|
The question is how many Americans have issues with Israel based on financial or military support (3 billion a year is pocket change, but isn't nothing) rather than because they have any interest in Palestine achieving full statehood. I think this will become an issue of money (more specifically, about making tiny reductions in financial support as a show of "tough love") long before it becomes an issue of the veto.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
Is it too much to ask for Boner to get killed by a rocket on his trip? Sure it would reinforce his point of view but I'm just so sick of the Cheeto-colored poo poo log.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The majority of the American public does not support Obama, and if sympathizing with Palestinians becomes equal to supporting the Obama agenda, expect to see everyone run as far away from any action which could be perceived as Palestinian sympathetic. Actually, MIGF, many recent polls have shown Obama's approval rating above 50%, so the majority of Americans actually do support him. Gallup's numbers are a little lower with disapprove tending to slightly edge out approve, but neither number breaks the 50% mark (about 5% picks no opinion). Not only is this a big improvement from last year, when "disapprove" was frequently in the low 50s, but it's a night and day difference with Congress's approval rating, which has been below 20% for most of the year. In a popularity contest between President Obama and the Republican congress, there's really know question which side the public is behind. e: shoulda refreshed. Duckbox fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Mar 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
SNAKES N CAKES posted:The question is how many Americans have issues with Israel based on financial or military support (3 billion a year is pocket change, but isn't nothing) rather than because they have any interest in Palestine achieving full statehood. I think the big issue with Israel is US financial support. They can go full on Assad to their own people if they want, but why the hell should they be doing it with American money? If they want to act like lunatics, we shouldn't fund them. Frankly, if we didn't fund them, they COULDN'T act like lunatics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:Which is what Boehner and Netanyahu seem to be angling for unless they're totally stupid. Have they not noticed that a large portion of the American public doesn't actually support Likud policies? If they turn this into a partisan issue in the US, I don't think they're going to be happy with how it turns out over the next couple decades. Considering that Netanyahu has been recorded talking or bragging about how easy America is to manipulate, several times in fact, I don't think he particularly cares what American domestic politics look like. Besides, he isn't the one trying to make Israel a partisan issue. He's contributing, certainly, but only because things are being laid out in a way that benefits him by the Republicans, who seem to be dead-set on making Israel a partisan-ish issue in hopes of drawing off enough Den voters to defeat and humiliate Obama with a veto-proof foreign-policy bill. Netanyahu couldn't care less, he'll roll with whichever party gives him a deal he likes more. Netanyahu is little more than a pawn in that game, and is playing along because the Repbulicans' intended outcome benefits him quite a bit. He doesn't fear consequences or backlash because, after all, "America is a thing you can move very easily". He didn't fear Clinton, who he referred to as a "radical pro-Palestinian" as he re-interpreted Oslo into irrelevance almost before it was even signed, so it shouldn't be surprising he's not scared of Obama.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
SNAKES N CAKES posted:The question is how many Americans have issues with Israel based on financial or military support (3 billion a year is pocket change, but isn't nothing) rather than because they have any interest in Palestine achieving full statehood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Most recent opinion polls have Obama right around 47-50% approval rating. Obama's support or disapproval of anything, at this point, is not poisonous. The bigger issue is that a far higher percent of Democratic politicians support Israel than their constituents, but their most of their constituents don't care enough to vote based on that. If Israel enters partisan territory, that'll change. Exactly. The idea that it could become a "one issue vote" for ANY US voters should send chills down their spines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Considering that Netanyahu has been recorded talking or bragging about how easy America is to manipulate, several times in fact, I don't think he particularly cares what American domestic politics look like. Then why did he back down from his comment after Obama's press secretary said "we might have to rethink things"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Given that Israel's military aid has to be spent on American weapons as a condition of receiving it, making the whole thing a nice serving of pork for various defense firms, it's not going anywhere any time soon. Israel could also issue a request for a 20% increase in resettlement aid, which Congress could then cold-heartedly trim to a 5% increase, citing "serious diplomatic concerns". Plenty of options. Chadderbox posted:Exactly. The idea that it could become a "one issue vote" for ANY US voters should send chills down their spines. Not if both parties pursue the same policies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
I thought of another point worth making, which is that support for Israel has thrived in a climate where most Americans really have no idea what's going on over there. Even among my more politically active and/or Jewish friends with ties to the region, there is a general sense that the peace process isn't working and "both sides" are to blame, but absolutely no knowledge of the historical context, the factions at play, or their respective policies. This sort of ignorance is the perfect breeding ground for propaganda, misinformation, and sweeping generalizations to fester in. Increased discussion of the situation in Israel, even discussion that leans toward the right wing, has the potential to increase people's understanding and awareness of the issue. If you believe as I do that the realities of the situation do not favor Israeli policy, than this increased level of awareness can only be a good thing. The trick will be ensuring that we have a real dialog about US Israel policy rather than the bad faith dog and pony shows we've had in the past.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:If Israel seriously becomes partisan, then there's a pretty good chance that all of a sudden you'll see Democrats caring a lot more about it due to identity politics, but not in a way that would favor Israel. I don't see Democrats abandoning Obama en masse to fight alongside the Republicans for Israel if it comes down to it, but maybe the Republicans could nab some wealthy donors and AIPAC cash. Israel would lose in that scenario, though. Democratic voters' support of Israel has already drastically fallen due to the Netanyahu speech scuffle. The percentage of Dem voters who view Israel favorably has dropped a shocking 14 percentage points compared to this time last year, so that Democratic support for Israel now stands at a mere 60%. Wait a second, that's still pretty good for Israel. But on the other hand, the percentage of Dem voters who expressed more support for Israel than Palestine has dropped to just 48%, a massive drop to levels of support that haven't been seen since Obama was elected president! Wait, what? Yeah, that's right - Democratic support for Israel hasn't been this low since 2008, and we all know those were such dark days for Israel. Actually, wait a loving minute - Cast Lead was in December 2008, and the number of Dems who support Israel more than Palestine increased in the wake of that? So yeah, my point is that Democratic support for Israel is so high, and has risen so drastically in recent years, that even a massive drop in support still works out pretty well for Israel. And even if Dem support drops, Republican and independent support rises. As a result, even after the Congress speech scandal, 70% of Americans view Israel favorably, 62% view Israel more favorably than the Palestinians, and only 17% of Americans support the PA. Netanyahu can get away with pretty much anything with numbers like that. http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Gallup-poll-US-public-support-for-Israel-not-hurt-by-Iran-flap-391934
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
I'm assuming we're talking about what might happen 20 to 30 years in the future after some unspecified erosion of mutual trust between Israel and the U.S -- which is certainly conceivable. Obviously the U.S. is not going to take any sort of "measures" against Israel in the short- to mid-term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
The current situation in Palestine isn't remotely sustainable for 20 or 30 years. We're likely to see massive changes in the state of the occupation in the next few years (probably not for the better) and that is going to force a policy reevaluation. It's entirely possible the US will get even more protective of Israel and is very unlikely to throw it under the bus wholesale, but if the security situation in Palestine becomes severe enough, the US is likely to see the need to intervene somehow. The form that intervention could take will depend on the nature of the crisis, the opinion of the public, and the international consensus, and the the personalities of the people in charge and all of those factors can change rapidly. I don't know what the future holds, but I'm willing to bet it isn't the status quo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Democratic voters' support of Israel has already drastically fallen due to the Netanyahu speech scuffle. The percentage of Dem voters who view Israel favorably has dropped a shocking 14 percentage points compared to this time last year, so that Democratic support for Israel now stands at a mere 60%. Wait a second, that's still pretty good for Israel. But on the other hand, the percentage of Dem voters who expressed more support for Israel than Palestine has dropped to just 48%, a massive drop to levels of support that haven't been seen since Obama was elected president! Wait, what? Yeah, that's right - Democratic support for Israel hasn't been this low since 2008, and we all know those were such dark days for Israel. Actually, wait a loving minute - Cast Lead was in December 2008, and the number of Dems who support Israel more than Palestine increased in the wake of that? ...and this is exactly why they shouldn't be striving to turn it into a partisan issue with help from Mitt Romney a few years ago and now John Boehner. I think he might have achieved a Pyrrhic victory this week. I guess time will tell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:I thought of another point worth making, which is that support for Israel has thrived in a climate where most Americans really have no idea what's going on over there. Even among my more politically active and/or Jewish friends with ties to the region, there is a general sense that the peace process isn't working and "both sides" are to blame, but absolutely no knowledge of the historical context, the factions at play, or their respective policies. This sort of ignorance is the perfect breeding ground for propaganda, misinformation, and sweeping generalizations to fester in. Increased discussion of the situation in Israel, even discussion that leans toward the right wing, has the potential to increase people's understanding and awareness of the issue. If you believe as I do that the realities of the situation do not favor Israeli policy, than this increased level of awareness can only be a good thing. The trick will be ensuring that we have a real dialog about US Israel policy rather than the bad faith dog and pony shows we've had in the past. I think that this won't matter unless HAMAS and the Palestinians disarm and commit to non-violence. I don't see any outcome at all where Americans side with the people celebrating martyrdom, waving flags with Arabic writing and shooting AK-47s in the air while veiled women look on and cheer. It may or may not be fair, but Al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS et al. have spoiled it for Palestinian militarism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I think that this won't matter unless HAMAS and the Palestinians disarm and commit to non-violence. If anything in this world is going to get Americans to understand radical Islamic perspectives, it's going to be Israel blowing up schools, hospitals, and huge numbers of women and children on camera.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:If anything in this world is going to get Americans to understand radical Islamic perspectives, it's going to be Israel blowing up schools, hospitals, and huge numbers of women and children on camera. By "understand" you mean completely reject and call for US intervention against civilian infrastructure used to enable acts of terrorism elsewherr in the world, correct? If you think Americans will sympathize with terrorists firing rockets from hospitals while waving flags with arabic, think again. Their response will be to call for an end of all civilian infrastructure in the area used to facilitate acts of terrorism. hakimashou posted:I think that this won't matter unless HAMAS and the Palestinians disarm and commit to non-violence. Minus the last paragraph, this man gets it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:By "understand" you mean completely reject and call for US intervention against civilian infrastructure used to enable acts of terrorism elsewherr in the world, correct? Ahh, right, destroying civilian infrastructure, THAT'S how you combat terrorism. There's a generational gap here. The pre-internet era of liberals is pro-Israel, but it is not easy to be pro-Israel in the information age, barring exclusive consumption of purestrain poo poo information like what you vomit out on a daily basis incessantly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I think that this won't matter unless HAMAS and the Palestinians disarm and commit to non-violence.  litany of gulps posted:If anything in this world is going to get Americans to understand radical Islamic perspectives, it's going to be Israel blowing up schools, hospitals, and huge numbers of women and children on camera. This hasn't worked so far. There are civil wars all over the Middle East right now. America and Europe won't force Israel to give up territory in the current environment. And I doubt that peaceful Palestinian activists are working as hard as they are just so they can have a state that will collapse into either dictatorship or anarchy, which is probably what would happen. In a hypothetical future where the civil wars are over, and Arab democracy is a reality, it will be much easier to get America to pressure Israel into an agreement. But in that situation Israelis will be more reasonable anyways. Yes, this is unfair and sucks for the Palestinians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Chadderbox posted:...and this is exactly why they shouldn't be striving to turn it into a partisan issue with help from Mitt Romney a few years ago and now John Boehner. I think he might have achieved a Pyrrhic victory this week. I guess time will tell. I don't think it becoming a partisan issue will really matter that much. Even if Netanyahu publicly declares "gently caress the Democrats" and burns an American flag, that's A) going to be offset considerably by increased Republican support, and B) no matter how pro-Republican Israel gets, there's still going to be a number of Dems who will buck the party line and go pro-Israel. That's exactly the reason that Boehner picked Israel and Iran as the topic to use in taking a stand against Obama in the first place - because they're both partisanship-resistant topics nearly guaranteed to peel off a fair portion of Democrats even in Congress. In the first place, it's not right to think of this as a "Democrats vs Republicans" clash - it's more of a "Republican-led Congress vs Democratic administration" clash, and that detail is important, especially since this is also a "pro-Israel hawks vs slightly-less-pro-Israel doves" clash. Despite Netanyahu's ties to the Republican Party, his personal conflicts with Clinton and Obama, and his recent role actively working against Obama in concert with the Republicans, this is still not really a fight that can be boiled down to "Democrats vs Republicans". You really have to leave your naive notions of simple, straightforward politics at the door when coming in to discuss anything to do with Israel, or really foreign politics in general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
So tell me about the split between Mizrahi/Sephardi/Arab World background Jews and Ashkenazim? I was aware the Ethiopian Jews were heavily discriminated against, but apparently so are/were the Mizrahim? To the point where literally all of Israel's PMs have been Ashkenazi, Ultra-Orthodox are almost entirely Ashkenazi, and there is a massive gap in educational and economic achievement close to 70 years after Israel came into existence? Like, what in the ever-living gently caress? It's really hard to look at Israel and see anything other than an apartheid state run by genocidal theocrats who comprise like a fifth of the population when Palestine is taken into account
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Mar 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:To the point where literally all of Israel's PMs have been Ashkenazi quote:Ultra-Orthodox are almost entirely Ashkenazi
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:If anything in this world is going to get Americans to understand radical Islamic perspectives, it's going to be Israel blowing up schools, hospitals, and huge numbers of women and children on camera. Americans by and large don't have any interest at all in understanding radical Islamic perspectives. After 9/11 and everything since, I think the idea is that people who do those things don't get to have perspectives. If anything, I think their conduct pushes people to support whatever they oppose, on the notion that if these people hate it, it's probably a good thing somehow. There was a West Wing episode where the ambassador of the fictional middle eastern state sponsor of terror hinted to the chief of staff that with an election looming, the president should be careful not to antagonize his country since it could provoke a conflict that Americans would blame on the president. The chief of staff laughed in his face and told him that all the president would have to do, to sew the election up then and there and be guaranteed reelection, was to take the country's sultan to the middle of Times Square and shoot him in the head, then buy a hot dog, on national TV. There is a lot stacked against the American people ever siding against Israel and with the Palestinians. First and foremost, there is the problems America has had with radical islamist terrorism. There's also just plain old racism. There's also a large segment of the American population that believes there is religious significance to the Jews and Israel. There's also our long friendship with Israel, and the fact that it is a liberal democracy and quite western and civilized. There are the 'hot IDF chicks.' There are also a lot of Jewish people in the US. The US doesn't have Europe's traditions of anti-semitism, or its kind of leftism. If the Palestinians launched a major terrorist attack against Israel, and Israel indiscriminately bombed Gaza, I think a great many Americans would just shrug and say "that's what we should have done after 9/11,' and a lot of Americans would just cheer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
Islam is a dangerous religion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
I honk my titties, one by one. TOOT TOOT goes the left. WEE WOO goes the right. The middle just exhales wearily.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:Islam is a dangerous religion. strong convictions in general are a pretty iffy thing to have, people who strongly believe in things scare me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
    i don't expect to be arik's only lover in heaven. i'm prepared to share.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 10:44
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
oh ariel
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So tell me about the split between Mizrahi/Sephardi/Arab World background Jews and Ashkenazim? I was aware the Ethiopian Jews were heavily discriminated against, but apparently so are/were the Mizrahim? To the point where literally all of Israel's PMs have been Ashkenazi, Ultra-Orthodox are almost entirely Ashkenazi, and there is a massive gap in educational and economic achievement close to 70 years after Israel came into existence? Like, what in the ever-living gently caress? It's really hard to look at Israel and see anything other than an apartheid state run by genocidal theocrats who comprise like a fifth of the population when Palestine is taken into account This reflexive Ashkenazim=bad ignorance is really getting old. Shas is entirely Mizrahi, and Likud draws significant Mizrahi support, while Labor/Meretz/Yesh Atid are pretty much exclusively Ashkenazi parties. Ashkenazim might as well be American Jews, politically. Mizrahim were ethnically cleansed from the Islamic world post-1948 and hence tend to hate Muslims. There's a direct relationship between increased political relevance of Mizrahim, Haredim, and Russians (who aren't comparable to the earlier Ashkenazim), and Likud overtaking Labor in Israeli politics. The old white secular Jews are dying off in demographic terms, and that should scare proponents of the two state solution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 14:39
|
|
|
The New Yorker did an interesting profile on the Zionist Union in the last few days before the election. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-israels-left-lost-to-netanyahu?mbid=social_twitter
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So tell me about the split between Mizrahi/Sephardi/Arab World background Jews and Ashkenazim? I was aware the Ethiopian Jews were heavily discriminated against, but apparently so are/were the Mizrahim? To the point where literally all of Israel's PMs have been Ashkenazi, Ultra-Orthodox are almost entirely Ashkenazi, and there is a massive gap in educational and economic achievement close to 70 years after Israel came into existence? Like, what in the ever-living gently caress? It's really hard to look at Israel and see anything other than an apartheid state run by genocidal theocrats who comprise like a fifth of the population when Palestine is taken into account The earliest - and richest, being from Europe or the US - Zionist immigrants to Israel were mainly Ashkenazi Jews who had the money to immigrate willingly, many of who moved there before 1948, and they were the ones who largely led the way in the creation, formation, and early governance of Israel. The Mizrahi Jews mostly had less money to begin with, entered Israel in extremely large numbers all at once regardless of their economic position in the 50s and 60s because they usually weren't given much choice in leaving their original countries, didn't always get the chance to take all of their money and possessions with them, and spent much of the 50s and 60s in refugee camps. So from the very beginning, Mizrahi Jews were generally a lot worse off than Ashkenazi Jews at the start when it came to money, influence, political power, and education, and because social mobility in Israel is pathetic and getting even worse with every passing year, they've mostly stayed that way. In addition, there was a lot of culture shock and cultural clash - the Ashkenazi immigrants and the Mizrahi immigrants were both "Jews", but the prior group had grown up in and lived their lived in Europe while the latter had grown up in and lived their lives in the Middle East. A French Jew and an Iraqi Jew might both be "Jewish" but there's still a lot of very visible difference between them, and that fueled racism and distrust. In particular, the European-born Ashkenazi who founded Israel viewed the Arab-born Mizrahi as "primitive" and backwards, and set about trying to "civilize" them by building Israeli society around European traditions and values and then attempting to forcibly assimilate the Mizrahi into that Europeanized culture. Israel was very much founded as a European country by Europeans, and the Mizrahi immigrants who flooded in were looked down upon for their "backward" culture, their "primitive" customs, and their funny accents. There's also scattered allegations of much worse conduct toward the Mizrahi during this period, and conspiracy theories like the Ringworm Affair and the Yemenite Children Affair still circulate among Mizrahi circles even today.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Bennett to Bibi: "Hey rear end in a top hat we all speak English" http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Po...an-state-394595
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Bennett to Bibi: "Hey rear end in a top hat we all speak English" lol. Also word has it that Kachlon is asking for authority over pretty much everything relating to housing, banks, finance, etc. specifically so we don't get another Lapid-esque fiasco. It's gonna be near impossible for Bibi to please everyone this time, and to that I say GOOD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Hahaha you made this bed Bibi now lie in it
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:lol. Also word has it that Kachlon is asking for authority over pretty much everything relating to housing, banks, finance, etc. specifically so we don't get another Lapid-esque fiasco. It's gonna be near impossible for Bibi to please everyone this time, and to that I say GOOD. It's also pretty awesome he's demanding Lapid be a part of the coalition, not because Lapid isn't an empty suit and a disgusting person but because it means Kahlon is well aware of the fact that with the Haredim in the coalition he will actually have no influence over Israel's economy and the state budget. I'm starting to like that guy, it seems he is somewhat Bibi-proof.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:It's also pretty awesome he's demanding Lapid be a part of the coalition, not because Lapid isn't an empty suit and a disgusting person but because it means Kahlon is well aware of the fact that with the Haredim in the coalition he will actually have no influence over Israel's economy and the state budget. I'm starting to like that guy, it seems he is somewhat Bibi-proof. If Lapid is in, Deri is out: quote:Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid appealed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday not to appoint Shas leader Arye Deri to a senior ministerial post in the next government because of Deri's bribery convictions from 1999. Deri spent almost two years in prison on the charges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Bibi, Hertzog, Kahlon, Lapid coalition 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Mizrahim were ethnically cleansed from the Islamic world post-1948 and hence tend to hate Muslims. Kim Jong Il posted:The old white secular Jews are dying off in demographic terms, and that should scare proponents of the two state solution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:32 |
|
|
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-Elections/Rivlin-begins-marathon-consultations-394641quote:In an unprecedented measure, President Reuven Rivlin received special permission from Supreme Court Justice Salim Jourbran, Chairman of the Central Elections Committee, to begin consultations with delegations from the various party factions that will be represented in the 20th Knesset, prior to receiving official election results. Makes you wonder what the hurry is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 18:35
|
|