Arab-Israeli Conflict, v2: What the UN Jerusalem vote mean for Israel, the U.S, and Palestine

[Swing]

"our past decisions with regard...."

Not pissed at you but that annoys the shit out of me. IT WAS THE GODDAMN FRENCH AND ENGLISH THAT CARVED UP THE REGION AND MADE ISRAEL.

Fucking heckle those fuckers.

EDIT:
Yes, I know the US has been and was heavily involved but little things like Lebanon only exists cause France wanted a Coptic Christian nation in the area so they sliced it out of what is now Syria.

My knowledge on the subject isn't amazing or anything. There's a good chance you know more about it than me, but I'd say there's plenty of blame to go around and we should own a lot of it.

Most of the examples I can think of don't involve Israel directly, like the way we mismanaged Saddam from start to finish. And obviously this decision shouldn't be placed aside that one, but I think our overall track record over there warrants the criticism we're facing now.

 

[Rod1]

Israel's envoy Danon calls UN vote an 'Empty victory for Palestinians'
Jonathan Gratch | 12/21/2017

http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/inter...lls-un-vote-an-empty-victory-for-palestinians

Israel is playing a hard gamble in this one, the US hegemony may be at an end and normalizing what amounts to the "Taiwan" scenario where people will work with Taiwan but not acknowledge it overtly due to not wanting to piss of China may end up blowing up in their faces.

Obsession with Jerusalem from the part of Israel is pathetic if you ask me, i understand it from countries where religion dominates everything but Israel is a modern nation.

Tel Aviv is a much better city and that was built from the ground up as a modern city.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Allows America to borrow at a ridiculous low rate and keeps a large portion of your population free to pursue more profitable ventures.

Not to mention the geopolitical muscle that US sanctions carry as a result of such.

There is a reason why China wants to replace the dollar so badly.

Doesn't affect borrowing rate at all. Has no impact on the kinds of work Americans do. Provides no additional impact to sanctions.

But we're going around in circles here. What I'm asking for is not a restatement of the original idea but a kind of mechanical explanation. Draw me a logical chain from dollars being held in reserve to any of that stuff.

 

[BassAckwards]

looks like 128 countries can just go fuck themselves and stop asking for hand outs

 

[Rod1]

Doesn't affect borrowing rate at all. Has no impact on the kinds of work Americans do. Provides no additional impact to sanctions.

But we're going around in circles here. What I'm asking for is not a restatement of the original idea but a kind of mechanical explanation. Draw me a logical chain from dollars being held in reserve to any of that stuff.

US emits debt, a foreign international bank buys that debt which creates demand and lowers the interest rate at which the US can emit debt.

Most countries central banks dont actually have US dollars sitting around, they usually have US tresaury bonds.

The Mexican central bank has for example 84 billion dollars in US bonds and Mexico represents a tiny amount of the world's economy.

There are roughly 6 trillion US tresaury bonds held abroad.

 

[jimbob27]

looks like 128 countries can just go fuck themselves and stop asking for hand outs

Do you even give a shit where the Capital of Israel is? Does anyone in this thread?

 

[Stoic1]

Regardless, I think this is a great excuse to pocket about $200 Billion in foreign aid.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Its an affront to international law and the only international piece of body that has a shred of quasi-legitimacy, we are slowly but surely devolving back into a might makes right world, and with the rise of China as an authoritarian powerhouse, things could certainly look uglier in the future.

1. What international law does it transgress? Who legislated it?

2. It is far more important that the US government be bound by US law than it is for it to be bound by ephemeral international law.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Not only muslims, did you see the vote?

I was not commenting on the vote. Did you read the comment I was responding to?

Because the UN is a forum of nations to discuss things, and there are a lot of muslim nations who hate Israel and a lot of other nations who want international law to not become a total joke.

I agree that Muslim (and European) antisemitism is a driver of the UN's obsession with delegitimizing Israel. What international law prohibits putting embassies in Israel's capital?

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

It's always a matter of weighing things. And, personally, it's less about appeasing Muslims than it is about everyone else. Especially given how many of our past decisions with regard to the region have seemed ill-advised in hindsight.

Even more so since it's difficult to see what real benefit this will have for us. Yes, we should always consider our own interests and our own right to do things. But no, I don't think those should always outweigh what the rest of the world would like. A big reason I feel that way is because we like to stick in our nose in the business of other countries all the time. Fair is fair.

There's nothing radical about putting our embassy in the host country's capitol. The onus is on the rest of the world to explain why we shouldn't.

And again, your remark about weighing things is true, but it is also a two way street. If you are going to disrespect the US at the UN, then you'd better be sure you are choosing your battles well.

 

[Rod1]

1. What international law does it transgress? Who legislated it?

2. It is far more important that the US government be bound by US law than it is for it to be bound by ephemeral international law.

1.- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478

2.- These are not mutually exclusive. Its far more important for the US to be serious and stop acting like a child in order to win local elections.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Israel has always been the aggressor

This is historically untrue.

Israel was not the aggressor in the 1948 war nor in the 1973 war. They were the aggressor in the 1967 war.

 

[unimackpass]

Thanks for the informative post. I had to look up "dispensationalism", and now I'm less ignorant. Cheers!

I commend you for that. I find it challenging to understand the different aspects of Islam and would rather just use big crayons and be happy. Reading the house of Saud was quite interesting.
To be truthful I have a difficult time discussing dispensationalism with people that believe in it because they are so convinced. even though they are fine people it’s clouded their perspective on certain aspects in life. Many are some of the most honest people I know that give until it hurts without fanfare, true salt of the earth people.
The two biggest funerals in Homer were for longtime evangelicals that fulfilled their calling to be deeply and fully human. It was both because of and inspite of their evangelicalism. They focused more on the sermon on the mount than politics. They were to involved with helping out people and spending time with their family to get involved with fringe issues. It can be truly said that their legacy lives through their children and grandchildren every day.
Looking into all this led me to Orthodox Christianity but this isn’t a either or scenario by any means.
People that grew up in dispensationalism and left think they understand Christianity but it’s only a truncated version.
As we know everyone that voted for trump isn’t a alt-right or for Hillary a libtard but life is much more simple for those that cling to such notions.

 

[o'dubhlaoich]

Ww3

Iran, russia ,China

Vs

USA, Israel , Saudi’s

We wouldnt even need the help of Israel and the Saudi.

 

[Jack V Savage]

US emits debt, a foreign international bank buys that debt which creates demand and lowers the interest rate at which the US can emit debt.

Most countries central banks dont actually have US dollars sitting around, they usually have US tresaury bonds.

The Mexican central bank has for example 84 billion dollars in US bonds and Mexico represents a tiny amount of the world's economy.

There are roughly 6 trillion US tresaury bonds held abroad.

I think you're confusing two different things. Reserve currency is held for the purposes of making exchanges (so lots of countries convert to dollars to trade with other countries, which is just done because everyone has dollars). The impact of that is very small (reduced transaction costs and some impact related to dollars being used in black markets). Separately, other countries buy our debt for different reasons, which would affect demand for debt and theoretically interest rates (though note that we don't appear to have a noticeable advantage over other developed countries that control their own currency there). Seems to me that if there's an impact there, it's too small to notice (compare interest rates around the world).

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

1.- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478

2.- These are not mutually exclusive. Its far more important for the US to be serious and stop acting like a child in order to win local elections.

That resolution was considered non-binding by the US, the most important member of the Security Council that passed it, at the time of its passage. Why would it be binding now?

There's nothing childish about putting our embassy in a nation's capitol. It isn't illegal or reckless. It's normal, and we do the same for every other nation.

 

[jimbob27]

1. What international law does it transgress? Who legislated it?

2. It is far more important that the US government be bound by US law than it is for it to be bound by ephemeral international law.

Israel's occupation of territories, and then declaring those territories to be part of their capital city is in breach of all sorts of international laws, mostly the 4th Geneva convention, legislated by 196 different countries, including the US and Israel.

 

[Rod1]

There's nothing radical about putting our embassy in the host country's capitol. The onus is on the rest of the world to explain why we shouldn't.

Because the US abstained to veto the resolution which led to Jerusalem not being recognized as the international capital

I agree that Muslim (and European) antisemitism is a driver of the UN's obsession with delegitimizing Israel. What international law prohibits putting embassies in Israel's capital?

So the only non-antisemtic nations are Honduras, some Islands on the pacific and the US? If you dont want to have a serious discussion just say it.

Resolution 478 of the UNSC btw.

 

[Rod1]

That resolution was considered non-binding by the US, the most important member of the Security Council that passed it, at the time of its passage. Why would it be binding now?

There's nothing childish about putting our embassy in a nation's capitol. It isn't illegal or reckless. It's normal, and we do the same for every other nation.

1.- You asked what international law was the US breaking i pointed that out. The fact that the US can get away with it doesnt changes that fact.

2.- It is childish to go against customary international law over local politics.

 

[HomerThompson]

This is historically untrue.

Israel was not the aggressor in the 1948 war nor in the 1973 war. They were the aggressor in the 1967 war.

They were absolutely the aggressor from the beginning when they were appropriating as much land as possible, and bombing hotels. Then, they massacred Palestinians and drove them out of their villages. They stole vast amounts on land in 1948, and the partition was a joke. Then, they started the 1967 war which led to UNSCR 242, which has still yet to be implemented.

The offer at camp David was garbage, and created 5 Bantustans for Palestine, leaving Israel in complete control of their territory.

If Iran was right next to Israel, and treated the Israelis how they treat the Palestinians, we would have invaded and overthrown their government long ago.

It is an affront to human dignity, and international law that Israel gets away with what it does.