Support NeoGAF

[theignoramus]

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?

By rooting them out with the army, as they did in Sinai and Gaza.
The trouble is, Israel would have to deal with the possibility of internal revolt amongst the orthodox Jews in their army.
It was one thing to haul settlers out of the Egyptian desert or Gaza, but the "Eratz Israel" crowd will not go quietly out of the West Bank.

 

[Madness]

Remember Bill Clinton is the reason that satellite imagery over Israel is blurred or not zoomed in enough. He actually passed a law preventing American GPS and Satellites from providing high resolution images over only Israel.

The same Israel which just last year used espionage tactics against the US and then used that information to try and get senators and congressmen to revolt against Obama.

The relationship with Israel is far too one sided. It was the French and British before, and now there become the US burden. Defund planned parenthood and don't provideo fresh drinking water to American cities but authorize 500 million dollars of military hardware to arm Israel within days.

 

[Ashes]

This is one of those relationships that will wither away with time. More and more it feels like Israel is the one that is going to push away.

 

[zer0blivion]

Remember Bill Clinton is the reason that satellite imagery over Israel is blurred or not zoomed in enough. He actually passed a law preventing American GPS and Satellites from providing high resolution images over only Israel.

The same Israel which just last year used espionage tactics against the US and then used that information to try and get senators and congressmen to revolt against Obama.

The relationship with Israel is far too one sided. It was the French and British before, and now there become the US burden. Defund planned parenthood and don't provideo fresh drinking water to American cities but authorize 500 million dollars of military hardware to arm Israel within days.

It's not just $500 million here and there.

The U.S. provides Israel $10.2 million* in military aid each day.

*Source: The Congressional Research Service's report "U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel," written by Jeremy M. Sharp, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs, dated June 10, 2015.

This is one of those relationships that will wither away with time. More and more it feels like Israel is the one that is going to push away.

This is satire, right?

 

[Kickz]

The whole grovel before AIPAC BS is an indictment on our political system.

Bless Bernie for giving them the middle finger

 

[Kickz]

Seems like a pretty standard, by the book AIPAC speech, not sure why this is newsworthy.

Find me a politician who's willing to legitimately stand up to Israel and I'll show you a person who won't be in Washington very long.

Reminds of that saying if you want to know who rules you, find out who you cant critisize.

 

[Anion]

This is one of those relationships that will wither away with time. More and more it feels like Israel is the one that is going to push away.

The world is their oster and America is their clam. They have no reason to change that nor is it actually dying out

 

[Big Baybee]

It will be charming to see all the Clinton supporters realize how terrible of a president she will be as her coronation comes closer.

Obama kissed these dudes rings as well before he became president, right?

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

Funny, I was just reading earlier today that Israel loves Trump

Totally anecdotal evidence, but I work with a lot of Jewish people and they would vote for trump over Hillary any day of the week.

 

[Red Blaster]

benji i look forward to all your future threads highlighting hilldawgs inevitable fuckups

 

[zer0blivion]

Obama kissed these dudes rings as well before he became president, right?

Barack Obama at AIPAC
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw

Transcript: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

 

[Mr Swine]

So if Iran coughs at Israel then US will slap back all the sanctions they took away right? Doesn't this mean that Israel can do whatever they want?bwhat if they want $15 billion instead of what they have now? Would all politics bend over like nothing?

 

[Ashes]

This is satire, right?

Yes.

 

[zer0blivion]

So if Iran coughs at Israel then US will slap back all the sanctions they took away right? Doesn't this mean that Israel can do whatever they want? What if they want $15 billion instead of what they have now? Would all politics bend over like nothing?

I'm not familiar with the terms of the Iran deal.
Israel does what it wants regardless.
Rubber stamp.
Not sure what you mean.

 

[ApharmdX]

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?

They should never have been there in the first place. So there's that.

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.

"I want the most craven, power-hungry, least-principled politician on the market."

Ok. It looks likely that you'll get your wish. Yay?

I don't agree, but of course you are free to cast your vote where you like.

 

[Alo0oy]

After seeing this thread, I've been reading up on all the candidates, and the only one that is reasonable is Jill Stein, and from my understanding her party is irrelevant.

Hillary, Trump, and Cruz are warhawks and advocating for war crimes (shrugging this off because "everyone else is doing it" is disgusting tbh), while Sanders seems to be reluctant and only half way in his non-support of Israel, and he's probably doing that because his base is young and very progressive, I saw a two year old video where he said the exact opposite, so it's hard to think he's actually genuine.

Can Americans here tell me why Jill Stein is a long shot? Would she be a long shot if all progressives rallied behind her?

 

[benjipwns]

After seeing this thread, I've been reading up on all the candidates, and the only one that is reasonable is Jill Stein, and from my understanding her party is irrelevant.

Hillary, Trump, and Cruz are warhawks and advocating for war crimes (shrugging this off because "everyone else is doing it" is disgusting tbh), while Sanders seems to be reluctant and only half way in his non-support of Israel, and he's probably doing that because his base is young and very progressive, I saw a two year old video where he said the exact opposite, so it's hard to think he's actually genuine.

Can Americans here tell me why Jill Stein is a long shot? Would she be a long shot if all progressives rallied behind her?

Third parties at the national level have all sorts of institutional and logistical hurdles that make them non-entities except for certain moments or candidates. (Like say, a self-funding billionaire running on a crossover platform hostile to free trade and immigrants.)

Because the D's and R's are so large and powerful. Any significant splitting of their base will effectively throw the Presidency to the other party. Thus why the "least bad" option of voting for the D or R is more attractive even if their base doesn't particularly like the candidate. (Kerry and McCain being two decent and recent examples.)

It also causes people to lose their minds and treat it like even more of a team sport where their team can do no wrong and defeating the other team is the most important thing no matter what the long term consequences because short term is all that matters.

Goldwater and McGovern got the R's and D's wiped out in 1964 and 1972. Guess which parties won in 1968 and 1976. It doesn't matter, this is the most important election ever, you must vote for the winner, to ensure they win. Or else they might lose, despite being the blatant winner who has no chance of losing. So don't you dare sway. Wait, come back here, I have more to blame you for if my team loses because I failed to convince you to lie back and think of The Party!

 

[shintoki]

If a republican candidate came out and said fuck it, we're not helping them anymore. I would heavily consider voting Republican. Israeli has still been our biggest mistake in the past century.

 

[TrojanBlade]

Was anyone expecting anything else from these politicians. All US politicians have to suck up to Israel to be approved for a shot at winning. I was surprised by Trump saying something like 'I will not take sides at this time and try to negotiate without taking sides'. That was most likely one of the only thing Trump has said that I liked. But I am sure he will change his stance as soon as he is nominated.

Since Bernie didn't attend AIPAC, he was being blasted by everyone there for being a Jew and betraying the Jews by not attending the suckfest. Unbelievable and disgusting.

 

[Alo0oy]

Third parties at the national level have all sorts of institutional and logistical hurdles that make them non-entities except for certain moments or candidates. (Like say, a self-funding billionaire running on a crossover platform hostile to free trade and immigrants.)

Because the D's and R's are so large and powerful. Any significant splitting of their base will effectively throw the Presidency to the other party. Thus why the "least bad" option of voting for the D or R is more attractive even if their base doesn't particularly like the candidate. (Kerry and McCain being two decent and recent examples.)

It also causes people to lose their minds and treat it like even more of a team sport where their team can do no wrong and defeating the other team is the most important thing no matter what the long term consequences because short term is all that matters.

Goldwater and McGovern got the R's and D's wiped out in 1964 and 1972. Guess which parties won in 1968 and 1976. It doesn't matter, this is the most important election ever, you must vote for the winner, to ensure they win. Or else they might lose, despite being the blatant winner who has no chance of losing. So don't you dare sway. Wait, come back here, I have more to blame you for if my team loses because I failed to convince you to lie back and think of The Party!

Thanks.

That doesn't sound very democratic, more like choose your own dictatorship, and with one dictatorship full of racists and misogynists, it's basically choose the only one viable dictatorship.

 

[the_batman]

if only Obama could run again.

If a republican candidate came out and said fuck it, we're not helping them anymore. I would heavily consider voting Republican. Israeli has still been our biggest mistake in the past century.

what would you have done instead? just curious.

 

[Leopold]

Source:http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/shavuot/.premium-1.596576?v=33E2E3F1A9D29CF3BF99A6C6AAF244BF

Israel does not grant same-sex marriages but you can marry abroad and your marriage will be fully recognized, and unmarried same-sex/married same-sex are granted full rights.

 

[yarden24]

to those saying that its the lobbyists that make it so politicians need to support Israel, I assume its more the fact that Americans overwhelmingly support Israel over the Palestinians :

 

[Chariot]

Gotta love it. Two of the most unlikable politicians in recent history battling it out for the presidency.

God bless America.

Not "Who do you want for president", but "Who do you not want for president the least".

 

[benjipwns]

Thanks.

That doesn't sound very democratic, more like choose your own dictatorship, and with one dictatorship full of racists and misogynists, it's basically choose the only one viable dictatorship.

Well, our checks and balances are designed in such a way that antagonism happens even within the parties and betwixt them.

Right now, Obama is President and a Democrat. But he faces a Republican Senate and House. (Which are elected in different manners.) This limits what both institutions can do. (And the Supreme Court can further limit.)

It's not democratic, but it's also not a dictatorship. Controlling the Congress is as important really.

France is one of the more similar European countries. (I will now paint with the broadest of brushes and cause all sorts of consternation.) In that although you have multiple parties there's still mainly the Presidential group and an opposition group in the legislature. A major difference is there's no deference on domestic policy to the legislature when the President's grouping is in the minority. Though the President generally gets deference on foreign policy at all times.

We just fold all those separate parties into two because of FPP voting. You could also see our general election as a form of France's run-off. Our socialists, progressives, etc. voted in the D primary for a more "pure" candidate, and then vote for the winner D against the R in the general because it's the least bad option.

In some respects because of all that, party cohesion is actually less controlled than elsewhere, rejecting the party and voting against it isn't seen as inherently bad and often many benefit from it. I mention that if only because I've found many Europeans to find that the oddest part of our system outside of the process. How people who defy the Party aren't punished and often gain power from it unlike in parliamentary nations.

 

[Sorc3r3r]

As external observer, but at the same time as a citizen of this world in which the USA are a major power, i think that in this next elections the best one can hope is the election of the lesser evil.

The usa establishment from the 9/11 onward has gone crazy, and in my personal view has managed to bring caos wherever has operated, the last years under Obama have been ugly too without a clear direction, with debatable alliances and unable to close any front of its actions.

Hillary would be a prosecution of these paths, the good that i can say is that probably she is not going to start a 3rd ww, Trump on the other side is really a wild card, in Italy there is a common knowledge that taught us that to win votes you can say whatever you want, we know that when installed in the government extreme positions will be left or changed, i hope the same will happen with Trump if elected.

 

[Alo0oy]

Well, our checks and balances are designed in such a way that antagonism happens even within the parties and betwixt them.

Right now, Obama is President and a Democrat. But he faces a Republican Senate and House. (Which are elected in different manners.) This limits what both institutions can do. (And the Supreme Court can further limit.)

It's not democratic, but it's also not a dictatorship. Controlling the Congress is as important really.

France is one of the more similar European countries. (I will now paint with the broadest of brushes and cause all sorts of consternation.) In that although you have multiple parties there's still mainly the Presidential group and an opposition group in the legislature. A major difference is there's no deference on domestic policy to the legislature when the President's grouping is in the minority. Though the President generally gets deference on foreign policy at all times.

We just fold all those separate parties into two because of FPP voting. You could also see our general election as a form of France's run-off. Our socialists, progressives, etc. voted in the D primary for a more "pure" candidate, and then vote for the winner D against the R in the general because it's the least bad option.

In some respects because of all that, party cohesion is actually less controlled than elsewhere, rejecting the party and voting against it isn't seen as inherently bad and often many benefit from it. I mention that if only because I've found many Europeans to find that the oddest part of our system outside of the process. How people who defy the Party aren't punished and often gain power from it unlike in parliamentary nations.

Yeah, that's what I got from my limited reading. But it's also leading me to read about how the parties themselves are holding their base hostage on social issues, making everyone a one issue voter, and because of the "team sport" aspect of it, it's leading to "trickle down politics" (is that a thing?), which influences the vote in the Senate and Congress races.

It's an awful system, people are adapting their party's policies, not the other way around.

 

[Baron Doggystyle von Woof]

Source:http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/shavuot/.premium-1.596576?v=33E2E3F1A9D29CF3BF99A6C6AAF244BF

The beacon of democracy in the middle east guys.

 

[Chuckie]

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.

While the rules are ridiculous, they are merely religious rules on marriage and if I am not mistaken those same rules apply in the country you come from (talk about irony )

 

[captainnapalm]

Ah, now this is the Clinton I know.

Interesting seeing her laying the blame for the destabilization of the Middle East and all the problems it has caused at Iran's feet. And it's interesting reading this just after finding out about the Brussels attack. The two threads seem tragically linked.

We're never going to sort out this Islamic terrorism problem until we get real about what our leaders are getting up to first.

 

[Boney]

Meanwhile, Sanders as Jewish has a pretty wonderful speech promoting peace and advocating both sides.

But to be successful, we have also got to be a friend not only to Israel, but to the Palestinian people, where in Gaza unemployment today is 44 percent and we have there a poverty rate which is almost as high.

So when we talk about Israel and Palestinian areas, it is important to understand that today there is a whole lot of among Palestinians and that cannot be ignored. You can’t have good policy that results in peace if you ignore one side.

The road toward peace will be difficult. Wonderful people, well-intentioned people have tried decade after decade to achieve that and it will not be easy. I cannot tell you exactly how it will look – I do not believe anyone can – but I firmly believe that the only prospect for peace is the successful negotiation of a two-state solution.

The first step in that road ahead is to set the stage for resuming the peace process through direct negotiations.

Progress is never made unless people are prepared to sit down and talk to each other. This is no small thing. It means building confidence on both sides, offering some signs of good faith, and then proceeding to talks when conditions permit them to be constructive. Again, this is not easy, but that is the direction we’ve got to go.

 

[spineduke]

Reading this today made me commit to getting the fuck out of the region in the near future. I'm so sick of American foreign policy. It's just an endlessly repeating joke.

 

[Alo0oy]

Meanwhile, Sanders as Jewish has a pretty wonderful speech promoting peace and advocating both sides.

He still said supporting BDS was "antisemitic". His position on the issue is better than the other candidates, he acknowledged that Palestinians are human beings, but that's a terribly low standard and shouldn't be praised, it should be common sense.

 

[benjipwns]

He still said supporting BDS was "antisemitic".

No, he said in response to "Do you think linking BDS to anti-semitism is fair?":

I do think there's some of that.

Which is kinda an obvious statement.

 

[Alo0oy]

No, he said in response to "Do you think linking BDS to anti-semitism is fair?":

Which is kinda an obvious statement.

Sorry, I didn't mean to misinterpret what he said, I read that from a Journalist on twitter. I'm actually surprised a "mainstream candidate" showed support for BDS.

 

[Walpurgis]

Eurgh. Disappointing but not surprising. Hillary is status quo in almost every regard, as long as it's politically sound for her of course. Depressing that she's the one who's likely going to be president when America actually had a fair chance to vote someone anti establishment and properly left wing.

Agreed. She's basically more of the same. Actually, this statement sounds like she's be worse than Obama. I hope it's just words.

Sigh. I wish Sanders won. Even if he's pro-Israel, his comments and past protests on US foreign policy during the cold war makes him a million times more trustworthy than Clinton.

 

[spineduke]

Agreed. She's basically more of the same. Actually, this statement sounds like she's be worse than Obama. I hope it's just words.

Sigh. I wish Sanders won. Even if he's pro-Israel, his comments and past protests on US foreign policy during the cold war makes him a million times more trustworthy than Clinton.

Every quote and position I've seen her take suggests she will be worse than Obama. She might hold a more competent office, but that won't excuse the cackhanded decision making thats yet to come.

 

[Monocle]

I'd seriously prefer Trump if i was sure he would stop the aggressive foreign policy of the US. Killing thousands and ruining the life of millions isn't worth the well being of the american people or a stupid wall . I can't say how much i hate their foreign policy in words. Obama seemed to step it down a little but this read like a disaster

If you think Trump wouldn't ruin millions of lives, I don't know what to tell you. Treating all minorities as the enemy? Yeah, that'd end well.

Also, I'm having a hard time containing my laughter at the idea of an egomaniac like Trump, who can't stop barking about American exceptionalism, being our best hope of moderating US foreign policy.

Donald "We need to target terrorists' families" Trump: he's practically a pacifist!

 

[astroturfing]

i really don't understand how people justify supporting Israel pretty much unconditionally just because they are the most democratic country in the region.

like, so what? what the fuck does it matter how democratic a country is internally if their external behavior is catastrophically immoral?

 

[benjipwns]

Hillary Clinton goes full Neocon at AIPAC, Demonizes Iran, Palestinians

I once heard Hillary Clinton give her AIPAC speech at a university. It doesn’t change much, just as US policy toward the Mideast doesn’t change much. She was still a senator then. Much of the audience was Middle East experts, who could barely keep themselves from gagging.

Clinton used her speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee meeting, the gathering of some of the most powerful lobbyists in Washington, to lambaste Donald Trump for saying he’d try to be neutral in heading up negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Donald Trump should be lambasted. He is wrong on everything most of every day. But, like a clock, he is right twice a day and this a point on which he is correct. The US cannot be an honest broker in the Mideast conflict if it is more Israeli than the Israelis, which it typically is. Palestinian negotiators over the years complained that they’d get an Israeli proposal, then go to the US to tweak it, and get back the same proposal from Dennis Ross or some other American partisan of Israel who had been put in a position to shape negotiations on the American side.

For Clinton to imply that Trump, by saying he wanted to be neutral in negotiations, was indicating that he would compromise on Israeli security is just dishonest. I’m not sure what conventional security threats Israel has. Lebanon is weak and a mess. Syria is in complete disarray. Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties with Israel. Those are the immediate neighbors. Libya has fallen apart. Tunisia doesn’t care and anyway is also small and weak. Turkey and Israel have their tensions, but do a great deal of business, including military business, with each other. Iraq is in disarray. Iran is so distant as to pose no conventional threat, and does not have nuclear weapons, which Israel does. So what is the threat to Israeli security Clinton is talking about? It is that Palestinian children might not have to live under Occupation.

Another plank of her platform was combating people’s right to decline to buy Israeli-made goods, to decline to have their stocks in companies that enable the Occupation, and to seek sanctions on Israel for breaking the Geneva Conventions by illegally flooding its own citizens onto Palestinian lands. It is extremely ominous to have someone who is likely the next POTUS declare against Americans’ rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. I myself don’t agree with boycotting Israel proper, but I would have in good conscience to boycott squatter institutions on the West Bank. But it is absurd to interfere with other peoples’ decisions on whether to buy, e.g., wine made by Israeli squatters in Syria’s Golan.

Clinton has just joined the Republican field in pledging to squander and throw away the diplomatic opening President Obama made with Tehran (she denies, in fact, that there even is a diplomatic opening). She does support the UNSC nuclear deal, but says relations with Iran go no further than that. Since Trump says he just wants to tweak that deal, her position on Iran is probably more hawkish than his.

That is, many of the things Clinton is complaining about in the Middle East are the result of her policies (mostly the same as AIPAC policies). And when the West Bank explodes in hot civil war, that will be a result of her policies, too.

And of course among the most deadly extremists are the Israeli squatters on Palestinian land in the Palestinian West Bank. They are armed and dangerous, routinely shoot at innocent Palestinians in a low-intensity civil war, and routinely invade and usurp Palestinian property. They are building vast colonies from which Palestinian residents are excluded, in a mindless replication of the policies of White South Africa in the 1980s. And every time they shoot a Palestinian or steal her home, it is front page news in the Muslim world, and sentiments like those of Sec. Clinton are remembered, fanning hatred against the US. If the Israeli squatters were admirable people doing something admirable, then it would be worthwhile standing up for them even if it increased anti-US terrorism. But they are just criminals, openly breaking every tenet of international law. So standing up for them is morally wrong as well as, policy-wise, completely wrong-headed. In the US, the Israel lobbies do what they can to have anyone who is critical of the squatters blackballed, smeared and marginalized, using techniques redolent of those of cults.

Clinton has just announced a diction and a set of policies toward the Middle East that differ in no particular from those of far right Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

 

[DragonSworne]

This is why anything Hillary says regarding the Iraq war is BS. Her foreign policy is a mirror of the Bush administration.

 

[M.D]

To be fair to Hillary, in a place where some people believe Israel is the reason for all the evil in the world and is literally the worst country on earth, try to justify Hamas & Hezbollah and diminish any attack on Israel and straight up say that it's okay to kill settlers because "they are not civilians".... there's not much she could have said that would please everyone

 

[kame-sennin]

sorry Palestine, i feel for ya but i gotta worry about the people in danger in the US first.

Solidarity is for chumps, right?

 

[God Dayumm]

To be fair to Hillary, in a place where some people believe Israel is the reason for all the evil in the world and is literally the worst country on earth, try to justify Hamas & Hezbollah and diminish any attack on Israel and straight up say that it's okay to kill settlers because "they are not civilians".... there's not much she could have said that would please everyone

She could have kept quiet.

 

[phanphare]

The beacon of democracy in the middle east guys.

it's all relative

 

[rashbeep]

Why am I not surprised that any mention of Palestinians is almost immediately followed up with the word "terrorist".

Gross

 

[appaws]

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

Yep, its great. Paul and Buchanan laid a foundation for criticism of our bellicose bi-partisan agreement. Now the neocons have lost a lot of their sting. My suspicion is that over the next 20-30 years they will all migrate back to their more natural home with the Dems, trying to pull them in a neo-Wilsonian direction.

Or if Trump loses in a landslide, they may reinvigorate their power in the GOP going forward, saying "see, we told you so."

to those saying that its the lobbyists that make it so politicians need to support Israel, I assume its more the fact that Americans overwhelmingly support Israel over the Palestinians :

Chicken or egg. The elites constantly tell Americans how important it is to support Israel. People who hesitate or question are called anti-semites.

 

[ironcreed]

What else is new?

 

[Megalosaro]

Just lost my vote.

Sorry Hillary, but I can't stand a middle east policy that centers itself around a pro Israel stance. That is one of the reasons or relations in the region ate so fucked

 

[Protein]

Goodbye Iran