quo.
The known status quo is often preferable to the unknown revolution. That is the central insight of conservatism. But for what it's worth, I have advocated withdrawing from NATO and do not believe that the US should have a special relationship. That is the opposite of defending the status quo. I am for returning the country back to a time when it was an infinitely more self-respecting nation.
What are they afraid of? Muslims?
We have absolutely nothing to fear from the Islamists. To use your phrasing.
I have never said "we have absolute nothing to fear from the Islamists." That is just your poor comprehension. What I have said, and what I am prepared to defend, is that that Islamist threat to America has been wildly overblown. Your fevered writings are just an example of this.
I didn't say we were.
You wrote, which I quoted, " 'When you kill your enemies they can no longer wage war against you.' Your opinion is duly noted. Trump has gotten the middle states to fight each other and that is now somehow bad?"
If you don't think the Saudi Arabian government murdering Yemeni citizens is "bad," then why is killing Israelis bad? You think Saudi Arabia empowering Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is a good thing? You think isolating Qatar, a major host of US military resources in the region is a good thing? Please explain yourself, Rusty, beyond childishly naïve and ill-informed statements like "Trump has gotten the middle states to fight each other and that is now somehow bad?"
How about the criminal activity that would be overlooked if the US decided to go along with this fiasco.
I'll ask again and see if you can muster a coherent response: what "criminal activity" are you talking about?
But the agreement wasn't just for nuclear arms was it.
Yes, it was. You can go read the JCPOA and the inspection reports by the IAEA. But somehow I doubt you will. You seem far too caught up in the talk radio/cable news cocoon to ever allow rationality and empirical reality to intrude.
Some reading material for Farmer from some one who knows a hell of a lot more about Iran than I do.
Ultimately, the clerical regime can only survive if it can replicate its creed among enough young men who supply the muscle for the primary security institutions, the Revolutionary Guard Corps and its Basij, the “mobilization” force of lower-class, club-wielding thugs who maintain public mores. So far, the theocracy has been able to do this even though higher up, in the clerical seminaries, there has been a precipitous drop in enrollment.
I'll ignore your insults. They are beneath you.
But the agreement wasn't just for nuclear arms was it.
Yes, it was.
"But what did engagement with Iran actually get us? After agreeing to the 2015 nuclear bargain, Iran doubled down on its predations in Syria, Yemen and the rest of the region. Meanwhile, the campaign promises of President Hassan Rouhani to release political prisoners and deliver human-rights reforms have been exposed as lies."
Nathan Sheransky.
The Obama administration ordered our law enforcement agencies to ignore the drug running, sex trafficking and general criminal activity of Hamas in this hemisphere. In order for the agreement to go through.
The known status quo is often preferable to the unknown revolution. That is the central insight of conservatism. But for what it's worth, I have advocated withdrawing from NATO and do not believe that the US should have a special relationship. That is the opposite of defending the status quo. I am for returning the country back to a time when it was an infinitely more self-respecting nation
That being said. What size navy should the United States have?
@Michael K:
Some reading material for Farmer from some one who knows a hell of a lot more about Iran than I do.
First, I would be highly skeptical of Reuel Marc Gerecht's expertise on the matter. He was also a full throated defender of the Iraq War and has been consistently hawkish on Iran for years. The first sentence after the paragraph you quote, "In 2009 when the regime was on the brink," should be the first tell. The regime was never "on the brink" in 2009, and the primary aim of the protesters centered on the presidency of Mir Hossein Mousavi, which Green Movement protesters believed was rigged in favor of the incumbent Ahmadinejad. The Green Movement was never about ending the Islamic Republic, especially considering the Mousavi, the center of the movement, was the Prime Minister from Iran in the 1980s, is a member of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, and a member of Expediency Discernment Council.
And again, as I have said before, lack of attendance at religious services is not evidence that Iranians are abandoning Islam. Compare, for example, the amount of Americans who are Christian but do not attend weekly church services.
@Rusty:
"But what did engagement with Iran actually get us? After agreeing to the 2015 nuclear bargain, Iran doubled down on its predations in Syria, Yemen and the rest of the region. Meanwhile, the campaign promises of President Hassan Rouhani to release political prisoners and deliver human-rights reforms have been exposed as lies."
First, I would not put too much stock in Sheransky's position. But on to his ridiculous claims. Predations in Syria? Iran was supporting the legitimate government of Syria in the form of the Assad regime. The "predation" in Syria was the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states arming, funding, and training radical jihadists in the country to engage in guerilla warfare with the government. Second, Iran's influence among the Houthis is negligible, and the true predation going on Yemen is being carried out by the Saudis.
That being said. What size navy should the United States have?
About half the size it is now. I am generally in favor of reducing the DoD by at least half, but Army and Marine Corps should probably take the brunt of the cuts.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा