Political capital as an idea, a sort of fiction used as an attempt to simplify a broad network of systems at play in regards to the interplay of executive, legislative and voting populace in achieving policy
Unfortunately we then take that fiction an treat it like a discreet thing that can be spent instead of realizing you’re dealing with something much much more complex and malleable and seemingly full of contradiction.
The reason we talk about the GOP not giving a fuck about political capital is because they have a much firmer grasp on how to actually manipulate it, to effectively “produce” more capital, while Democrats and technocratic wonks think of it as a finite resource you can only push so far or expend but so much of before you run out.
This is because GOP voters actively look for reasons to vote for the GOP, and Dem voters actively look for reasons to not show up and thereby prove their moral purity
Would be truly wild if China started giving aid to Israel with no regard for its own internal politics or Israel's crimes.
This is an overly reductive take that, while cute, ignores that the US has pretty explicitly bent or ignored Israeli desires on some things.
I have zero doubt that Netanyahu was demanding outright war with Iran to destroy their nuclear program. Instead we smacked them with Stuxnet and signed a non-proliferation treaty.
The literal history of the United States from the 20th century onward has LITERALLY been strong arming the other nations of the world into accepting our vision of it through a mix of military and diplomatic and economic powers
We are the remaining super power on this planet and the primary hegemon. I am utterly baffled that we keep swerving back to this “well there’s nothing the US can really do, we just don’t have the kind of pull necessary to change the world” mindset and it feels like a baffling kind of self serving hand washing regarding avoiding the complicated yet necessary work of using out standing in the world to improve it rather than just continue a status quo that is literally destroying lives
What you are missing, Lanz, is that the world is not static and that there are now other powers that, while unable to throw around the total fuck-you we are capable of, can easily fill in comparatively small gaps like the Israeli arms budget.
China used to be a nuclear-armed backwater unable to feed its own people, they weren't exactly going to be able to replace whatever foreign aid the US decided to cut off. Now they can, and the hell of it is that because they're an authoritarian hellhole they can be relied on to keep doing it in a way that no democratic nation can. China will turn a blind eye to outright Israeli genocide of Palestinians because, firstly, they don't really care, and secondly, China is guilty of genocide too.
Or we can try to keep some sort of hand on the tiller. I'll take that option, even if it leaves us dirty.
What hand on what tiller? What are you stopping the Israelis from doing that they otherwise wouldn't? They are already getting what they want from you, a blind eye, a bunch of money and a UN veto
Instead of out right invading Iran we instead commiteed a flagrant act of war and then killed a ton of their people with sanctions. And this was with the nice liberal administration.
i have worked in politicians' offices and i do not think that "political capital" is a helpful concept
Political capital as some kind of measurable, appreciable thing isn't particularly useful. If anything it just means "you have the clout and/or leadership on an issue and can push that through"
The literal history of the United States from the 20th century onward has LITERALLY been strong arming the other nations of the world into accepting our vision of it through a mix of military and diplomatic and economic powers
We are the remaining super power on this planet and the primary hegemon. I am utterly baffled that we keep swerving back to this “well there’s nothing the US can really do, we just don’t have the kind of pull necessary to change the world” mindset and it feels like a baffling kind of self serving hand washing regarding avoiding the complicated yet necessary work of using out standing in the world to improve it rather than just continue a status quo that is literally destroying lives
What you are missing, Lanz, is that the world is not static and that there are now other powers that, while unable to throw around the total fuck-you we are capable of, can easily fill in comparatively small gaps like the Israeli arms budget.
China used to be a nuclear-armed backwater unable to feed its own people, they weren't exactly going to be able to replace whatever foreign aid the US decided to cut off. Now they can, and the hell of it is that because they're an authoritarian hellhole they can be relied on to keep doing it in a way that no democratic nation can. China will turn a blind eye to outright Israeli genocide of Palestinians because, firstly, they don't really care, and secondly, China is guilty of genocide too.
Or we can try to keep some sort of hand on the tiller. I'll take that option, even if it leaves us dirty.
What hand on what tiller? What are you stopping the Israelis from doing that they otherwise wouldn't? They are already getting what they want from you, a blind eye, a bunch of money and a UN veto
Israel would very much like the US to be even more hostile with Iran.
The notion that Israel wants an actual shooting war with Iran is fairly dubious to me.
+1
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Generic political capital and parties are quite far off topic.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
have we considered the possibility that joe biden wants to keep the embassy in israel because he thinks it's a good idea, because he's a conservative
i mean he's got a long history of doing conservative things and supporting conservative political positions. maybe he does these things because he wants to do them, and not out of any electoral calculus
edit: you can just be a conservative, it's not a crime. there doesn't have to be some tortured justification for it
have we considered the possibility that joe biden wants to keep the embassy in israel because he thinks it's a good idea, because he's a conservative
i mean he's got a long history of doing conservative things and supporting conservative political positions. maybe he does these things because he wants to do them, and not out of any electoral calculus
have we considered the possibility that joe biden wants to keep the embassy in israel because he thinks it's a good idea, because he's a conservative
i mean he's got a long history of doing conservative things and supporting conservative political positions. maybe he does these things because he wants to do them, and not out of any electoral calculus
edit: you can just be a conservative, it's not a crime. there doesn't have to be some tortured justification for it
Your definition of conservative isn't a useful one in that case.
When I see political capital employed it is always in such a manner democrats cannot do something and in such a manner that Republicans can do something.
Trump moving the embassy is good political capital. Obama pushing the ACA bad political capital. These are ideas pushed by center to center left news orgs. They almost always seem to be influenced by how much money is behind an idea.
Well different political parties with different bases have different abilities to support different policies.
As an example of things Democrats can do but Republican's cannot is to work on anti-racism and pro-women initiatives. If Republicans do this they lose their base. Democrats don't trust them to do this anyway. They gain nothing and lose everything.
The difference here is that this is very much a situation where the Democratic party is split and there isn't much we can do about it in the short term. Well except for what Biden said he was going to do. Which was open up a US consulate in East Jerusalem specifically to benefit Palestinians.
What is happening here is that you're falling for that conservative media construction that you so decry. They reported that Biden wasn't going to move the embassy in big bold letters at the top and hid what he was actually going to do, which is a positive thing that is receiving negative press in Israel, down at the bottom of the article. The full context of the quotes is lost because controversy drives eyeballs and splitting democrats creates controversy.
Isreal hating Biden and the democrats is not going to stop the democrats from chasing that Isreal lobby money and that military contract money.
Obama was instructive of that lack of understanding. What happened to Omar was instructive of where we are now.
have we considered the possibility that joe biden wants to keep the embassy in israel because he thinks it's a good idea, because he's a conservative
i mean he's got a long history of doing conservative things and supporting conservative political positions. maybe he does these things because he wants to do them, and not out of any electoral calculus
Literally why Obama brought him on as VP.
Obama brought him on as VP because he was older and experienced and big into foreign policy, which were all areas where Obama was perceived as lacking. The idea that it's cause he was conservative is laughable on multiple levels.
Biden's take on this issue is, again, completely within the general US political consensus on Israeli relations. And considering he literally says moving the embassy in the first place was a bad move, the idea that he totally thinks it's a good idea is in direct opposition to his actual statements and so dubious at best.
+9
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
have we considered the possibility that joe biden wants to keep the embassy in israel because he thinks it's a good idea, because he's a conservative
i mean he's got a long history of doing conservative things and supporting conservative political positions. maybe he does these things because he wants to do them, and not out of any electoral calculus
Literally why Obama brought him on as VP.
Obama brought him on as VP because he was older and experienced and big into foreign policy, which were all areas where Obama was perceived as lacking. The idea that it's cause he was conservative is laughable on multiple levels.
Biden's take on this issue is, again, completely within the general US political consensus on Israeli relations. And considering he literally says moving the embassy in the first place was a bad move, the idea that he totally thinks it's a good idea is in direct opposition to his actual statements and so dubious at best.
have we considered the possibility that joe biden wants to keep the embassy in israel because he thinks it's a good idea, because he's a conservative
i mean he's got a long history of doing conservative things and supporting conservative political positions. maybe he does these things because he wants to do them, and not out of any electoral calculus
Literally why Obama brought him on as VP.
Obama brought him on as VP because he was older and experienced and big into foreign policy, which were all areas where Obama was perceived as lacking. The idea that it's cause he was conservative is laughable on multiple levels.
Biden's take on this issue is, again, completely within the general US political consensus on Israeli relations. And considering he literally says moving the embassy in the first place was a bad move, the idea that he totally thinks it's a good idea is in direct opposition to his actual statements and so dubious at best.
Okay.
"most conservative democrat" =/= a conservative, just for starters. The most liberal Republican is not liberal, just as an obvious comparison.
And secondly and to the actual point, the contention was that Obama brought him onboard as his VP because he was a conservative. Which is, again, entirely wrong from anything we know of on the selection process. He was chosen because he was older, experienced, had a lot of connections in DC and had extensive foreign policy experience. Basically all the things Obama was perceived as being weak on.
And again, we can just go back to what he actually said. Which a ton of people are strangely trying to attack him for while ignoring the actual thing that he he actually said.
We are also aware of his foreign policy voting history and his votes on moving the embassy to begin with during his days in the legislature.
We are not willing, based on those factors, to extend him the benefit of the doubt that he will try to affect any meaningful change regarding Israel’s policy of apartheid
This is not strange or weird or ignorant and we have repeatedly tried to explain to you our position. You have chosen to ignore it.
The only way to make an anti apartheid stance is to send a message to the party that is supposedly against those atrocities.
And that message is... to wreck the political chances of the Democartic party to gain power if they don't go irresponsibly strident in their foreign policy? This sounds a lot like 2016. The democrats sure learned a lesson with Trump, yep! Too bad the world paid for it.
The Democrats repeated inaction and collaboration with the Republicans rewards a party advertising its intentions upon democracy through oratory, writing, and repeated sectarian killings.
"It would be madness if political priorities changed when we elected new leadership." is not the response of a person with any interest in democracy. While there is room to argue the US should not murder fascists and nationalists abroad, there is no acceptable argument for US support of fascist causes such as Israel.
The literal history of the United States from the 20th century onward has LITERALLY been strong arming the other nations of the world into accepting our vision of it through a mix of military and diplomatic and economic powers
We are the remaining super power on this planet and the primary hegemon. I am utterly baffled that we keep swerving back to this “well there’s nothing the US can really do, we just don’t have the kind of pull necessary to change the world” mindset and it feels like a baffling kind of self serving hand washing regarding avoiding the complicated yet necessary work of using out standing in the world to improve it rather than just continue a status quo that is literally destroying lives
What you are missing, Lanz, is that the world is not static and that there are now other powers that, while unable to throw around the total fuck-you we are capable of, can easily fill in comparatively small gaps like the Israeli arms budget.
China used to be a nuclear-armed backwater unable to feed its own people, they weren't exactly going to be able to replace whatever foreign aid the US decided to cut off. Now they can, and the hell of it is that because they're an authoritarian hellhole they can be relied on to keep doing it in a way that no democratic nation can. China will turn a blind eye to outright Israeli genocide of Palestinians because, firstly, they don't really care, and secondly, China is guilty of genocide too.
Or we can try to keep some sort of hand on the tiller. I'll take that option, even if it leaves us dirty.
Because being party to apartheid is better than... not being party to it and attempting to pressure an end to it?
Like what the fuck have we accomplished so far with “getting our hands dirty” so far? Cause from here it looks like increased settlements and further oppression of Israel’s Palestinian population
There is no kinder, gentler apartheid! It’s still apartheid!
You are aware that America’s also a top contender in the global genocide rankings, right?
Your argument makes no coherent sense that the only thing keeping Israel from going full bore genocide under partnership with a genocidal Chinese government is... a settler colony nation that literally genocided its indigenous populace into a handful of reservations and a scattered diaspora throughout the nation keeping its... “hand on the tiller”
A nation that only within the last half a century finally declared the descendants of its kidnapped slave population equal citizens, but still at every opportunity marginalizes them and other ethnic minorities?
And is
You know
Currently running concentration camps for our Latinx populace
You are aware that America’s also a top contender in the global genocide rankings, right?
Your argument makes no coherent sense that the only thing keeping Israel from going full bore genocide under partnership with a genocidal Chinese government is... a settler colony nation that literally genocided its indigenous populace into a handful of reservations and a scattered diaspora throughout the nation keeping its... “hand on the tiller”
A nation that only within the last half a century finally declared the descendants of its kidnapped slave population equal citizens, but still at every opportunity marginalizes them and other ethnic minorities?
And is
You know
Currently running concentration camps for our Latinx populace
Yeah, we suck, so we should do nothing because we don't have any moral standing in the world and should embrace isolationism.
You are aware that America’s also a top contender in the global genocide rankings, right?
Your argument makes no coherent sense that the only thing keeping Israel from going full bore genocide under partnership with a genocidal Chinese government is... a settler colony nation that literally genocided its indigenous populace into a handful of reservations and a scattered diaspora throughout the nation keeping its... “hand on the tiller”
A nation that only within the last half a century finally declared the descendants of its kidnapped slave population equal citizens, but still at every opportunity marginalizes them and other ethnic minorities?
And is
You know
Currently running concentration camps for our Latinx populace
Yeah, we suck, so we should do nothing because we don't have any moral standing in the world and should embrace isolationism.
Literally not what I said and runs literally against every single post of mine in the last several pages that if America is to maintain its position of global hegemon we should use that position and power for good instead of propping up apartheid
You are aware that America’s also a top contender in the global genocide rankings, right?
Your argument makes no coherent sense that the only thing keeping Israel from going full bore genocide under partnership with a genocidal Chinese government is... a settler colony nation that literally genocided its indigenous populace into a handful of reservations and a scattered diaspora throughout the nation keeping its... “hand on the tiller”
A nation that only within the last half a century finally declared the descendants of its kidnapped slave population equal citizens, but still at every opportunity marginalizes them and other ethnic minorities?
And is
You know
Currently running concentration camps for our Latinx populace
Yeah, we suck, so we should do nothing because we don't have any moral standing in the world and should embrace isolationism.
Literally not what I said and runs literally against every single post of mine in the last several pages that if America is to maintain its position of global hegemon we should use that position and power for good instead of propping up apartheid
Which of course, it won't. Because you see, we had a very limited window of Global Hegemony to use that position and power for good. The window is now closing. China is now going to be the alternative.
So when we cut off a dictatorial state, or an apartheid state, China will just slide in to prop them up. Because China doesn't give a shit. They are playing the game to win the game, not to be heroes.
Now this is not to say we shouldn't cut those states off. I agree with you, we should. I don't embrace isolationism but I do embrace non-interventionism combined with a beefy military (which is tricky, because justifying all that spending without going to war is tough). And I am sure as shit tired of paying good money, usually followed by the lives of the American citizenry to prop up assholes and monsters.
I just want to point out that it changes nothing now. There is no path that leads to positive change.
I’m trying to figure out how “we should stop allying with, giving funds, and selling arms to a nation explicitly executing an apartheid campaign until they cease to do so” is... isolationist.
I’m trying to figure out how “we should stop allying with, giving funds, and selling arms to a nation explicitly executing an apartheid campaign until they cease to do so” is... isolationist.
Well considering our list of allies, that's practically everybody not the EU.
"The world sucks, therefore we should not participate in it" is a very popular school of thought in some circles.
It even extends to domestic politics, but that is outside of the scope of this thread.
+3
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Literally no one here is calling for the US to withdraw from the world stage.
It would be great if “the United States should not provide material and diplomatic support for nations engaging in deliberate campaigns of human rights abuses on a national scale” would stop getting turned into a strawman argument advocating isolationism
Its pretty weird that the same quarters that have gone from "nothing is going to change, don't bother moving the embassy back" straight into "wow isolation is bad, these people want to do nothing".
Its pretty weird that the same quarters that have gone from "nothing is going to change, don't bother moving the embassy back" straight into "wow isolation is bad, these people want to do nothing".
It's also pretty weird that nobody has engaged with the meat of my post. That Lanz has this idea of what would happen, but it belongs to an era that is already past.
Because if the US is the undisputed world Hegemon, Israel does have nobody to turn to, but well
Look who's back. Back again. A Multi-polar world is back. Tell a Friend, Tell a Friend, Tell a Friend...
Literally no one here is calling for the US to withdraw from the world stage.
It would be great if “the United States should not provide material and diplomatic support for nations engaging in deliberate campaigns of human rights abuses on a national scale” would stop getting turned into a strawman argument advocating isolationism
I'm pretty thankful and happy that I at least did not do that.
Its pretty weird that the same quarters that have gone from "nothing is going to change, don't bother moving the embassy back" straight into "wow isolation is bad, these people want to do nothing".
It's also pretty weird that nobody has engaged with the meat of my post. That Lanz has this idea of what would happen, but it belongs to an era that is already past.
Because if the US is the undisputed world Hegemon, Israel does have nobody to turn to, but well
Look who's back. Back again. A Multi-polar world is back. Tell a Friend, Tell a Friend, Tell a Friend...
Who do you think Israel has to turn to if the US abandons them? China and Russia will sell them weapons but they have no reason to be the ludicrous shield we provide in the Security Council, which is the real value of the alliance.
Its pretty weird that the same quarters that have gone from "nothing is going to change, don't bother moving the embassy back" straight into "wow isolation is bad, these people want to do nothing".
It's also pretty weird that nobody has engaged with the meat of my post. That Lanz has this idea of what would happen, but it belongs to an era that is already past.
Because if the US is the undisputed world Hegemon, Israel does have nobody to turn to, but well
Look who's back. Back again. A Multi-polar world is back. Tell a Friend, Tell a Friend, Tell a Friend...
Who do you think Israel has to turn to if the US abandons them? China and Russia will sell them weapons but they have no reason to be the ludicrous shield we provide in the Security Council, which is the real value of the alliance.
Well now that is a good question. I don't think it entirely impossible that China and Russia could negotiate with Israel to get something valuable enough to be their replacement shield.
But let's say they do the CBA and it turns out negative and they decide not to do the shield thing.
I think Israel doubles down on the "The World is out to get us" sentiment and out Hermit Kingdom's the Hermit Kingdom.
Its pretty weird that the same quarters that have gone from "nothing is going to change, don't bother moving the embassy back" straight into "wow isolation is bad, these people want to do nothing".
It's also pretty weird that nobody has engaged with the meat of my post. That Lanz has this idea of what would happen, but it belongs to an era that is already past.
Because if the US is the undisputed world Hegemon, Israel does have nobody to turn to, but well
Look who's back. Back again. A Multi-polar world is back. Tell a Friend, Tell a Friend, Tell a Friend...
Who do you think Israel has to turn to if the US abandons them? China and Russia will sell them weapons but they have no reason to be the ludicrous shield we provide in the Security Council, which is the real value of the alliance.
Well now that is a good question. I don't think it entirely impossible that China and Russia could negotiate with Israel to get something valuable enough to be their replacement shield.
But let's say they do the CBA and it turns out negative and they decide not to do the shield thing.
I think Israel doubles down on the "The World is out to get us" sentiment and out Hermit Kingdom's the Hermit Kingdom.
Israel's economy, like any modern economy, relies strongly on foreign trade. Both Russia and China have other allies in the region and no need for a country so close by in which to stage military action. Israel needs the US if it wants to continue its status as a soft apartheid state because otherwise they get sanctioned.
Its pretty weird that the same quarters that have gone from "nothing is going to change, don't bother moving the embassy back" straight into "wow isolation is bad, these people want to do nothing".
It's also pretty weird that nobody has engaged with the meat of my post. That Lanz has this idea of what would happen, but it belongs to an era that is already past.
Because if the US is the undisputed world Hegemon, Israel does have nobody to turn to, but well
Look who's back. Back again. A Multi-polar world is back. Tell a Friend, Tell a Friend, Tell a Friend...
Who do you think Israel has to turn to if the US abandons them? China and Russia will sell them weapons but they have no reason to be the ludicrous shield we provide in the Security Council, which is the real value of the alliance.
Well now that is a good question. I don't think it entirely impossible that China and Russia could negotiate with Israel to get something valuable enough to be their replacement shield.
But let's say they do the CBA and it turns out negative and they decide not to do the shield thing.
I think Israel doubles down on the "The World is out to get us" sentiment and out Hermit Kingdom's the Hermit Kingdom.
Israel's economy, like any modern economy, relies strongly on foreign trade. Both Russia and China have other allies in the region and no need for a country so close by in which to stage military action. Israel needs the US if it wants to continue its status as a soft apartheid state because otherwise they get sanctioned.
That's not the only thing they can get out of Israel. Access to Israeli intelligence, a fairly captive market for trade. Other things I cannot even think of. You have to weight those things too.
But again let's assume that the CBA turns out negative. I think Israel sacrifices their economy to maintain their practices.
Your presumption is that they are not willing to sacrifice their economy to continue doing something a fair bit of the populace considers fundamental to their continued existence. Didn't Word War I essentially provide a proof that kind of assumption is wrong?
Its pretty weird that the same quarters that have gone from "nothing is going to change, don't bother moving the embassy back" straight into "wow isolation is bad, these people want to do nothing".
It's not. Moving an embassy in a specific situation and isolationism as general policy are two very different things.
You are aware that America’s also a top contender in the global genocide rankings, right?
Your argument makes no coherent sense that the only thing keeping Israel from going full bore genocide under partnership with a genocidal Chinese government is... a settler colony nation that literally genocided its indigenous populace into a handful of reservations and a scattered diaspora throughout the nation keeping its... “hand on the tiller”
Given a choice between the nation that enacted genocide over a hundred years ago vs the nation that enacted genocide last month I'll take the guys who did it a long time ago, thanks
Posts
This is because GOP voters actively look for reasons to vote for the GOP, and Dem voters actively look for reasons to not show up and thereby prove their moral purity
This is an overly reductive take that, while cute, ignores that the US has pretty explicitly bent or ignored Israeli desires on some things.
I have zero doubt that Netanyahu was demanding outright war with Iran to destroy their nuclear program. Instead we smacked them with Stuxnet and signed a non-proliferation treaty.
What hand on what tiller? What are you stopping the Israelis from doing that they otherwise wouldn't? They are already getting what they want from you, a blind eye, a bunch of money and a UN veto
I bet Netenyahu felt extremely owned.
Political capital as some kind of measurable, appreciable thing isn't particularly useful. If anything it just means "you have the clout and/or leadership on an issue and can push that through"
Israel would very much like the US to be even more hostile with Iran.
They are getting some of their wish with Trump.
i mean he's got a long history of doing conservative things and supporting conservative political positions. maybe he does these things because he wants to do them, and not out of any electoral calculus
edit: you can just be a conservative, it's not a crime. there doesn't have to be some tortured justification for it
Israel doesn't want a shooting war with Iran. They want the US to be in a shooting war with Iran.
Literally why Obama brought him on as VP.
Your definition of conservative isn't a useful one in that case.
Isreal hating Biden and the democrats is not going to stop the democrats from chasing that Isreal lobby money and that military contract money.
Obama was instructive of that lack of understanding. What happened to Omar was instructive of where we are now.
Obama brought him on as VP because he was older and experienced and big into foreign policy, which were all areas where Obama was perceived as lacking. The idea that it's cause he was conservative is laughable on multiple levels.
Biden's take on this issue is, again, completely within the general US political consensus on Israeli relations. And considering he literally says moving the embassy in the first place was a bad move, the idea that he totally thinks it's a good idea is in direct opposition to his actual statements and so dubious at best.
Okay.
"most conservative democrat" =/= a conservative, just for starters. The most liberal Republican is not liberal, just as an obvious comparison.
And secondly and to the actual point, the contention was that Obama brought him onboard as his VP because he was a conservative. Which is, again, entirely wrong from anything we know of on the selection process. He was chosen because he was older, experienced, had a lot of connections in DC and had extensive foreign policy experience. Basically all the things Obama was perceived as being weak on.
And again, we can just go back to what he actually said. Which a ton of people are strangely trying to attack him for while ignoring the actual thing that he he actually said.
We are also aware of his foreign policy voting history and his votes on moving the embassy to begin with during his days in the legislature.
We are not willing, based on those factors, to extend him the benefit of the doubt that he will try to affect any meaningful change regarding Israel’s policy of apartheid
This is not strange or weird or ignorant and we have repeatedly tried to explain to you our position. You have chosen to ignore it.
The Democrats repeated inaction and collaboration with the Republicans rewards a party advertising its intentions upon democracy through oratory, writing, and repeated sectarian killings.
"It would be madness if political priorities changed when we elected new leadership." is not the response of a person with any interest in democracy. While there is room to argue the US should not murder fascists and nationalists abroad, there is no acceptable argument for US support of fascist causes such as Israel.
Because being party to apartheid is better than... not being party to it and attempting to pressure an end to it?
Like what the fuck have we accomplished so far with “getting our hands dirty” so far? Cause from here it looks like increased settlements and further oppression of Israel’s Palestinian population
There is no kinder, gentler apartheid! It’s still apartheid!
You are aware that America’s also a top contender in the global genocide rankings, right?
Your argument makes no coherent sense that the only thing keeping Israel from going full bore genocide under partnership with a genocidal Chinese government is... a settler colony nation that literally genocided its indigenous populace into a handful of reservations and a scattered diaspora throughout the nation keeping its... “hand on the tiller”
A nation that only within the last half a century finally declared the descendants of its kidnapped slave population equal citizens, but still at every opportunity marginalizes them and other ethnic minorities?
And is
You know
Currently running concentration camps for our Latinx populace
Yeah, we suck, so we should do nothing because we don't have any moral standing in the world and should embrace isolationism.
Literally not what I said and runs literally against every single post of mine in the last several pages that if America is to maintain its position of global hegemon we should use that position and power for good instead of propping up apartheid
This comes up every time I hear about the knife missile thing.
Which of course, it won't. Because you see, we had a very limited window of Global Hegemony to use that position and power for good. The window is now closing. China is now going to be the alternative.
So when we cut off a dictatorial state, or an apartheid state, China will just slide in to prop them up. Because China doesn't give a shit. They are playing the game to win the game, not to be heroes.
Now this is not to say we shouldn't cut those states off. I agree with you, we should. I don't embrace isolationism but I do embrace non-interventionism combined with a beefy military (which is tricky, because justifying all that spending without going to war is tough). And I am sure as shit tired of paying good money, usually followed by the lives of the American citizenry to prop up assholes and monsters.
I just want to point out that it changes nothing now. There is no path that leads to positive change.
Well considering our list of allies, that's practically everybody not the EU.
And considering Orban's in the EU...
It even extends to domestic politics, but that is outside of the scope of this thread.
It would be great if “the United States should not provide material and diplomatic support for nations engaging in deliberate campaigns of human rights abuses on a national scale” would stop getting turned into a strawman argument advocating isolationism
It's also pretty weird that nobody has engaged with the meat of my post. That Lanz has this idea of what would happen, but it belongs to an era that is already past.
Because if the US is the undisputed world Hegemon, Israel does have nobody to turn to, but well
Look who's back. Back again. A Multi-polar world is back. Tell a Friend, Tell a Friend, Tell a Friend...
I'm pretty thankful and happy that I at least did not do that.
Who do you think Israel has to turn to if the US abandons them? China and Russia will sell them weapons but they have no reason to be the ludicrous shield we provide in the Security Council, which is the real value of the alliance.
Well now that is a good question. I don't think it entirely impossible that China and Russia could negotiate with Israel to get something valuable enough to be their replacement shield.
But let's say they do the CBA and it turns out negative and they decide not to do the shield thing.
I think Israel doubles down on the "The World is out to get us" sentiment and out Hermit Kingdom's the Hermit Kingdom.
Israel's economy, like any modern economy, relies strongly on foreign trade. Both Russia and China have other allies in the region and no need for a country so close by in which to stage military action. Israel needs the US if it wants to continue its status as a soft apartheid state because otherwise they get sanctioned.
That's not the only thing they can get out of Israel. Access to Israeli intelligence, a fairly captive market for trade. Other things I cannot even think of. You have to weight those things too.
But again let's assume that the CBA turns out negative. I think Israel sacrifices their economy to maintain their practices.
Your presumption is that they are not willing to sacrifice their economy to continue doing something a fair bit of the populace considers fundamental to their continued existence. Didn't Word War I essentially provide a proof that kind of assumption is wrong?
It's not. Moving an embassy in a specific situation and isolationism as general policy are two very different things.
Given a choice between the nation that enacted genocide over a hundred years ago vs the nation that enacted genocide last month I'll take the guys who did it a long time ago, thanks