|
Will Trump cause a third Intifada by moving the embassy to Jerusalem?
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Will Trump cause a third Intifada by moving the embassy to Jerusalem? probably not, because the next person he talked to got him to delay that decision six months he still wants to recognize it as Israel's capital though, which isn't exactly a big step up I'm not sure this is enough to trigger a proper intifada but the rest of the Muslim world will be very very unhappy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Will Trump cause a third Intifada by moving the embassy to Jerusalem? It's hard to predict these things. Sometimes when people lose hope they radicalize and lash out, and sometimes they just give up. Without going too deep in the weeds on I/P here, I think it's safe to say that they've tried both violent and nonviolent approaches now, and neither one has produced the result they were hoping for, so who knows what's next. At the very least it probably increases the likelihood that Israel's going to be dealing with restive Palestinian territories if things ever really kick off between them and Hezbollah/Assad/Iran, and will make it harder for the Saudis to provide diplomatic cover. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:probably not, because the next person he talked to got him to delay that decision six months to be honest, I'm not sure what if anything can be done to save the palestinians right now, Israel's dogs and allies control every arab country of consequence in the region, and Iran and its proxies are busy genociding Iraqis and Syrians to care about anyone. The fascist Regimes in the region have doubled down on repression and anti-palestinian propaganda (because Qatar) and have signaled very clearly that any protest will be met with deadly force on top of that, arab civil society has been completely wiped out so there's physically nobody left who will rally and march for the palestinians in any real way (save for maybe a symbolic protest in jordan and lebanon). The Palestinians are also in a complete bind, the fact that they were not able to get rid of Mahmoud Abbas and Mohammad Dahlan compromised their ability to coordinate effectively and cannot actually do a third intifada because the PLO is so compromised and leaderless, and the diaspora cant reach them to help them in any real way. At this point the Palestinians are afloat in the wilderness because the entire Arab world is under as much of an occupation as they are. the only way the Palestinians can find real strength right now is if at least one of Israels major allies in the region falls to democracy, which unfortunately isnt in the cards for the forseeable future. The Only people who can probably lend them financial or political support is Iran, but they're also completely self-serving and Erdogan is a complete bitch pussy coward who absolutely will never take any steps of real consequence other than making GBS threads is pants and saying a couple of words. Simply put, the political, and military, and societal ability for the palestinians to carry out an itifada simply doesnt exist, because arab regimes have identified them in the same category as their own population. either they're stooges of Qatar (in the case of Hamas or any kind of islamist group) or they should shut up and surrender so that finally Arab leaders can publicly suck israels dick to go fight Iran.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:A leader dying in an ongoing civil war that he is actively a part of is a far stretch from 'assassination'. It's pretty clear he was assassinated as blowback from the SA deal rather than just a coincidental death as part of the course of the war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:It's pretty clear he was assassinated as blowback from the SA deal rather than just a coincidental death as part of the course of the war. The deal he reached with the Saudis specifically brought his forces into conflict with the Houthis after backing out of a partnership with them, so they had every reason to kill him. I'm not saying it's good for Yemen that he's dead, but there's no mystery here as to why they'd do it. Of course it's not a coincidence, but it's also a totally foreseeable response if they had the means to do it, as they turned out to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:The deal he reached with the Saudis specifically brought his forces into conflict with the Houthis after backing out of a partnership with them, so they had every reason to kill him. I'm not saying it's good for Yemen that he's dead, but there's no mystery here as to why they'd do it. Of course it's not a coincidence, but it's also a totally foreseeable response if they had the means to do it, as they turned out to. Yes? I guess this is just semantics on what you consider assassination but that's a pretty common way to describe how Saleh died (specifically targeted and ambushed by opposing forces outside/leaving the front line). The Syrian rebel factions assassinate each others commanders all the time in the same fashion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
It can be assassination and a legitimate military operation at the same time. The US drone program in Yemen has done far more to cross that line than the Houthis did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:Yes? I guess this is just semantics on what you consider assassination but that's a pretty common way to describe how Saleh died (specifically targeted and ambushed by opposing forces outside/leaving the front line). The Syrian rebel factions assassinate each others commanders all the time in the same fashion. He was technically assassinated, but it's not like he was a peaceful civilian killed on his way to work or something. He was the commander of a military force fighting against the militias that assassinated him, in violation of their previous agreements. I don't think anybody called it an assassination when the Libyan rebels fished Gaddafi out of that culvert. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 09:22
|
|
|
He was president for 33 years after uniting Yemen and he used that time to make himself a billionaire instead of healing the internal rifts that led to Yemen's balkanization in the first place. gently caress him. No tears for dead dictators.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
I think it's no great shame he's dead. Like Ghaddafi he was a corrupt kleptocrat whose primary goal seemed to be personal power and enrichment. It is kinda odd seeing pro-Assad/Ghaddafi voices cheering his death on, though, given he was the secular strongman and knocked off by self-declared islamists.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:It is kinda odd seeing pro-Assad/Ghaddafi voices cheering his death on, though, given he was the secular strongman and knocked off by self-declared islamists. About as odd as seeing anti-Assad/Ghaddafi condemning his death. It's all a question of whose son of a bitch he was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Meh, everything is one way or another about the proxy conflict, and very much like the Cold War ideology is often pushed to the side when it gets into practicality and this really goes for both sides (ie secularists may say it was necessary to get rid of Saleh because he was now working for even more hardcore Islamists etc etc). The calculus, in the end, is that the Riyadh alliance took a big hit, and SA may be stuck in a forever war on its border. I suspect things are going to get even wilder in a few hours depending on what Trump says. Anyway, I was thinking about the whole issue of "Arabs losing wars" or just poor military performance by Arab militaries in general. Most criticism seems to be symptomatic (poor training/corruption etc), but I really think it comes down to belief itself. The keydifference between Saleh and the Houthis probably didn't come down to training or equipment (although the Houthis seem to be much more capable than they are given credit for), but rather that the Houthis actually believed in the cause they were fighting and honestly it did not seem that Saleh's Republican Guard. It may simply boil down to the political development of a particular type of personality/familial centric authoritarian state can took hold in Arab states during the Cold War. These states were mostly based on patronage networks that largely bypassed the population, and therefore created an unbridgeable distance between the state and the population. This "gap" in belief filter its way into the military and necessitated "two-tiered" armies of poorly trained conscripts and better-armed loyalists (ie Republican Guard units). However, quite often this didn't seem to be enough to actually protect the state and often these units often still collapsed on themselves when a real war actually came. Also, it didn't help that the military often become mini-states on themselves with their own economic infrastructure which strengthened patronage networks but further alienated the population. It is part of the reason I think the Egyptian Army under SiSi, in reality, is still very much still a paper tiger (look at Sinai) and why Saleh collapsed so quickly. This type of pessimism seems also break through tribal/clan networks, Gadaffi found little solace in his last days as did Saleh. Syria also both proves the rule but shows some of its expectations. The SAA obviously experienced multiple collapses across 2012-2014 and even Assad's elite forces struggled. However, I think the reason why it the SAA didn't collapse before the Russian intervention is that much of the population, in the end, was forced to support the state, less because of Assad himself but more on religious/cultural grounds. In essence, the survival of Assad was situational. That said, both ISIS and other Islamist groups (regardless of what you say about their beliefs themselves) also truly believed in the war they were fighting and are the reason that are (still) so hard to put down. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Buckle up boys here we go!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
I wonder if they were smart enough to beef up embassy and consulate security around the region to make sure another Benghazi doesn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:I wonder if they were smart enough to beef up embassy and consulate security around the region to make sure another Benghazi doesn't happen. They'll have to garrison it with half a division at this point, it's gonna be the favourite target of every terrorist ever. Not to mention the construction project will likely involve tons of underground refurnishing, tunnels and stuff. Jerusalem is a very old city, with tons of stuff down in the ground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Postorder Trollet89 posted:They'll have to garrison it with half a division at this point, it's gonna be the favourite target of every terrorist ever. Not to mention the construction project will likely involve tons of underground refurnishing, tunnels and stuff. Jerusalem is a very old city, with tons of stuff down in the ground. I meant our other embassies and consulates around the region. Israel will be happy to provide security for our embassy in Jerusalem when the time comes, and the thing will probably be a loving fortress, but it's not totally unthinkable that another country or two in the region might allow a protest to get a bit rowdy to signal their displeasure in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:It may simply boil down to the political development of a particular type of personality/familial centric authoritarian state can took hold in Arab states during the Cold War. These states were mostly based on patronage networks that largely bypassed the population, and therefore created an unbridgeable distance between the state and the population. This "gap" in belief filter its way into the military and necessitated "two-tiered" armies of poorly trained conscripts and better-armed loyalists (ie Republican Guard units). However, quite often this didn't seem to be enough to actually protect the state and often these units often still collapsed on themselves when a real war actually came. Also, it didn't help that the military often become mini-states on themselves with their own economic infrastructure which strengthened patronage networks but further alienated the population. I've heard this theory more times than I can count and makes sense to me. Does anyone know where the definitive paper or work is that argues this thesis? e: Two articles that caught my attention this morning on Iran - not because they're newsworthy but more because they're funny: quote:Israel won’t allow Iran to establish a military base in Syria, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said as he called on the world to halt Iran’s development of ballistic missiles, nuclear power and its support of global terrorism.  Also Friedman continues to be a loving idiot but has a broken clock comment between said idiocy & stroking MBS: quote:The greatest thing that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia could do is to stop working each other into a lather over this Iranian “threat” and to focus on their domestic reform agendas. That would be the best revenge on Tehran. And another reason he never should have passed 11th grade comp: quote:So Trump will rail against Iran and pretend that he is Thor, throwing down thunderbolts, like recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. But he’s really just a lost tourist, looking for his bus. Not linking his turd. guidoanselmi fucked around with this message at 20:35 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
America has just commited a historical mistake that over the long term will make Iraq historically look like a cheesecake walk. Aljazeera's website is just a giant grey wall with a title of:- "The Second Nakba has come". You just handed over the middle east and the entire historical narrative to Iran and drew a permanent line in the sand. What a loving disastrous mistake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:America has just commited a historical mistake that over the long term will make Iraq historically look like a cheesecake walk. Not to re-litigate the election for the millionth time, but I seriously wonder how things would be going if Trump was not the president for the last year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Not to re-litigate the election for the millionth time, but I seriously wonder how things would be going if Trump was not the president for the last year. The Reptilians would have taken over. But here's the thing: The Reptilians can't eat our babies anymore if the entire world is a nuclear hellscape. They want us to live.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:America has just commited a historical mistake that over the long term will make Iraq historically look like a cheesecake walk. Come now. Its pretty hard to imagine this being as big a fuckup as Iraq. For example, the US could just move the embassy again in 3 years if someone else gets elected. It isn't necessarily permanent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Not to re-litigate the election for the millionth time, but I seriously wonder how things would be going if Trump was not the president for the last year. Qatar probably would have been handled more deftly, and Iraqi Kurdistan could have been handled better or worse, but other than that and I guess travel ban issues, this is probably the first big thing you can say flat out wouldn't have happened otherwise in the Middle East. Trump ended up adopting a pretty traditional hawkish foreign policy in a lot of ways when it comes to the Middle East, but this is an extreme outlier vs a replacement president. Count Roland posted:Come now. Its pretty hard to imagine this being as big a fuckup as Iraq. For example, the US could just move the embassy again in 3 years if someone else gets elected. It isn't necessarily permanent. Undoing it is a lot harder to do domestically than not doing it in the first place. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Come now. Its pretty hard to imagine this being as big a fuckup as Iraq. For example, the US could just move the embassy again in 3 years if someone else gets elected. It isn't necessarily permanent. I see, the Prankster's way of conducting international diplomacy
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Qatar probably would have been handled more deftly, and Iraqi Kurdistan could have been handled better or worse, but other than that and I guess travel ban issues, this is probably the first big thing you can say flat out wouldn't have happened otherwise in the Middle East. Trump ended up adopting a pretty traditional hawkish foreign policy in a lot of ways when it comes to the Middle East, but this is an extreme outlier vs a replacement president. Its a lot easier to undo an embassy move than an invasion/occupation, was my point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
The Czech Republic just recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital, but specified that it didn't extend beyond the 67 borders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Come now. Its pretty hard to imagine this being as big a fuckup as Iraq. For example, the US could just move the embassy again in 3 years if someone else gets elected. It isn't necessarily permanent. Public perception wise I think the "seal has been broken", the US clearly sided with Israel over Palestine/the Muslim world in general. They could try to walk it back, but the damage is done and it would just make them looked biased AND cowardly at the same time. I mean the peace deal is dead, and so is the idea of the US as a neutral power. It is hard not to see Russia/Iran gain from this. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Dec 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Public perception wise I think the "seal has been broken", the US clearly sided with Israel over Palestine/the Muslim world in general. They could try to walk it back, but the damage is done and it would just make them looked biased AND cowardly at the same time. What world has the us been a neutral party ever? Edit: well post suez crisis
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:What world has the us been a neutral party ever? It wasn't, but it was a pretense for some type of negotiation to occur, and now even that is gone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Public perception wise I think the "seal has been broken", the US clearly sided with Israel over Palestine/the Muslim world in general. They could try to walk it back, but the damage is done and it would just make them looked biased AND cowardly at the same time. I've been reading this opinion elsewhere too, and I guess I have a hard time swallowing it. I mean, the US has, for decades, sold and given huge amounts of weapons to Israel. It vetoes resolutions against them at the UN. It provides all manner of diplomatic support. But no, moving an embassy is the bridge too far? Granted this is a lot more public and blank and white than other actions. But I feel like this is putting on paper what has been clear for a long time: the US is clearly on Israel's side. This is the sort of thing that makes politicians in the West uncomfortable because they have to have an opinion on this. What about people in the arab world? Is this really turning people against the US that weren't already against it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I've been reading this opinion elsewhere too, and I guess I have a hard time swallowing it. that stuff can be sorta waved away with "regional ally" immunity poo poo, like why we look the other way with the KSA. but this is the rubicon if you will. there is no turning back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:About as odd as seeing anti-Assad/Ghaddafi condemning his death. It's all a question of whose son of a bitch he was. yeah, if I absolutely had to pick, I'd have preferred him to stay alive just because his successful backstab of the Houthis offered the least unlikely chance of a more timely end to the war, but anyone with a dog in the more overarching Iran vs not-Iran proxy slapfight presumably has at least a BIT of a partisan opinion on the topic. I stop waaaaaaay short of condemning his death though, he was a shithead and bears his share of responsibility for the whole catastrofuck in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:that stuff can be sorta waved away with "regional ally" immunity poo poo, like why we look the other way with the KSA. but this is the rubicon if you will. there is no turning back. But why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:that stuff can be sorta waved away with "regional ally" immunity poo poo, like why we look the other way with the KSA. but this is the rubicon if you will. there is no turning back. No it really isn't, if literally everything before it wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:But why? "Forget and forgive" the motto of the middle east.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
Does this go with the Saudis pushing Palestine to capitulate, or is it a coincidence? Has Hamas said anything? I've only seen Fatah's reaction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No it really isn't, if literally everything before it wasn't. i am not agreeing with i, we have always been openly in bed with Israel. idk. sorry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
This isn’t a bad time for the US to do it. The Arab spring has been strangled in its crib, civil society has been destroyed in Egypt and Saudi Arabia even more. Jordan is tied at the hip with the US and Saudi Arabia. US may not have good will, but there is IS to point to as an alternative(false choice). What will the Arab world do but have a few riots if that? I mean anti-US terrorism will be enshrined, but the US way to fight that is more repression at home so it’s of no difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Increased terrorism in the US just helps Trump, the neocons (or whatever they call themselves now), and the security state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
The X-man cometh posted:Does this go with the Saudis pushing Palestine to capitulate, or is it a coincidence? Blah blah gates of hell Hamas is unhappy but it's hard to dial up from their normal "we are unhappy this week" rhetoric
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 03:39
|
|