LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   General (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/)
-   -   USA Politics = Navel Gazing? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/usa-politics-%3D-navel-gazing-4175619428/)

ondoho 12-12-2017 01:30 AM

USA Politics = Navel Gazing?
 
Six days ago, D. Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

There's an outrage across the World about how stupid a thing to do that was.
Mind, not an outrage by Islamists, no, by virtually ALL governments across Europe (*), and virtually ALL newspapers across the political spectrum.

I think D. Trump only thought about his country, his promises, how to keep his voters and hopefully win the next election.
Because from no other point of view would this make any sense.
It betrays a blatant lack of knowledge of the situation in the Middle East.

I tried to catch up on some American news radio, and was appalled that the issue was mentioned, but only for 10 seconds, followed by a 30 minute article about Alabama.

All in all, this isn't the first time I get the impression that American( politic)s only perceive the rest of the world when it has an impact on America.

(*) I say Europe because I've been listening to european radio. I can only surmise that this applies for most countries all over the world.

hazel 12-12-2017 01:48 AM

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel! It's where the parliament sits, where the president lives, where all the government offices are, where the whole country is administered from. Therefore by definition it's the capital and has been for fifty years. Now you may not like Israel and you may not think that it ought to have Jerusalem as its capital, but simply pretending that you can change facts by not recognising them is childish.

When I was growing up, America didn't recognise China. That is to say, they recognised a country called China but that country was just a small island off the coast of a much larger country that officially didn't exist. The rest of the world thought that this was too silly for words and eventually America came round.

The difference now is that everyone seems to be playing the same silly game. Draw any politician's attention to some published fact that he doesn't like and he will simply parrot the words "I don't recognise those figures." Like Nelson putting his telescope to his blind eye, they think that not recognising something makes it go away. The palestinians have fought three wars against Israel and lost them all, but it doesn't apparently matter because they have all agreed not to recognise the facts they are stuck with. And the rest of the world has colluded with them.

Trump is like the little boy in the story who shouted, "The emperor is naked!" because he was too stupid to understand what he was supposed to be seeing.

ondoho 12-12-2017 02:05 AM

^ please don't put words/opinions in my mouth.
this has nothing to do with whether i'm pro or contra israel.
even in israel, people shake their heads about what Trump did there.
He is the Elephant in the china shop here and not little at all.

The decision to recognize Jerusalem as capital of Israel has been drafted decades ago, but MANY former American presidents did not sign it in their wisdom.

Anyhow i was refering (thread title) to a bigger picture here.
but of course people all over the world will get hot and bothered about the middle east situation.

RadicalDreamer 12-12-2017 02:26 AM

ondoho, meet AIPAC. https://www.aipac.org/

The US is a hegemon/empire. It lost its soul & is no longer the ruler of its own spirit (as US propaganda exemplifies) just as President John Quincy Adams warned:
Quote:

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...rs-to-destroy/

I hope the Palestinians ditch American negotiations since it probably will bring more enmity to the United States. The Palestinians lost against the Israelis but this issue radicalizes people against the West. It is in the security interest of the rest of the world that a two state solution along the Green Line is implemented or something that the Muslim world will recognize as fair.

Former Head of the CIA's Bin Laden vs US Congress on American foreign policy: https://youtu.be/XHl1JnQoIWQ

hazel 12-12-2017 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadicalDreamer (Post 5792222)
The Palestinians lost against the Israelis but this issue radicalizes people against the West. It is in the security interest of the rest of the world that a two state solution along the Green Line is implemented or something that the Muslim world will recognize as fair.

Yes, that would be very nice for the rest of the world, but let's face it: it isn't going to happen. After the seven-day war, Israel offered to trade land for peace, but the Arabs wouldn't play. They wanted the captured territories back for free or not at all. And a two-state solution of sorts was tried after Camp David and hasn't worked either. Maybe Rabin could have made it work, I don't know, but his assassination torpedoed the whole thing, probably for good.

What you are really suggesting is that the interests of Israel be sacrificed because the rest of the world will be safer if the Muslims get something that they recognise as fair. It doesn't have to be recognised as fair by the Jews. From a pragmatic point of view, you may be quite right. And the world may well decide that it's a price worth paying to get islamic terrorism off their backs. You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if (as a Jew with relatives out there) I don't find the prospect very appealing. In any case, it doesn't alter my main point: that not recognising the facts on the ground doesn't get you anywhere, not even when the whole world agrees to do it together.

jsbjsb001 12-12-2017 03:43 AM

You know, I was trying to ban myself from making any posts in General forum for a while, but while I think it's fair to say that myself and ondoho have had a few run-ins here, I do actually agree 100% with him here.

And I don't think that it is "Navel Gazing" to be concerned about what America has done here. And more to the point, the implications this decision has for the rest of the world. As, this decision DOES mean something for the rest of the world. (and affects the rest of the world)

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazel (Post 5792219)
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel! It's where the parliament sits, where the president lives, where all the government offices are, where the whole country is administered from. Therefore by definition it's the capital and has been for fifty years. Now you may not like Israel and you may not think that it ought to have Jerusalem as its capital, but simply pretending that you can change facts by not recognising them is childish.
...

I'm sorry Hazel, while I have a lot of respect for yourself and the knowledge you bring to this place...

Just because it's Israel's capital "by definition" does not mean that Israel has a right or right's to it.
Let's look at the real history:

Before Israel was Israel, it WAS Palestine. Israel was created by the Balfour Declaration during World War 1.

I like the following part of the same agreement:

Quote:

...it being clearly understood that, nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities of Palestine,...
Israel continues to seize land and build settlements and expand existing ones. How can they do that when they still have no peace agreement in place?

This IS illegal under International law Hazel! Israel does not even recognize this. They blockade Gaza and the West bank, they have military, police, and intelligence agency's. What does Palestine have in this regard? Well, not much at all!

If your a Palestinian, you have to get permission from Israel to leave your own country! Would you like it if you had to get permission from Ireland, just to go across the channel there? I doubt it.

Sorry Hazel, but your argument sounds a little one sided to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement

Well, too bad if your a Palestinian!

RadicalDreamer 12-12-2017 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazel (Post 5792223)
Yes, that would be very nice for the rest of the world, but let's face it: it isn't going to happen. After the seven-day war, Israel offered to trade land for peace, but the Arabs wouldn't play. They wanted the captured territories back for free or not at all. And a two-state solution of sorts was tried after Camp David and hasn't worked either. Maybe Rabin could have made it work, I don't know, but his assassination torpedoed the whole thing, probably for good.

What you are really suggesting is that the interests of Israel be sacrificed because the rest of the world will be safer if the Muslims get something that they recognise as fair. It doesn't have to be recognised as fair by the Jews. From a pragmatic point of view, you may be quite right. And the world may well decide that it's a price worth paying to get islamic terrorism off their backs. You'll forgive me, I'm sure, if (as a Jew with relatives out there) I don't find the prospect very appealing. In any case, it doesn't alter my main point: that not recognising the facts on the ground doesn't get you anywhere, not even when the whole world agrees to do it together.

If I had it my way (if there was no choice not to meddle), something would be worked out with a mixture of land swaps and removal of settlements. The UN or NATO would disarm the Palestinians and maintain a permanent security presence in the Palestinian state with the intention of preventing anymore attacks between the sides.

I agree the Arabs lost the war. If they were all in a small sliver of land this wouldn't be the issue that it is. I doubt the rest of the world is going to do anything. If it was going to do anything it should have done it years ago. Iran will support Hamas and Hezbollah. Al Qaeda or ISIS might attack Israel someday. The world has options like the BDS movement but I doubt that will work because the world's history with antisemitism. The West isn't going to invade and impose its will either.

What Trump did though was rattle the Muslim world. That was his crime. The rest of the world knows to say they support the two state solution and do nothing but talk about negotiations. They need to be seen as doing something rather than actually do something.

Another big issue is US support for Israel which severely affects the US. The US provides foreign aid to Israel and Israel is forced to buy American weapons with it. US support for Israel leads to the US being blamed for Israel's actions. US aggression towards other countries in the region has been argued to be done on Israel's behalf. This leads to trouble for the US, and who were the architects of the Iraq war in 2003? The Neoconservatives and they are very strong advocates of Israeli interest. Ariel Sharon wasn't too keen on the war with Iraq but Neoconservative aggression is seen as aggression on Israel's behalf. Israel isn't at peace with the rest of the Muslim world and is developing enmity with other parts of the world because US policy in the Middle East is seen as being done on Israel's behalf. Trump did not re-certify the Iran deal which most of the rest of the world liked except for Netanyahu. If the US goes to war with Iran it will be seen as a war for Israel even though other Middle East countries would be in favor of it. I would very much like the US to get out of the Middle East. The greatest security threat to the US is its debt and it has spent trillions in the Middle East with no end in sight. Israel looks out for its perceived security interest but the US doesn't seem to. I think an amicable peace between Israel and the Muslim world is in everyone's interest. Israel may take all of the Palestinian territories it wants but it will have the enmity of much of the world too. The US is going to go broke sometime and can't be relied on forever.

hazel 12-12-2017 06:21 AM

Fair enough. But you put your finger on the problem when you said that a real solution would require the Palestinians to disarm and give up terrorism. They won't do that and you know it. And the trouble with asking the UN to police it is that UN troops always run away when push comes to shove, just like they did in 1967. Or in Kosovo in 1998.

Note to jsb: I don't want to start a feud with you, but the truth is that there never was a country called Palestine. The word has only ever been used to denote a province in somebody else's empire: Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, and finally British. Whenever the country has been independent and self-ruling, it has been called either Israel or Judah/Judea. Given that there are no more Canaanites, the Jews are the earliest inhabitants of the area still left alive.

But I doubt if this problem can ever be solved by appealing to history. The solution used everywhere else in the world (England, the US, South America) is that when people have taken land and held it for a few generations, it's theirs. Why should there be different rules in the Levant?

syg00 12-12-2017 06:51 AM

Americans (still) seem to think they are the most important influence on the way things are shaped in the world.

Time to wake up.

RadicalDreamer 12-12-2017 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazel (Post 5792273)
Fair enough. But you put your finger on the problem when you said that a real solution would require the Palestinians to disarm and give up terrorism. They won't do that and you know it. And the trouble with asking the UN to police it is that UN troops always run away when push comes to shove, just like they did in 1967. Or in Kosovo in 1998.

Yes, the Palestinians would have to disarm and give up terrorism. Okay the UN is out but how about NATO? Abbas has invited NATO in to the future Palestinian state: "Six months into peace talks dominated by discussion about security, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority has proposed to Secretary of State John Kerry that an American-led NATO force patrol a future Palestinian state indefinitely, with troops positioned throughout the territory, at all crossings, and within Jerusalem."
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/w...ure-state.html

The problem is that Israel and Hamas have said that they don't want to give up military control of Palestinian territory. Israel wants the US to fight Iran because it backs the Palestinians. I think it would be easier to accept Abbas's offer and forcibly disarm groups like Hamas if necessary. The US doesn't like to give up military bases so it would remain in the Palestinian territories as long as it can project power that far.

Quote:

But I doubt if this problem can ever be solved by appealing to history. The solution used everywhere else in the world (England, the US, South America) is that when people have taken land and held it for a few generations, it's theirs. Why should there be different rules in the Levant?
I think part of the reason Israel is treated differently is because it was created by the League of Nations/UN. The UN decides what constitutes as legal and illegal. It is strange that a bunch of thugs, kleptocrats, and autocrats decide whats legal and illegal on the world's stage but that is the way it is.

For the United States I would say that The US gives aid to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, so some of Israel's primacy and Palestinian basic subsistence is paid for by the United States. It should have some say since its paying for it.

RadicalDreamer 12-12-2017 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syg00 (Post 5792278)
Americans (still) seem to think they are the most important influence on the way things are shaped in the world.

Time to wake up.

I wish they would wake up. I blame the Fake News.

sundialsvcs 12-12-2017 07:54 AM

The Jordan River is, at best, a stream in the middle of a desert, in an otherwise fairly-nondescript country on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. However, perhaps due in part to very extensive involvement in the banking industry, one also fairly-nondescript group of people have sought to make it the most important thing on the Planet. (And, by and large, they have succeeded.)

"Peace in the Middle East?" Clue 'ya. Read your Bible. Is this the chronology of a people who were "peaceful" and who "played well with others?" Not exactly. (Read, for example, what was said about them in the book of Ezra.)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ezra 4:14-15:
To King Artaxerxes, From your servants in Trans-Euphrates: [...] We are sending this message to inform the king, so that a search may be made in the archives of your predecessors. In these records you will find that this city is a rebellious city, troublesome to kings and provinces, a place with a long history of sedition. That is why this city was destroyed.

The "Books of the Kings" that occupy the center of the Old Testament are the story of "conquer" and "be conquered." (If they "obeyed God," they kicked butt. If they "sinned," they had their butts kicked. Notice also that their conquerors always dispersed them.) The original Kingdom divided at one point against itself. And, so on. It arrived where it was by conquering everyone else who was there, although geographically speaking they didn't pick a very rich place. Nevertheless, they amassed vast wealth: verses routinely describe tons of gold and silver, treating it all as a perfectly ordinary thing.

The ongoing fight between the Israelis and the Palestinians is, first of all, "a family feud." Second, it is something that gives both groups identity and (self-)importance. It drags no less than The United States of America into the middle of their conflict, and keeps it there. And so, it will never end, at least until one hot-head throws a nuclear missile at the other and the two of them turn their homeland back into Sodom and Gomorrah, and they all become pillars of salt. There will never be "Peace in the Middle East." Conflict is really what they want, along with dangling the prospect of "Peace negotiations" in front of other countries which they wish to manipulate. In doing so, they always bend the "rules of engagement" to their own ends.

The USA decides to move its embassy, and therefore the entire world is about to melt into a puddle of slag. Nothing else in the world(!) is more important than whether that embassy is located in one desert city versus another desert city. At least, if you hear them tell the tale ...

This sort of attitude is quite alien to many other nations of the world – including, I think, the USA – but not to the peoples who come from this region. In fact, in the Revelation of St. John we read where "all the nations of the world" are drawn – presumably, "whether they like it or not" – to a climactic battle on the Plain of Megiddo, where (human) blood is to run in rivers as high as a horse's bridle. (Naturally, the bloodthirsty Jewish God wins.) This is not a tale that is woven by, nor about, a peace-loving people.

And of course I think you understand that I am not being racist. But there really are people who are determined to make "a few acres on the west bank of a little stream" the most-important thing on Planet Earth, about which all other concerns shall be made to revolve. And, as I said, "so far, they have succeeded."

jsbjsb001 12-12-2017 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazel (Post 5792273)
...

Note to jsb: I don't want to start a feud with you, but the truth is that there never was a country called Palestine. The word has only ever been used to denote a province in somebody else's empire: Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, and finally British. Whenever the country has been independent and self-ruling, it has been called either Israel or Judah/Judea. Given that there are no more Canaanites, the Jews are the earliest inhabitants of the area still left alive.

But I doubt if this problem can ever be solved by appealing to history. The solution used everywhere else in the world (England, the US, South America) is that when people have taken land and held it for a few generations, it's theirs. Why should there be different rules in the Levant?

Neither do I Hazel. And have no intention of doing that either. :)

I only quoted you because what you were saying was relevant to the point I was making, I was not trying to start an argument with you. But, moving on...

While I can understand where your coming from with "The word has only ever been used to denote a province in somebody else's empire...", I could only agree in part;

When your talking about empire's, people didn't get a choice about which "empire" they were under (unless maybe they lived in Britain itself), it was made for them, without any input from them. Particularly when your talking about empires like the British one.

The UN general assembly voted to make Palestine a state and in many respects, it does function much like a state would. It just doesn't have certain government agency's you would find in the UK and elsewhere.

But once again, moving on...

I think that RadicalDreamer is correct in terms of the "final" solution, in that a UN/NATO force would have to police any deal and be stationed on or near the final border. WITH the right to take action if there any any breaches of the peace.

hazel 12-12-2017 08:21 AM

And so round and round! This thread is pointless, because there is no solution except to let the two sides fight it out. When outsiders intervene, they invariably end up by making it worse -- and that goes for the UN as well! And yes, Sundial, it is a family quarrel, aptly symbolised by the story of Abraham and his two sons.

sundialsvcs 12-12-2017 11:13 AM

... and quite frankly it does not justify the attention that it very-continually gets.

"If some tribe of belligerent desert bedouins(!) invaded and seized a few miles of 'territory' from another tribe of their kinfolk(!!)," why is this more-important on the world's stage than, say, "nuclear missiles in the hands of a psychopath?"

"Why is it necessary for anyone else on this planet – anywhere else at all – to be involved in this insignificant(!!!) squabble?"

How does The United States of America anyone imagine that it is "their über-distracting duty" to negotiate a "peace" between family-members who very obviously don't want it? (If they did, they would have found a way to accomplish it long before now, and without any sort of outside help. And if they don't, they never will.)

As a friend of mine likes to quip: "Not my circus. Not my monkeys."

If <group-X> wants their precious territory back, there's one conventional way to do it: "start another War." Then, having "won" (sic), spend the next several weeks burying the bodies of the thousands of people that you just murdered in your quest for a few acres of desert land. (Knowing, of course, that soon enough <group-Y> will turn around and do the same thing. And that this cycle will continue until it dawns upon one or both of these groups that they are merely killing their own brothers and sisters for no good reason at all.

("Clue ya ..." If the original 'War' took about one week to complete, it never was much of a war to begin with.)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:14 PM.