Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Except those Palestinians.
But I guess they aren't legitimate enough to be counted as a part of "anyone."
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hillary: Must elect "a president with a deep, personal commitment to Israels future"
- Thread starter benjipwns
- Start date
- Status
Except those Palestinians.
But I guess they aren't legitimate enough to be counted as a part of "anyone."
Aaronrules380
Member
Lying about your stance on foreign policy for an election is what I was talking about
timetokill
Banned
Probably because she has the second highest unfavorable rating of a presidential candidate since the question was put to a poll.
Gotta love it. Two of the most unlikable politicians in recent history battling it out for the presidency.
God bless America.
Yeah, you can't really marry outside your religion in Israel, and you can't really revoke your religion and claim atheism to get around it.
God Dayumm
Banned
Nobody ignores this. She was the blight in Obama's administration and he could have handled foreign affairs better if not for her.
Testicular Sound Express
Member
hell fucking no.
The Albatross
Member
It's impossible to give defenses of the US supporting both Israel and Palestine in threads like these because the moment you say that you support Israel and Palestine and a two state solution, somebody quotes you, bolds the first part of the sentence about supporting Israel, and then says something to the effect of "So you support Israel murdering Palestinian babies."
But, fuck it, may as well take my chances:
I support a two-state solution for Palestinians and Israelis, where Israel remains the right to be a "Jewish democracy" but still grants representation to non-Jews in government, and Palestine is free to form whatever government it wants as long as that government recognizes the fundamental right to exist of Israel. I support diplomatic efforts by the United States to broker this deal between Israel and Palestine with the support of other organizations like the Arab League and the United Nations. I am against expansion of Israeli settlement territory into areas that are generally home to Palestinians today.
Beyond that, I support funding for both Israel and Palestine as the US has continued to do for my entire lifetime as "the carrot" for Israeli/Palestinian diplomacy. The US does not have a "stick" in this analogy for Israel, largely because there's solid evidence that the dozen or so hostile countries that surround Israel are enough of a stick should the US cut off funding for Israel.
While I support a two-state solution (like Hillary Clinton, OBama, Bill Clinton, etc), I do not have strong feelings on the clear demarcations of where Israel ends and Palestine begins. I simply don't know enough about the present day region by region and the territory lost and gained through the decades of conflict... Compromises have been offered before that have been rejected by Palestinians, Israelis, other Arabs, the UN, etc., and compromises have been offered that others have agreed to as well. I don't know enough about the latest compromise proposal or the specifics of the last negotiation to furtively say "Yes! I whole-heartedly support that!" But I generally support a two-state solution around land captured by Israel during the Six-Day War; I support the end of Israeli expansion of settlements as well.
There's been a prevailing argument that's seemed to skirt the Ron Paul/Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Trump support groups of "Why should the US even be involved in this negotiation? Why not just leave it up to Israel and the Palestinians (or Arab states) and wash our hands of it?" First, I think this is a naive position. But more importantly, since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, there has been no country that has been able to successfully broker peace between Arabs and Israeli's other than the United States. Without US support during the war -- something that Richard Nixon largely opposed -- Israel likely would have lost the war; WIthout US diplomacy after that support, Egypt's military would have been completely destroyed (Kissinger negotiated the ceasefire just as Israel had turned the war militarily and the ceasefire was ordered at nearly the precise moment that Israel had surrounded and isolated Egypt's army), Israel would have maintained the hundreds of miles it claimed in battlefield victories, and the 1978 Camp David Peace Accords would have never begun. (A sidenote to this is that there would have been complex diplomatic relationships with the Soviet Union, China, and Arab states, and that US brokering ultimately displaced the Soviet Union as an influencer in Egypt and replaced it with the US.)
I also support funding both Israel and Palestine because the threat to Israel from the Arab states surrounding it are a legitimate threat. This is real and it's not imagined. There have been real wars in the last 70 years that were launched by a coalition of Arab governments against Israel, and while many have had partial aspirations tied to them like recovering land that Arab states lost in previously failed wars against Israel (like the Yom Kippur War), it's naive and wrong to think that those aims are the primary aims of those offensive wars. The primary aim of Arab countries launching offensive wars against Israel is not to reclaim land, it is to destroy Israel because Israel is a Jewish state. That Arab countries might reclaim land that they lost in previous wars would be a side benefit, but the primary goal is to destroy Jews. Likewise, for groups like Hamas, while I'm sure they'd like to build a healthy community in Palestine for Arab Palestinians, their primary reason for existing is to destroy Jews by destroying Israel. When we pretend that Hamas exists for other reasons ahead of the destruction of Jewish Israel, it is tantamount to pretending that the Confederate States of America seceded and launched a war against the US Government for some reason other than slavery.
So what about Palestine? Well, as I've said, I support continued funding for Palestine to setup a functioning government that can be enabled to provide social services for people living in a region that would be recognized as an independent Palestine.
But I do not support Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization. Hamas has no interest in supporting peace, continually rejecting peace accords and re-iterating it's objective: the destruction of the state of Israel and forming an Islamist regime in that region instead. Hamas has rejected every proposal for a two state solution and instead argues that the only effective peace in the region can be accomplished through jihad. This is an untenable position for me, and peace via the destruction of Israel is not a peace. Since 2006, some leaders in Hamas have seemed to become more moderate, and yet, Hamas still operates a large scale terrorist organization and because of this, is still considered a terrorist organization by many major, significant, reasonable world governments (not just the US, but governments around the world and even some Arab governments).
Yeah, I think there is a tendency, especially from American posters, to view the Israel issue in binary terms. Israel's side vs Palestine's side. As if there is some agreed upon narrative for each country.
It is more complicated then that. Like America, there are competing parties, policies, philosophies and personalities.
More frustrating, you will see normally liberal posters taking the side of political positions and parties - like Netanyahu and his party and similar parties - that they never would if that party was located in America and advocating similar policies in our country or pretty much any other country.
Yet they will come into threads and unflinchingly defend every action Netanyahu takes. Never thinking twice about it. Defecto endorsing hawkish policy they never would accept from a candidate in their own country.
And I get it, I understand the general principles governing allied nation states, and the history of the Jewish people in the West, but Israel is literally this special snowflake that has somehow been aggressively shielded from the sort of dialogue we have all the time about other allies. Even formally oppressed allies. We would never default a person or president as being prejudiced against Britain simply for speaking out against leaving the E.U. Or blindly feel compelled to support any military decision a European nation takes. But for Israel, that is the default position.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Are you absolutely, positively sure that she's lying? What makes you so sure that what she's saying in her actual speech is not exactly the stance she's holding?
The Iran deal came under Kerry, not Clinton. Many reports have indicated that Obama and Clinton had differences of views regarding foreign policy.
The Albatross
Member
So, are you saying that Hillary Clinton did not, as secretary of state, negotiate with both Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu?
Or, is the stupid social photo of Hillary and Bill with Trump some sort of alternative reality where them being photographed together means that Clinton was never secretary of state and never tried to broker an agreement with Abbas & Netanyahu...?
Just to be clear too, I posted that picture of Clinton with Abbas (and there are others) because somebody said "At least Trump said he'd meet with both sides," implying that Clinton does not or would not. Well ... Clinton would. And she has. And she will.
So what's with Muslim men being with Jewish and Christian women that makes it complicated? But other "mixed" couplings is a solid no.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
And like I said before, here we are, her own words in her own speech, how she strongly stated that she will give unconditional support to Israel no matter what, complete with criticizing-Israel-equals-antisemitic rhetoric and even strong implications that the only party that needs to stop doing whatever it is doing is Palestine--bad Palestine, stop being the bad guy please!
Aaronrules380
Member
I'm not. But my comment was in response to your post about the idea of lying to gain votes being pathetic and wrong, with my point being that I think it's worse to be so rigid that you refuse to take commit such a trivial action against your moral code even if doing so might help you aid millions of people
zer0blivion
Member
A lot of this blind loyalty comes from the broken US political system, and the power of the pro-Israel lobby. I would love to see hard evidence that not unequivocally supporting Israel makes it impossible to be president. Obama hasn't exactly been tough on Israel, but he's been more vocal in his criticism that any president in my lifetime, and he won 2012 comfortably. It's a few people who are passionate about Israel, mostly evangelicals who want to bring about the end times, and a few moderate hawks.
I have sympathy for Israel from the perspective of how the Jewish people have suffered for the last few thousand years. In the last century, a madman halved the number of Jews on the planet. But being a victim of genocide doesn't mean that you have immunity from future criticism indefinitely. If you're an apartheid state that commits human rights violations on a regular basis, and steals land from impoverished people living under your military power, do not expect American support.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I wasn't aware how much aid Turkey gets. However Turkey is a member of NATO, so they get American military aid by default. It's not a special relationship there as far as I can tell.
The Saudis have a lot of our oil money which they used to buy American military hardware before but we aren't exactly keeping them up to date. It's actually the Europeans who are selling the Saudis the nice things, the most recent American fighters the Saudis fly are the F-15, but the Europeans are the ones selling the Saudis the Eurofighter Typhoons. Our relationship with the Saudis is a tangled and messy one.
The reality is we should have been cutting back on Israeli military aid decades ago, instead we've given them somewhere in the range of $60 billion.
A Black Falcon
Member
For anyone not clear on what Hillary's goal was in this speech, Vox covers it fairly well: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/21/11278230/hillary-clinton-aipac-israel
Basically, her goal seems to be to use very pro-Israel language to try to coax Netanyahu to the negotiating table, even though policy-wise she's just advocating for continuing Obama's policies in the region. This strategy may or may not work, the article's author is skeptical, but we don't really have any better ideas... peace requires both sides to sign on, and that means trying your best to get Netanyahu onboard despite all the intransigence on both sides. Hillary's in the right here. She sounds like her Israel policies are right where they should be: support Israel, and push for peace in the region if at all possible with a two-state solution as the goal.
Basically, her goal seems to be to use very pro-Israel language to try to coax Netanyahu to the negotiating table, even though policy-wise she's just advocating for continuing Obama's policies in the region. This strategy may or may not work, the article's author is skeptical, but we don't really have any better ideas... peace requires both sides to sign on, and that means trying your best to get Netanyahu onboard despite all the intransigence on both sides. Hillary's in the right here. She sounds like her Israel policies are right where they should be: support Israel, and push for peace in the region if at all possible with a two-state solution as the goal.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
And yet it appeared like you're trying to argue quite vehemently before that she's just playing an election game and this is not her actual stance?
Ah... sorry, just forget about it. It feels like we're just talking in circles.
Aaronrules380
Member
We're talking about stuff being said during the election season, not while in office. And even if it's possible, a candidate would be stupid to throw out any possible advantage, however small, just so they can keep the moral high ground and say they didn't lie
I won't do what you hate but some of your facts are just objectively wrong and thus they poison the policy positions that stem from them.
Hamas, like Israel, is far too often being framed inaccurately and you are bearing this out in real time. They are by no means an ideal actor to deal with, or contain much of anything I would support from a party platform perspective, but that doesn't stop your framing of them as being inaccurate.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
If there's one thing I don't get about GAF is why there's so many anti-Israel posters here, they like to make it a very one-sided argument in favor of the Palestinians, when there's a lot of things at play that making saying who's wrong or who's right much harder than that.
Israel is there, and it's not going away. At a certain point we need to look to future solutions. The problem isn't that Israel does some shit things, the problem is that there's a lot of people who'd like to erase Israel from the map, or refuse to even acknowledge it's existence.
Israel is there, and it's not going away. At a certain point we need to look to future solutions. The problem isn't that Israel does some shit things, the problem is that there's a lot of people who'd like to erase Israel from the map, or refuse to even acknowledge it's existence.
Aaronrules380
Member
I never once said she absolutely is lying. Literally all I've been saying is that taking this at face value is worthless and that this statement tells us literally nothing on its own because of the context under which it was said
zer0blivion
Member
So these laws are coming down not only from Jewish law, but also Muslim law.
So a Muslim women could only marry a Muslim man?
(sorry if I'm being off topic, the topic just caught my attention.)
The Albatross
Member
How is any of what you're saying relevant to the photo that I posted?
Are you agreeing with the other person that I was arguing against? Are you arguing that Trump would be a better negotiator between Israel and Palestinians than Clinton? Because that's what I was arguing against.
Father_Brain
Banned
Not to mention that Israel is vastly more militarily powerful than any other country in the region and none of them constitute anything even vaguely resembling an existential threat. It's nonsense.
All marriages in Israel are handled by religious organizations (which funded by the state, but don't really answer to it) and while the Jewish orthodoxy never allow for inter-religion marriage, the Muslims Qadis sometime allow for a Muslim man to marry a Jewish or Christian woman.
Though going down that route end you in a pretty weird legal state that can mess things up for you and your kids.
Not to mention that there are a bunch of organizations in Israel whose stated goal is to "save" Jewish women who are dating (let alone marrying) Muslim men, so you'd have to deal with those racist dickwads.
appaws
Banned
Great Post. (Normally we are at each others throats in all the gun threads!)
The War Party is very strong in this country, and we have all seen it over the years on the so called "right" in the form of the neoconservatives.
One thing the Trump uprising within the GOP is accomplishing that is productive I think for American politics is that it is showing how single-minded they are about their foreign policy goals, willing to jump to the Dems if that is what it takes to continue to advance a bellicose and overly Israel Uber Alles position.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
I explained it about why I posted that pic before and why, I conceded, that was a bad move in my attempt to illustrate my point.
That there are many in Israel, of all places in the world, trying so vehemently to keep their whole nation "pure", is just really the most ironic thing.
These laws are copied wholesale from the Ottoman Empire, known as the Millet (courts pertaining to personal laws).
Israel hasn't modified or modernized them, it would seem.
Not sure about the religious rulings regarding Muslim women, but I have female relatives who married non-Muslims, but raised the children as Muslim.
Sure. You're right. Being pro-Israel in a general election where your opponent is also pro-Israel won't hurt you. But it speaks to Hillary's lack of principles. She's been on damn near every side of every issue- gay marriage, trans issues, criminal justice reform, war in the Middle East, reform of banking, etc. Whatever was convenient at a given time.
This is why Hillary's negatives are so high. She's as crass of a politician as they come.
Hmm. You know there has always been a distinction between a religiously sanctified marriage and a civil marriage. I feel everyone should be entitled to a civil marriage no matter what. If religious institutions wish to only grant and sanctify marriages between two members of their covenant then I think that's fine. But marriages that are state recognized should be available to all couples. It's a shame this is not the case.
Aaronrules380
Member
Again, I'll say I have very little respect for people who cling to high minded principles regardless of the situation. It sounds very nice to say your honest, but I think if lying can allow you to help more people and further the causes that are important to you, than you should absolutely lie. I'm not necessarily speaking about Hilary, but in general, I think someone who would refuse to take the easiest path to achieving their ideals (when said path literally hurts nobody anyways) due to some high minded moral obligations isn't actually admirable, they're just stubborn and obstinate.
She is the definition of a political pragmatist. For better or worse. 20 years ago she had a more idealist streak but time and personal experiences have clearly shifted her into a full on pragmatist.
Even in the face of all the Bernie success she has been unwilling to adapt a few more idealistic policies. Which even shocked me because I thought such success would at a minimum give her the confidence to take a more liberal position then she probably anticipated to take on the campaign trail.
The Albatross
Member
Are you saying that my appraisal of Hamas as a terrorist organization is objectively wrong, and so I can't support a two state solution drawn up by 1967 territorial lines because of that?
Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organization by the US, Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and UK. Egypt and Jordan have outlawed its existence but haven't taken a stance on whether it's a terrorist organization. Many more countries/orgs recognize military wings of Hamas as a terrorist organization, but when it's coming to a potential leader of a sovereign state, that is something that is splitting hairs to me...
I don't think that Hamas necessarily always has to be terroristic, as there did seem to be some movement of moderates within Hamas after 2006, but that diminished pretty quickly... For every lone moderate that steps up in the party, there are hundreds of examples of moderate Palestinians being targeted by Hamas for being moderates.
zer0blivion
Member
Israel doesn't allow civil unions. They only recognize religious marriage.
benjipwns
Banned
One good thing blind opposition to the other party has brought is non-intervention of the Old Right/Taft variety no longer being an immediate non-starter in the GOP again. During the Bush years they were considered traitors as bad as the "left's" terrorism supporters.
Consider two at the time leading candidates, Trump and Carson, could bash the Iraq War and Bush in general at a debate during this cycle.
Eight years ago America's Mayor destroys leftist anti-American Ron Paul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDND5tcUFoI
The Albatross
Member
I don't think that Clinton being pro-Israel speaks to her lack of principles.
It says that you and her probably disagree about principles.
Clinton has long supported Israel, has long argued for a two-state solution. I believe this has been her position for as long as she's been in a political office (e.g., since 2001; I don't know what her position was as first lady, though I assume it roughly matched her husband's).
zer0blivion
Member
Ctrl-F "settlements"
1 Result.
Translation: Keep doing what you do including with respect to the settlements. I'll veto every UN vote.
1 Result.
Hillary said:
Translation: Keep doing what you do including with respect to the settlements. I'll veto every UN vote.
I think that because you are seemingly basing Hamas of today on a charter they drafted 20 plus years ago. That leaders have said is functionally unimportant to them and their own actions have shown that to be the case. And you have seemingly adopted the Israeli narrative about Hamas, that if we got into the nitty gritty of how such policy could be achieved, it would likely create the sort of irreconcilable differences that doom these negotiations.
I mean, if you truly believe Hamas is just hell bent on Israel's destruction above all else, how can you say you would be comfortable with them at the negotiating table? Or for instance if Hamas says they are against, say, the totality of Israeli conditions like de-militarization for X years with tough conditions like Israeli presence for an undetermined amount of time? Like was present in past demands? Maybe I am assuming too far, but misunderstanding a key actor seems to be a quick way to make inaccurate projections and thus, drawing lines in the sand at the wrong places.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
being progressive and adapting to an evolving base and demographic, literally atempting to represent them, how does it work?
theignoramus
Member
It cant be emphasized enough how disgusting Ted Cruz's AIPAC address was. He literally attacked Trump for using the word "Palestine" in his speech because, hurr, hurr "Palestine hasnt existed since 1948"
For Cruz, the mere mention of the word "Palestine" is an anti Israel stance. He barely accepts the legitimacy of Palestinians as a distinct cultural group. The man is pure evil.
For Cruz, the mere mention of the word "Palestine" is an anti Israel stance. He barely accepts the legitimacy of Palestinians as a distinct cultural group. The man is pure evil.
Father_Brain
Banned
Also: barring a miracle, the two-state solution will never happen. How is Israel supposed to peacefully evacuate 400,000 settlers from the West Bank?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked