|
DarkCrawler posted:Trump doesn't give a flying gently caress about Israel or Palestinians except for the fleeting second his insane goldfish clown brain will retain the fact that they even exist after someone mentions it to him My feeling is that if Israel keeps making unilateral moves thinking they have the implicit approval of the US it may come to bite them in the rear end because of insufficient grovelling to Trump. He doesn't like being taken for granted, it seems to me.
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
Xander77 posted:Can someone explain why Shelly is running for the head of the Histadrut? I was genuinely hoping for a competent and charismatic Labor leader in a few years. Maybe she feels she can make a bigger difference for the economy by making the largest labor federation more combative than by trying to run Labor again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Dabir posted:what is this trash fire of a post supposed to be saying Netanyahu is a disaster for Zionism and has just empowered right wing crazies on both sides. Anti-Zionists are thrilled at all of the damage he's done to Israel. Much like the left largely stopped caring about civil liberties abuses once Obama replaced Bush, I/P will similarly fall down the list of priorities once he's gone - in addition to the substantive changes that'll be made towards getting back on track to a two state solution. Absurd Alhazred posted:Someone hasn't been keeping up with Israeli politics, and doesn't realize that there are equally and arguably shittier leaders ready to take he helm as soon as Bibi is taken out of the picture. Likud won't win an election, or if they'd have a prayer they'd have to draft Ya'alon or another person with actual real security experience who would tell Bennett to gently caress himself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Netanyahu is a disaster for Zionism and has just empowered right wing crazies on both sides. Anti-Zionists are thrilled at all of the damage he's done to Israel. Much like the left largely stopped caring about civil liberties abuses once Obama replaced Bush, I/P will similarly fall down the list of priorities once he's gone - in addition to the substantive changes that'll be made towards getting back on track to a two state solution. He won't get far by telling the next PM to gently caress himself. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Rumors going around that the known anti semites at the UN have offered Tzipi Livni an undersecretary general position.
Volkerball fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Feb 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
It's what Netanyahu asked for when he instructed the US to block Fayyad's appointment as Libya envoy. Tzipi say's it's not related, but it's so obviously related. I feel like Peres may have been the last of the great Israeli diplomats and I wonder how many in the UN would actually be happy to draw from today's pool of Israeli politicians. I can't see why an international goof like Tzipi would be approached for the role as high-level UN official unless it's politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 11:46
|
|
Svartvit posted:It's what Netanyahu asked for when he instructed the US to block Fayyad's appointment as Libya envoy. Tzipi say's it's not related, but it's so obviously related. I feel like Peres may have been the last of the great Israeli diplomats and I wonder how many in the UN would actually be happy to draw from today's pool of Israeli politicians. I can't see why an international goof like Tzipi would be approached for the role as high-level UN official unless it's politics. I don't get that logic. "Do something for us and than do more for us" doesn't sound like a good trade for the US so why would it be related? The more logical argument is that the Trump administration wants to show that they are the true friends of Israel in UN and see this as another way to proof it.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
It's Guterres' choice whether or not to nominate her, not Trump's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I don't get that logic. "Do something for us and than do more for us" doesn't sound like a good trade for the US so why would it be related? As far as I can tell, Netanyahu was the first to oppose Fayyad's appointment with the argument that giving Fayyad the job was a "gift" to the Palestinians that the UN must "reciprocate" to Israel. For some reason that no one seemed to understand at the time, the US blocked Fayyad's nomination while essentially repeating the argument Netanyahu had made earlier. The diplomatic MO for the US in the UN is to relay Israeli positions in the Security Council and the General Assembly so why wouldn't it now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:It's Guterres' choice whether or not to nominate her, not Trump's. Guterres is the chief administrator of an organization that is dependent on the good graces of the United States to be able to function, and the current US administration has been more vocal than any other in support of divesting the UN. Saying that it's "Guterres' choice" and leaving it at that is a little hopeful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:As far as I can tell, Netanyahu was the first to oppose Fayyad's appointment with the argument that giving Fayyad the job was a "gift" to the Palestinians that the UN must "reciprocate" to Israel. For some reason that no one seemed to understand at the time, the US blocked Fayyad's nomination while essentially repeating the argument Netanyahu had made earlier. The diplomatic MO for the US in the UN is to relay Israeli positions in the Security Council and the General Assembly so why wouldn't it now? That's certainly the US' angle. Working as a mouthpiece for Israel, it's pretty clear the message is we'll allow Fayyad if you appoint Tzipi. Guterres announced some new initiatives for Palestine, and has condemned Israeli settlements, yet got trumped up in Israeli media as a friend of Israel. So he's walking a tightrope at the moment of trying to get poo poo done in such a polarized environment, and he's got to stay on good terms with both sides. With that in mind, I imagine he'll nominate her. Would be funny if the was a hangup in the general assembly though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Guterres is the chief administrator of an organization that is dependent on the good graces of the United States to be able to function, and the current US administration has been more vocal than any other in support of divesting the UN. Saying that it's "Guterres' choice" and leaving it at that is a little hopeful. The US didn't veto his election, so they're along for the ride. The UN always has to deal with tight political situations. They're heavily damaged if any major nation walks away, some of whom are quite hostile to the US and expect the UN to act impartially, or at least, as an organization that can serve their interests and not just the interests of the US. And they've been juggling that for decades. Trump's bringing nothing they haven't already seen from Putin and others.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 12:50
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:The US didn't veto his election, so they're along for the ride. The UN always has to deal with tight political situations. They're heavily damaged if any major nation walks away, some of whom are quite hostile to the US and expect the UN to act impartially, or at least, as an organization that can serve their interests and not just the interests of the US. And they've been juggling that for decades. Trump's bringing nothing they haven't already seen from Putin and others. Russia contributes pennies in comparison to the US. The Russians have the veto for SC affairs, but the US have the influence it pays for. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
there is only one true leader of israel and he is dead
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:Russia contributes pennies in comparison to the US. The Russians have the veto for SC affairs, but the US have the influence it pays for. Yet, if it didn't serve Russian interests to be a part of it, they wouldn't legitimize it with their presence. And they'd certainly use their veto to block any secretary general candidate they felt would disproportionately represent the US. UNSC affairs dominate all other affairs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
So what if Russia drops out? Out of all the permanent SC members they contribute the least, have the least to gain from dropping out but the most to lose. Their financial role will be absorbed into the other member states without breaking a sweat. The US on the other hand is integral to the entire operation. 99% of UN affairs will never pass through a SC vote, such as appointing an under-secretary-general, and influence matters there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 13:23
|
|
Svartvit posted:So what if Russia drops out? Out of all the permanent SC members they contribute the least, have the least to gain from dropping out but the most to lose. Their financial role will be absorbed into the other member states without breaking a sweat. The US on the other hand is integral to the entire operation. 99% of UN affairs will never pass through a SC vote, such as appointing an under-secretary-general, and influence matters there. The UN budget is not that important to their overall role in diplomacy.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:So what if Russia drops out? Out of all the permanent SC members they contribute the least, have the least to gain from dropping out but the most to lose. Their financial role will be absorbed into the other member states without breaking a sweat. The US on the other hand is integral to the entire operation. 99% of UN affairs will never pass through a SC vote, such as appointing an under-secretary-general, and influence matters there. I believe if Russia dropped out of the UN over a perception that it existed primarily as a tool for the US to spread its influence, and they were right, it would be the death of the UN, as it would undermine the entire point behind their existence. What you'd be left with after all the bleeding would essentially be the NATO Congress, which would in time, cease to be useful even to NATO, and it would go the way of the league of nations. I feel like you're describing the UN as an organization from which it would be trivially easy for the US to get a resolution supporting the Iraq war, or at the least, prevent them from outright calling it illegal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Svartvit posted:So what if Russia drops out? Out of all the permanent SC members they contribute the least, have the least to gain from dropping out but the most to lose. Their financial role will be absorbed into the other member states without breaking a sweat. The US on the other hand is integral to the entire operation. 99% of UN affairs will never pass through a SC vote, such as appointing an under-secretary-general, and influence matters there. The only reason the UN has any legitimacy at all is because the major powers at least pretend to care about it. That's why the structure of the Security Council is set up to so blatantly privilege those powers - because Russia vetoing any SC resolution that goes against its interests is better for the UN than Russia simply ignoring any SC resolution that goes against its interests. Incidentally, the UN also loses legitimacy if a single power demonstrates disproportionate influence over the organization, such as manipulating it with threats to remove parts of its budget. The UN ought to be able to work just fine with less money, but by making that threat, the US undermines the UN's legitimacy and authority regardless of how the UN responds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 14:19
|
|
|
[quote=""NLJP"" post=""469298428""] My feeling is that if Israel keeps making unilateral moves thinking they have the implicit approval of the US it may come to bite them in the rear end because of insufficient grovelling to Trump. He doesn't like being taken for granted, it seems to me. [/quote] Yeah untill some sports star calls him an orange rear end in a top hat or the King of Sweden says he is not very nice and he freaks out about a whole new thing on twitter. He is a demented retard with the attention span of a brain damaged spastic fly, it's useless to try ascribe any meaningful or long-lasting policy motivations to him. He changes his mind about a single subject twice a day and three times on Sundays. He'll love two things permanently - himself and Putin's Russian dick in his mouth and he will never let go of the the fact that he lost the popular vote. Those are the constants you can predict. Rest depends on who his top adviser will be, right now it seems like Bannon. Since he hates both Muslims AND Jews with burning passion I guess that translates to ambivalence
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
I used to follow Israeli politics but stopped about a decade ago because it was too depressing. Is there any such thing as a left/doveish party with the slightest chance of winning power any more? I mean a party which vaguely looks like it might actually want a two state solution, like Labor in the 1990s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Labor never wanted a two state solution and to answer your question, no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:Yeah untill some sports star calls him an orange rear end in a top hat or the King of Sweden says he is not very nice and he freaks out about a whole new thing on twitter. He is a demented retard with the attention span of a brain damaged spastic fly, it's useless to try ascribe any meaningful or long-lasting policy motivations to him. He changes his mind about a single subject twice a day and three times on Sundays. Bannon's branch of the far right loves Israel. It's a place halfway across the world where they can ship all the Jews off to and have them murder Muslims while serving as an advertisement for how imported Western civilisation can elevate even the lesser races. So if he manages to win the White House power struggle, expect the Israeli far-right to have all their weirdest, filthiest fantasies fulfilled while life gets astronomically shittier for Jews in America.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:the Israeli far-right to have all their weirdest, filthiest fantasies fulfilled while life gets astronomically shittier for Jews in America. That's redundant. Making life shittier for Jews outside of Israel is an important part of convincing them to make their "aliyah" which is important in order to fight a demographic war with the Palestinians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:That's redundant. A few years back, our government here in Germany made it harder for Jews to acquire citizenship. On behalf of the Israeli government, because they didn't like how many Jews chose to come to Germany instead of going to Israel 
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:A few years back, our government here in Germany made it harder for Jews to acquire citizenship. On behalf of the Israeli government, because they didn't like how many Jews chose to come to Germany instead of going to Israel I'd like to make a "source please" request to that statement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Are you maybe mistaking citizenship for visa application? Not calling bullshit but yeah it would be interesting to be able to cite that and show others maybe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:A few years back, our government here in Germany made it harder for Jews to acquire citizenship. On behalf of the Israeli government, because they didn't like how many Jews chose to come to Germany instead of going to Israel
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:A few years back, our government here in Germany made it harder for Jews to acquire citizenship. On behalf of the Israeli government, because they didn't like how many Jews chose to come to Germany instead of going to Israel I'd like a source on that. Preferably with a cite of the relevant law. Because the only thing I can remember that comes close after skimming changes in citizenship law is that it became easier for jews to lose German citizenship if they acquired Israeli citizenship. Which might be what you're thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
For the record, seeing as Flynn has got the boot, we're probably looking at Republican business as usual in regards to Israel, rather than Bannon's nightmare playground. So, kind of similar, but relegated to dogwhistles rather than 'lol nuke Gaza'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:That's certainly the US' angle. Working as a mouthpiece for Israel, it's pretty clear the message is we'll allow Fayyad if you appoint Tzipi. Guterres announced some new initiatives for Palestine, and has condemned Israeli settlements, yet got trumped up in Israeli media as a friend of Israel. So he's walking a tightrope at the moment of trying to get poo poo done in such a polarized environment, and he's got to stay on good terms with both sides. With that in mind, I imagine he'll nominate her. Would be funny if the was a hangup in the general assembly though. He went after low hanging fruit in that Fatah demanded that the UN say there were no Jewish historical ties to Jerusalem. Fayyad is more than fine, he's the best leader the Palestinians ever had from an Israeli perspective. Paxman posted:I used to follow Israeli politics but stopped about a decade ago because it was too depressing. Is there any such thing as a left/doveish party with the slightest chance of winning power any more? I mean a party which vaguely looks like it might actually want a two state solution, like Labor in the 1990s. The center very much wants a two state solution. There isn't much of an Israeli left anymore, but there not being a center for a while was ahistoric too, so there's a chance it's all cyclical although the Orthodox birthrates are troubling. There's a lot of hope given that Likud has barely hung on to power lately. If Netanyahu didn't steal votes from Bennett with open racism two years ago, they probably finish #2 and Labor forms a government as the largest party with the center ready to join a coalition with them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/831679606805688320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Not a real surprise here...Trump's WH is full of pro-Israeli hardliners and Bibi is Trump's buddy
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Can't wait to see Donnie dominate Bibi with a forceful handshake! Pull him in Donnie! Show him who's boss!
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/831679606805688320?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw also reported in politico https://twitter.com/politico/status/831848552154406913
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
In a bit over an hour Trump and Netanyahu have a press conference
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
The beginning of the end? Status quo will finally break?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
I'm guessing this is going to mean israel eventually absorbing west bank residents and giving them a veneer of citizenship because there's no way in hell they're going to get away with straight-up ethnic cleansing via massive deportation without worldwide condemnation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
"Fellow Americans and Israeli, we are pleased to tell you today that we have signed legislation that will outlaw Palestine forever. We began bombing five minutes ago."
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
I mean sooner we give up this fantasy of "military occupation" and "residents" and so on and so on the easier it will be to call Israel the apartheid state it is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
Xander77 posted:By a few years back, do you mean 1990? Because I'm not aware of any major exodus that would require efforts like that since. It's a trend for left-leaning Ashkenazi Israelis, especially those with dual-citizenship, to emigrate to Germany, Berlin in particular. The numbers aren't big enough to make any major demographic changes, but I can't imagine it looks good for the Israeli government to have many of its best-educated youth moving away from Israel due to the claustrophobic and xenophobic environment, especially when they tend to choose Germany, the country responsible for the Holocaust. quote:The center very much wants a two state solution. No, it doesn't. Many in the center would be happy to have the issue "go away" as long as it didn't mean surrendering the West Bank(or Area C), but when it comes to actually creating a viable Palestinian state, the majority of Israeli Jews oppose it. A 2 state solution means giving up East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and the mega-settlements around Jerusalem, something no major Israeli official or party has supported and something which the overwhelming majority of Jewish voters oppose. You can't have a viable Palestinian state with a bisected West Bank or a Palestinian state robbed of its capital and bread basket.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2017 19:48
|
|