The natural gas is indeed a useful resource for the transition of the electricity generation and for the domestic transport. And of course as an export.
It is not very relevant for the international trade transport.
Any small open economy that is not a rare primary resource - the oil, the rare minerals, etc - exporter is very vulnerable to the economic sanctions. Losing or having the restricted access to the major high income markets indeed has a large potential to negatively impact the economy.
If there is any impact of the UN resolutions and actions, it will be in the enabling of the political action at the EU level, the restriction of the EU zone investment and the trade in the goods and services would not be nice for the Israeli economy. It is the political history, the German guilt, that holds back action, but the more the counter weight of the resolutions sponsored by developed nations - this one had a New Zealand sponsorship in the final proposition - and not by the fringe nations (like the Venezuela), the more the potential for this kind of action emerges.
It is of course more subtle than the Cowboy analysis about the toothless UN analysis from the Americans used to thinking in the unilateral terms. But it is a real danger - and of course the Israelis of all the tendencies are smart enough to understand this.
Armenian Law of Return
Chinese Law of Return
Estonian Law of Return
Finnish Law of Return
German Law of Return
Greek Law of Return
Irish Law of Return
Lithuanian Law of Return
Polish Law of Return
etc. etc. etc.
Getting back to your idea that 40 years of failure suggests trying something else, what makes you think us “having a plan” is such a good idea in the first place? Since when have we been successful in shaping things in the M.E. Maybe it’s time we let them so things out for themselves? Every problem in the world is not America’s problem.
"The US abstention from a recent vote against Israeli settlements at the UN Security Council topped the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s annual list released Tuesday of the 10 worst outbreaks of Jew-hatred and anti-Israel incidents.
“The most stunning 2016 UN attack on Israel was facilitated by President [Barack] Obama when the US abstained on a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel for settlement construction. It reversed decades-long US policy of vetoing such diplomatic moves against the Jewish State,” wrote the center."
If you would care to make an actual argument, rather than a list, I’ll be glad to read it. I did google the first item on the list, and found that it would be much easier and faster for me to become an Armenian citizen than it would for an Armenian to become a US citizen, so I’m not sure what your point is. If it is that I do not care about racism or theocracy in countries other than Israel, that is the opposite of what I said. In particular, I condemn the growing movement toward both in the US, and our asshole President-elect who is encouraging it.
Of course it is. What else can it mean when Israel insists that it is a Jewish state, and will fight to the death to remain so? The only question is, what is the proportion of racism to theocracy?
When using the term “Jewish,” it’s sometimes hard to know whether the religion, the ethnicity, or both are meant. In the context of a “Jewish State,” given the number of more or less non-religious Jews, I expect that ethnicity is more important than religion, so it’s probably mostly racist. But there are enough ultra-religious factions in Israel that theocracy can’t be completely ruled out.
Tell me, how do you interpret “Jewish state” to make it non-racist and non-theocratic?
[QUOTE=Ramira]
It is of course more subtle than the Cowboy analysis about the toothless UN analysis from the Americans used to thinking in the unilateral terms.
[/QUOTE]
You keep saying this, and obviously it’s aimed at me, but thus far you’ve provided fuck all to counter it except repeating the same tired horseshit. Want to try explaining why the UN isn’t toothless? Want to explain why when I’m talking about the UNSC you are putting that in terms or ‘Americans used to thinking in the unlateral terms’ comment? Want to try, I don’t know, actually engaging instead of tossing out sound bites?
Israel is able to do what it’s done for the exact same reasons China and Russia have been able to do what they want to do…because the only votes that matter are those cast by permanent members of the UNSC. The US has blocked attempts by the UN to censure Israel (mostly…we have allowed some to go through just like this latest) and certainly we have and would block attempts by the UN to impose things like sanctions or the like. That’s fact, not silly cowboy American thinking. It’s the same fucking fact that allows China to basically thumb it’s nose at the UN and international law wrt the South China Sea, and allows Russia to carve off chunks of the Ukraine or dynamically reintegrate formerly independent provinces back into the great Russian Federation, or allows countries like Syria to employ gas attacks and crimes against humanity on it’s own people…because any attempt by the UN to do anything would be instantly blocked by one faction or the other. Or do I have that wrong and am just a cowbow going YEHAW??? Please…enlighten me with your vastly more urbane and non-cowboyish American understanding of all this complicated world politics stuff you are so obviously an expert on.
I’m quite sure there is difference between “Jew-hatred” and being “anti-Israel.” Obama’s actions were neither, but while I suppose you could spin it to be anti-Israel, there no way to spin it as “Jew-Hatred.” Israel (and its supporters) need to either 1) consider why the rest of the world is condemning these acts, or 2) not give a shit and do what they want. Calling someone a “Jew hater” isn’t very productive (or honest)
I can think of one, although it’s threadbare, thin, sketchy, and weak: the settlements provide some extra level of military protection for Israel’s interior. It extends the range that rockets have to attain to strike at Tel Aviv or Jerusalem; it provides a tripwire defense against a conventional ground attack; it makes it (very slightly) harder for people to infiltrate wearing bomb-vests.
You may reject this as a justification, but at least, now, you can’t say that no one has ever offered you one.
Thanks Trinopus.
That’s at least an argument. At long last: an argument for settlement building in a settlement-building thread.
FWIW I don’t think it’s a correct argument, as i don’t agree with one of the promises, but that’s largely besides the point. I assume you don’t think the argument is correct either.
As I see it, the group of people pushing the settlements is actively destroying the Jewish state, and unfortunately, the US is helping and abetting this. Blocking resolutions regarding the future of the West Bank helps neither Israel, nor the Palestinians and certainly not the US.
And, by the way, a platoon of American soldiers in each one of the 4 or 5 areas like East Jerusalem will guarantee whatever status is to be decided for those areas. Is any Israeli crazy enough to attack even a single American?
Meh, that was 50 years ago, when there wasn’t a dependency relationship with the US. I am also certain that it was a mistake, it didn’t make any sense.
Now I’m curious how much one could devil’s advocate this argument. Is there a good poll for worldwide favorability towards Jews? It would probably be pretty ugly. I mean one of the points of Israel was so Jews could escape widespread pogroms and discrimination, no?
The Israeli establishment really needs to get over its siege bunker, survival-mode mentality where nearly anything, even a UN Security Council resolution consisting of criticism only, is viewed as an antisemitic attack that endangers Israel’s very existence. Again, since the Israeli government itself has not legally sanctioned or approved the settlement construction, it is the height of hypocrisy and double-speak for it to condemn the UNSC resolution as antisemitic and illegitimate.
The world didn’t end, but Jews were barred from access to their religious holy sites and rich historical sites, and every synagogue that had existed in East Jerusalem prior to 1948 was destroyed when the place was under Jordanian stewardship. There’s no way in heck that, even if Israel would agree to some form of division of Jerusalem, that they would be OK with the pre-1967 division line.