I whole-heartedly concur with Bricker. I have to go lie down for a while, now.
That’s the same Bricker who told us he actually voted for Trump before asking for a new ballot. So, credit where due, but not where it isn’t.
There are, of course, many more who went through with it and are now in denial.
I oppose the settlements too. If Obama wanted to change our foreign policy in that regard that would be fine. Instead, he took the coward’s way out.
Bullshit. Abstaining is a real tactic. If all you’re saying is that there may have been political considerations, well fine, water is wet. But “coward’s way out” is just simplistic nonsense, borne by your personal issue with the man. It’s not serious analysis.
You don’t see the nuance between voting to support and not vetoing? It’s kind of like “you’re wrong and what you’re doing is illegal” and “I can’t say they’re wrong to say you’re wrong and doing something illegal.” If Bush had done the same thing, you’d sing the praises of his deftness.
And it was obviously the coward’s way out because nobody is giving him any flak over it.
ElvisL1ves:
Of course. What good will any “solution” be if some representative body of the Palestinians don’t sign on the dotted line? At best, you end up with another Gaza - which the Israelis certainly don’t want.
Any action taken would have drawn your scorn.
True, but that’s about what *should *be the case.
I was questioning your claim about what is the case: “an even greater number of Jews, both Israeli and American, want Israeli-Palestinian policy to be an internal matter decided by Israelis and Palestinians.” I don’t think the evidence supports that statement.
ElvisL1ves:
What, you think most Jews want a unilateral Israeli “solution” like Gaza? Or are you suggesting that most Jews want Israel to ethnically cleanse and annex the territory?
I voted for Obama twice and I generally have a positive view of his presidency. But this abstention vote is pointless symbolism, and it’s pretty fucking cowardly considering he had 8 years to stand up and deliver a strong rebuke of Israel. I could respect Obama if he had truly stood up and told Netanyahu to lick his balls much earlier than now, but I don’t respect him for doing this as a parting shot.
Obama’s foreign policy has been his blind spot. I get the fact that he inherited a colossal mess that would have challenged even the most skillful foreign policy president but his legacy will be that he talked more than he acted. He talked about “red lines” and he encouraged an Arab Spring that would usher in a new wave of democracy. But in the end, he did nothing substantive to bring about change in the Middle East. He talked tough with Putin but still supported a Pentagon / State Dept. status quo while trying to find peace with Putin. In short, Obama’s toughest adversaries were always a chess move or two ahead of him. He’s left with symbolism and rhetoric. This last measure with Israel is just a way for him to claim moral high ground without ever having laid down the ground work for accomplishing shit.
Just like Dubya, Obama had his fair share of Israeli-Palestinians peace talks and attempted peace talks. But Netanyahu has been the PM of Israel for virtually the entirety of Obama’s presidency and he has proven to be a leader particularly uninterested in making compromises and not particularly trusting of the U.S. (much preferring Republicans starting at least in 2012 with Romney). Given the increased security commitments that Obama has given Israel to try and encourage them not only to trust the U.S. but also to go back to negotiating, it is very unclear what more Obama (or Dubya) could have done to resolve this multi-decade mess.
The Russia “reset” was naive in the extreme, but since Putin was no longer president of Russia at the time, Obama and Hillary seemed to put all their hopes that the conventional wisdom that Medvedev was Putin’s puppet was wrong. As this was before Ukraine, Crimea, and Syria, Russia’s cooperation was seen as crucial in trying to work out something on North Korea and some kind of Iran deal to head off a war. It certainly doesn’t make them right, but this makes it slightly more understandable in retrospect.
My understanding was that Netanyahu wanted the US to VETO, not vote against. With our abstention, the vote passed 14-0. Vetoing the resolution would have been the only way to please the Beebster.
I love you like a brother, but are you saying that the UN – a body representing the entire world, and hopefully not a bunch of anti-Semitic cranks – hates Israel? And not that they just expect Israel to respect international law?
When Obama’s gone and you don’t have an outlet for all that hate and bile, you’re gonna blow up real good. Your only hope is to make orange the new black.
In that case every president in the last few decades “took the coward’s way out”, including the exalted Saint Reagan (blessed be His name). Over here I cited random examples of about 15 resolutions against Israel in which the US abstained, and another ten where the US supported the resolution. You’re just not making any sense and seem to be infected with the Obama-hate virus that impairs rational thinking.
Also, Bibi has been acting extra-dickish lately because Bamz in on his way out, and the Short-Fingered Vulgrian is one his way in.
And Trump could give less of a shit about the future of Israel, so he’ll do whatever Sheldon Adelson commands, as long as the checks keep coming in.
I think most *Israelis *(not the same thing as Jews, please) voted for Netanyahu and his policies - and that is indeed what those policies are and the end they lead to.
Do you have a different conclusion you can present to us?
ElvisL1ves:
First of all, I know that Israelis is not synonymous with Jews, but the portion of the thread that our messages have been following were about the opinions of both American Jews and Israelis.
Second of all, Israel has a parliamentary system. Netanyahu’s Likud did not win a majority of votes, it won a plurality, and put together a majority coalition, not all of which necessarily agrees with everything he does.
Finally, I certainly do not think that Bibi would ever consider a Gaza-style unilateral pullout of the West Bank, given how troublesome Gaza has become, and I certainly don’t think either he or most Israelis want to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians out of the West Bank. What they want is a peace treaty with an entity they feel is willing and capable of enforcing its end of the treaty, and on terms that a) leave Israel in sovereign control of the entirety of Jerusalem, b) allow access to and protection for Jewish holy/historical sites in the West Bank, such as Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, c) does not give several million non-Jews some sort of automatic right to land claims within Israel proper. It’s really that simple to say, but obviously, not at all simple to obtain.
No they wouldn’t.
Ukulele Ike:
Absolutely. The UN has been harsher on Israel - a democratic, free-press, free-religion country - than on any other member state in its history, including the worst, most totalitarian, oppressive regimes. The UN Human Rights Commission regularly counts such regimes among its member countries and constantly maintains an open agenda item to criticize Israel. UNESCO absurdly refuses to acknowledge any Jewish historical link to holy sites in Jerusalem, referring to them only by their Arabic names. While Israel is not perfect, there is no way that Israel deserves the kind of treatment it has gotten from the UN (of which there would be even more if not for the United States frequent veto).
There’s a saying, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch.” With dozens of Arab/Muslim member states and one Jewish state, that pretty much sums up the UN’s behavior toward Israel pretty accurately.