Does the Open Skies treaty actually have any relevance in a world of ubiquitous satellite imaging? Like we can't do flyovers, ok, just wait like twenty minutes and we'll have a satellite overhead.
I suppose it depends on just how stupid the administration can get with Space Force.
I would not put it past them to direct the agency to begin to plan for the destruction of any foreign satellite that may attempt that.
EDIT: it would seem the bigger benefit to Open Skies in the age of Satellite imagery is the way it actually promotes alliance, socialization and comeraderie among the nations under it, actively interacting with one another, as well as a more direct sense of the mood of other militaries:
Supporters also point out that the Open Skies Treaty offers opportunities for people from around the world to interact with each other, building trust and strengthening military partnerships. That helps US participants get a better sense of what’s going on overseas on a human level.
“We [the 32 countries that aren’t Russia or Belarus] get to hang out with Russian officers almost weekly, and feel out how things are going over there,” Steffan Watkins, a Canadian expert on the treaty, said. “Are they unusually tense? Are they mellow? This provides invaluable information.”
“It’s not about catching [another country] doing something at that moment,” Watkins said. “It’s about capturing imagery to confirm a suspicion and have incontrovertible proof by using a camera/sensor and handling procedures that everyone has agreed [are] tamper-proof.”
In essence, the Open Skies treaty isn’t just the function of permitting the treaty nations to gain this intelligence via flyovers, but the treaty creates a sense of community in multiple regards for the nations under it, of cooperation and trust.
And Trump basically just set that on fire and figured out how to piss gasoline on it.
Edit: also of course there’s multiple treaty nations who don’t have the satellite capability. So they’re just SOL in both The sense of intelligence gathering AND strengthening international relations
Does the Open Skies treaty actually have any relevance in a world of ubiquitous satellite imaging? Like we can't do flyovers, ok, just wait like twenty minutes and we'll have a satellite overhead.
I suppose it depends on just how stupid the administration can get with Space Force.
I would not put it past them to direct the agency to begin to plan for the destruction of any foreign satellite that may attempt that.
EDIT: it would seem the bigger benefit to Open Skies in the age of Satellite imagery is the way it actually promotes alliance, socialization and comeraderie among the nations under it, actively interacting with one another, as well as a more direct sense of the mood of other militaries:
Supporters also point out that the Open Skies Treaty offers opportunities for people from around the world to interact with each other, building trust and strengthening military partnerships. That helps US participants get a better sense of what’s going on overseas on a human level.
“We [the 32 countries that aren’t Russia or Belarus] get to hang out with Russian officers almost weekly, and feel out how things are going over there,” Steffan Watkins, a Canadian expert on the treaty, said. “Are they unusually tense? Are they mellow? This provides invaluable information.”
But that's not how satellites work! The only satellites that won't go over the US are pretty low-inclination ones
Does the Open Skies treaty actually have any relevance in a world of ubiquitous satellite imaging? Like we can't do flyovers, ok, just wait like twenty minutes and we'll have a satellite overhead.
I suppose it depends on just how stupid the administration can get with Space Force.
I would not put it past them to direct the agency to begin to plan for the destruction of any foreign satellite that may attempt that.
EDIT: it would seem the bigger benefit to Open Skies in the age of Satellite imagery is the way it actually promotes alliance, socialization and comeraderie among the nations under it, actively interacting with one another, as well as a more direct sense of the mood of other militaries:
Supporters also point out that the Open Skies Treaty offers opportunities for people from around the world to interact with each other, building trust and strengthening military partnerships. That helps US participants get a better sense of what’s going on overseas on a human level.
“We [the 32 countries that aren’t Russia or Belarus] get to hang out with Russian officers almost weekly, and feel out how things are going over there,” Steffan Watkins, a Canadian expert on the treaty, said. “Are they unusually tense? Are they mellow? This provides invaluable information.”
But that's not how satellites work! The only satellites that won't go over the US are pretty low-inclination ones
Given it’s Trump, I doubt that reality matters much to what he’ll direct and expect the military to do, especially to his paranoid, zero sum, “everyone’s out to get me” mind.
At which point we get to play the fun game of “what next aspect of geopolitics will he destabilize next by announcing we’ll shoot down satellites invading US orbital airspace”
It continues to be the common consensus because the liberal party chooses to engage in rampant islamophobia and its supporters choose to ignore it.
The liberal party engages in rampant Islamophobia by...electing the first two muslim women to ever serve in the house?
I think things are changing, but the BDS movement just doesn't have the political power yet to actually make a significant change. Maybe it will in a few more years, maybe it won't, but it needs to generate more political power to accomplish anything.
I think part of the problem with anything foreign policy, especially activists changing foreign policy, is that its a thing that happens in far away places to other people. And that's hard to sell people on.
Their local constituents voted them in. Not their fellows in the offices and dynamics of internal party operation. You may remember for instance how quickly LARGE swaths of the people who comprise the actual functional decision making and campaign organs of the party turned on Omar without missing a beat when she criticized the influence of AIPAC in Washington?
We need to recognize the fact that the populace, particularly at the level of district constituency, are not “The Party” in the sense your argument is trying to make. Yes, the Democrats still have long strides to go on fixing their Islamophobic tendencies. They may not be as severe as the GOP’s but the problem is still quite present and pretending that two districts electing Muslim women solves the issue does not actually solve the issue. There is still work to do.
Is there any indication that the populace you are talking about gives a shit about this issue to any large degree though? That they disagree with the party consensus?
I think if you actually treat an idea with gravitas and actual effort the public will respond.
In our current environment you’d see it starkly break into partisan camps as the GOP’s base flips their shit while a majority of the country decides “actually yeah apartheid is bad yeah we shouldn’t enable apartheid” so it’s not going to be a 100% conversion to opposing Israel’s policy of apartheid but I think, yes, if Democratic leadership actually, visibly, opposed the apartheid and worked on policy to pressure Israel into ending it I think you would see broad support for it
Your stated position as repeatedly advocated is politically dead. It is inert. It has no actual function beyond being a stagnant acquiescence to suffering you do not have to yourself endure. It is barely even politics. Which honestly makes me question how much of it is really just facade and excuse, even subconsciously, for support of the status quo because you fear what attempting to upset it may entail, which itself is perhaps the driving flaw of the modern Democrats in just about ever field, foreign policy included.
People have tried though. That's the point you keep missing. You keep acting like no one has ever tried to move the ball on this issue. They have. They've tried for decades in ways big and small. It just hasn't worked. There is no indication the general public has much interest in shifting on this issue in any significant way and so their democratically-elected representatives reflect that. There does not seem to be a radical divergence between the will of the voters and their representatives here. Nor have efforts to create one been successful.
Quite frankly voters are generally pretty indifferent to foreign policy on most fronts.
I honestly have no idea what the rest of this post is going on about though.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
To what degree is the foreign policy thread allowed to debate the symbiotic relationship between the pressure pushed by a populace on its representative government versus the influence government leadership has on public sentiment?
A short, though off topic, example being how poorly impeachment polled until the Democrats actively pursued it, at which point it gained more support.
It shouldn’t be controversial to note foreign policy support follows a similar dynamic.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
Americans arent just evaluating facts and coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are animals. Theyre subject to a decades long and pervasive propaganda effort conducted by their own government in exchange for campaign donations.
The government isnt following public opinion, its crafting it.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
Americans arent just evaluating facts and coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are animals. Theyre subject to a decades long and pervasive propaganda effort conducted by their own government in exchange for campaign donations.
The government isnt following public opinion, its crafting it.
In an explicit sense, like they have a propaganda program, or more subtly via institutions and various systemic pressures on the media?
+1
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Does the Open Skies treaty actually have any relevance in a world of ubiquitous satellite imaging? Like we can't do flyovers, ok, just wait like twenty minutes and we'll have a satellite overhead.
This is like saying that everyone's got a camera in their phone already, why bother investing in a DSLR with a telephoto lens.
Because if the ubiquitous camera phones are now just as good as the DSLR with the telephoto lens was, back in 1992, then they should work fine for a use case that required the DSLR back in 1992.
Like, yes, obviously we'd get more detailed imagery. Is it so much more detailed that it doesn't meet the use case? That's what I'm asking.
Edit: the non-technical/interpersonal aspects certainly seem valuable.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
Americans arent just evaluating facts and coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are animals. Theyre subject to a decades long and pervasive propaganda effort conducted by their own government in exchange for campaign donations.
The government isnt following public opinion, its crafting it.
In an explicit sense, like they have a propaganda program, or more subtly via institutions and various systemic pressures on the media?
I mean its both. AIPAC and the like may be a sledge hammer but there are subtle things as well. Not hard to find media using the "poor bad country" yellow filter.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
To what degree is the foreign policy thread allowed to debate the symbiotic relationship between the pressure pushed by a populace on its representative government versus the influence government leadership has on public sentiment?
A short, though off topic, example being how poorly impeachment polled until the Democrats actively pursued it, at which point it gained more support.
It shouldn’t be controversial to note foreign policy support follows a similar dynamic.
Right, but that's why we come back to the fact that people have tried to move the needle on this issue before. It's not new. This is like if the Democrats had already impeached Trump 3 times and you are wondering if maybe the 4th time it will finally drastically change public opinion on the issue.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
To what degree is the foreign policy thread allowed to debate the symbiotic relationship between the pressure pushed by a populace on its representative government versus the influence government leadership has on public sentiment?
A short, though off topic, example being how poorly impeachment polled until the Democrats actively pursued it, at which point it gained more support.
It shouldn’t be controversial to note foreign policy support follows a similar dynamic.
Right, but that's why we come back to the fact that people have tried to move the needle on this issue before. It's not new. This is like if the Democrats had already impeached Trump 3 times and you are wondering if maybe the 4th time it will finally drastically change public opinion on the issue.
How many votes do you think Biden would lose if he wasnt so racist against Palestinians?
Honestly what I don't get from some of the posters here is whether they think the policy being proposed is a good one. Unless the position is that a popular policy is a good policy.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
Americans arent just evaluating facts and coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are animals. Theyre subject to a decades long and pervasive propaganda effort conducted by their own government in exchange for campaign donations.
The government isnt following public opinion, its crafting it.
It's silly to act like it's the govenrment here rather then a larger societal project. It's not the government that's been throwing anti-semitic accusations at anyone criticizing the US Israeli relationship for as long as I can remember. Groups like the media have been doing that just fine all on their own. And it ain't like those same criticisms haven't existed this whole time either. People have been pushing on this issue for a long time. But it ain't moving popular sentiment and that is reflected in the stances politicians in the US take on the issue.
It's not like we haven't seen public and political sentiment shift on issues just in the last like 20 years. But it hasn't worked on this one.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
Americans arent just evaluating facts and coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are animals. Theyre subject to a decades long and pervasive propaganda effort conducted by their own government in exchange for campaign donations.
The government isnt following public opinion, its crafting it.
It's silly to act like it's the govenrment here rather then a larger societal project. It's not the government that's been throwing anti-semitic accusations at anyone criticizing the US Israeli relationship for as long as I can remember. Groups like the media have been doing that just fine all on their own. And it ain't like those same criticisms haven't existed this whole time either. People have been pushing on this issue for a long time. But it ain't moving popular sentiment and that is reflected in the stances politicians in the US take on the issue.
It's not like we haven't seen public and political sentiment shift on issues just in the last like 20 years. But it hasn't worked on this one.
So you agree then that its not in fact a matter of politicians just giving the people what they want.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
To what degree is the foreign policy thread allowed to debate the symbiotic relationship between the pressure pushed by a populace on its representative government versus the influence government leadership has on public sentiment?
A short, though off topic, example being how poorly impeachment polled until the Democrats actively pursued it, at which point it gained more support.
It shouldn’t be controversial to note foreign policy support follows a similar dynamic.
Right, but that's why we come back to the fact that people have tried to move the needle on this issue before. It's not new. This is like if the Democrats had already impeached Trump 3 times and you are wondering if maybe the 4th time it will finally drastically change public opinion on the issue.
How many votes do you think Biden would lose if he wasnt so racist against Palestinians?
Even accepting this framing for the sake of the discussion, we could look at polling and see. Do you think it would hurt him? I suspect it would hit hard in places like Florida personally.
It is honestly fascinating to me that the most prominent use of the national popular vote these days is as an excuse for bad Democratic policies. It sure as hell doesn't determine anything else in the American political system.
Honestly what I don't get from some of the posters here is whether they think the policy being proposed is a good one. Unless the position is that a popular policy is a good policy.
IMO: It's not good policy, but as long as it remains overwhelmingly popular (to the extent that people in this country bother to think of it at all), there is IMO not much to be done on it. Maybe that will change. IMO, it probably will not - not any time soon, and probably not before one (formerly) oppressed minority finishes their work of oppressing another right out of existence.
It is not good, it is not just, and it's hideously ironic, but there doesn't seem to be the broad political will (on the ground or in the halls of power) to change it. Nothing like the anti-apartheid sentiment/movement I recall from my youth, which is what you'd need.
Call that fatalistic, pessimistic, nihilistic, or any other -istic you wish; it's my honest take on the situation.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
To what degree is the foreign policy thread allowed to debate the symbiotic relationship between the pressure pushed by a populace on its representative government versus the influence government leadership has on public sentiment?
A short, though off topic, example being how poorly impeachment polled until the Democrats actively pursued it, at which point it gained more support.
It shouldn’t be controversial to note foreign policy support follows a similar dynamic.
Right, but that's why we come back to the fact that people have tried to move the needle on this issue before. It's not new. This is like if the Democrats had already impeached Trump 3 times and you are wondering if maybe the 4th time it will finally drastically change public opinion on the issue.
Your twisting of the analogy into something that doesn't make sense because we already saw what happened when leadership moved to support impeachment. It became publicly supported. As of February it was polling 50% approve to 43% disapprove according to a poll from the late January/early February period by politico. That's why I'm using it as an example of what can be done to influence public sentiment by actions and rhetoric of a major party's leadership.
You’re still trying to make this a matter that a groundswell activist movement has to make progress on before the leadership can support it.
Your analogy uses democratic leadership’s position in the analogy to represent the BDS movement, so you can maintain your idea that the efforts to change this are futile, instead of actually grappling with the argument that Party leadership can influence public sentiment. You're ignoring what actually happened in the real life instance the analogy I used is drawn from and trying to warp it to fit your own argument about the lack of success of BDS groups as a social movement, ignoring the political clout difference between the organizations in question and their impact on national public sentiment.
It doesn’t make any sense other than as a rhetorical slight of hand. In an analogy about the influence of party leadership on public sentiment, you have to maintain party leadership as the actor. You can’t substitute a non-party leadership actor to replace it because they don’t have the political clout of a major party’s leadership.
That’s why I made the analogy that I used: because Democratic leadership managed to shift public sentiment on an issue (impeachment) to support by actually fighting for it. Likewise, the party can increase support for a more just and humane policy towards Palestine by actively fighting for it, a path that between his support of keeping the embassy in Jerusalem, demonizing BDS and blaming the lot of Palestinians as being the result of “their choices” it does not appear Biden is actually interested in. And his public positions on these issues thus are likely to reverberate in public sentiment and make things worse.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
To what degree is the foreign policy thread allowed to debate the symbiotic relationship between the pressure pushed by a populace on its representative government versus the influence government leadership has on public sentiment?
A short, though off topic, example being how poorly impeachment polled until the Democrats actively pursued it, at which point it gained more support.
It shouldn’t be controversial to note foreign policy support follows a similar dynamic.
Right, but that's why we come back to the fact that people have tried to move the needle on this issue before. It's not new. This is like if the Democrats had already impeached Trump 3 times and you are wondering if maybe the 4th time it will finally drastically change public opinion on the issue.
This analogy doesn’t make sense because we already saw what happened when leadership moved to support impeachment. It became publicly supported. As of February it was polling 50% approve to 43% disapprove according to a poll from the late January/early February period by politico
You’re still trying to make this a matter that a groundswell activist movement has to make progress on before the leadership can support it.
Your analogy uses democratic leadership’s position in the analogy to represent the BDS movement, so you can maintain the idea that the efforts to change this are futile, instead of actually grappling with the argument that Party leadership can influence public sentiment.
It doesn’t make any sense other than as a rhetorical slight of hand. In an analogy about the influence of party leadership on public sentiment, you have to maintain party leadership as the actor. You can’t substitute a non-party leadership actor to replace it because they don’t have the political clout of a major party’s leadership.
That’s why I made the analogy that I used: because Democratic leadership managed to
shift public sentiment on an issue (impeachment) to support by actually fighting for it. Likewise, the party can increase support for a more just and humane policy towards Palestine by actively fighting for it, a path that between his support of keeping the embassy in Jerusalem, demonizing BDS and blaming the lot of Palestinians as being the result of “their choices” it does not appear Biden is actually interested in. And his public positions on these issues thus are likely to reverberate in public sentiment and make things worse.
See, this all just ignores my post. Where I point out the basic problem with your argument: this isn't new. Like, it really feels like you think this issue started a few days ago with Biden. Like no one here or in the political sphere had thoughts on it ever before.
To use this impeachment analogy, if the Democrats impeached Trump again, like tomorrow, do you think it would massively shift public opinion even more? Like suddenly Republicans would go "Ok, this time maybe they are right"?
We've run these plays before. That's not a reason to give up on the issue but we shouldn't pretend like "The whole problem with public sentiment on this issue is that no one has ever said the US-Israeli relationship is not good" isn't just silly.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
Americans arent just evaluating facts and coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are animals. Theyre subject to a decades long and pervasive propaganda effort conducted by their own government in exchange for campaign donations.
The government isnt following public opinion, its crafting it.
Well that's a vast over simplification of US-Isreali ties and how they developed.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
Americans arent just evaluating facts and coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are animals. Theyre subject to a decades long and pervasive propaganda effort conducted by their own government in exchange for campaign donations.
The government isnt following public opinion, its crafting it.
Well that's a vast over simplification of US-Isreali ties and how they developed.
Given that we're at the level of "theyre just doing what the public wants" I felt streamlining with regards to policy was prudent.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
To what degree is the foreign policy thread allowed to debate the symbiotic relationship between the pressure pushed by a populace on its representative government versus the influence government leadership has on public sentiment?
A short, though off topic, example being how poorly impeachment polled until the Democrats actively pursued it, at which point it gained more support.
It shouldn’t be controversial to note foreign policy support follows a similar dynamic.
Right, but that's why we come back to the fact that people have tried to move the needle on this issue before. It's not new. This is like if the Democrats had already impeached Trump 3 times and you are wondering if maybe the 4th time it will finally drastically change public opinion on the issue.
This analogy doesn’t make sense because we already saw what happened when leadership moved to support impeachment. It became publicly supported. As of February it was polling 50% approve to 43% disapprove according to a poll from the late January/early February period by politico
You’re still trying to make this a matter that a groundswell activist movement has to make progress on before the leadership can support it.
Your analogy uses democratic leadership’s position in the analogy to represent the BDS movement, so you can maintain the idea that the efforts to change this are futile, instead of actually grappling with the argument that Party leadership can influence public sentiment.
It doesn’t make any sense other than as a rhetorical slight of hand. In an analogy about the influence of party leadership on public sentiment, you have to maintain party leadership as the actor. You can’t substitute a non-party leadership actor to replace it because they don’t have the political clout of a major party’s leadership.
That’s why I made the analogy that I used: because Democratic leadership managed to
shift public sentiment on an issue (impeachment) to support by actually fighting for it. Likewise, the party can increase support for a more just and humane policy towards Palestine by actively fighting for it, a path that between his support of keeping the embassy in Jerusalem, demonizing BDS and blaming the lot of Palestinians as being the result of “their choices” it does not appear Biden is actually interested in. And his public positions on these issues thus are likely to reverberate in public sentiment and make things worse.
See, this all just ignores my post. Where I point out the basic problem with your argument: this isn't new. Like, it really feels like you think this issue started a few days ago with Biden. Like no one here or in the political sphere had thoughts on it ever before.
To use this impeachment analogy, if the Democrats impeached Trump again, like tomorrow, do you think it would massively shift public opinion even more? Like suddenly Republicans would go "Ok, this time maybe they are right"?
We've run these plays before. That's not a reason to give up on the issue but we shouldn't pretend like "The whole problem with public sentiment on this issue is that no one has ever said the US-Israeli relationship is not good" isn't just silly.
I'm just going to stop with this post here because it is very clear you are not listening to anything I have to say on this issue, or anything that has been said on this topic.
We know this "isn't new." We have repeatedly talked about how these are longstanding issues with Biden. We are aware. The purpose of talking about the issue is not that they are somehow novel. The purpose of talking about it is to have a conversation about the course being charted in US foreign policy regarding Israeli Apartheid against the Palestinian people, a conversation you have repeatedly attempted to scuttle by noting that it's not "new."
As for republicans, no, I don't expect them to go "Okay we'll change our mind" because that is not in their material interest. They are materially opposed to a just and humane policy regarding Israel and Palestine because they are a collection of white supremacists, theocratic eschaton worshippers and so on who are roiling, intermingled mass of people ideologically opposed to the existence of muslims, who benefit from continued US arms sales propped up by the apartheid policy and think that if they keep doing this they'll usher in the second coming of Christ once all the Palestinians are quieted and they can get Israel to rebuild the Temple.
But yes, I think that the American public can get at least a plurality, and likely a majority, of support on behalf of humane and just policy regarding the apartheid if the Democrats actually worked towards it instead of being torn between supporting it and half measures to redress the tragedy.
And the truth is, no, we really haven't run a play regarding the apartheid, because at best Democratic leadership pays lip service to the idea of a two state solution while skipping past actually calling out the apartheid for what it is: apartheid. Instead they act as if this is a conflict with two equally powered actors as if it were a conflict between two rival nation-states, instead of a conflict between an ethnostate and an oppressed, marginalized ethnic group whose land has been steadily seized for decades.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
Americans arent just evaluating facts and coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are animals. Theyre subject to a decades long and pervasive propaganda effort conducted by their own government in exchange for campaign donations.
The government isnt following public opinion, its crafting it.
Well that's a vast over simplification of US-Isreali ties and how they developed.
Given that we're at the level of "theyre just doing what the public wants" I felt streamlining with regards to policy was prudent.
That's two separate issues: why the US Israeli alliance formed is a complex tale.
Why the Democratic Party supports the alliance is also a complex tale, but boils down to because their base supports it. Sure, we could break down into more detail why the base supports it, but the truth of the matter is that political parties dont adopt policies that dont help them win elections.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
Americans arent just evaluating facts and coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are animals. Theyre subject to a decades long and pervasive propaganda effort conducted by their own government in exchange for campaign donations.
The government isnt following public opinion, its crafting it.
Well that's a vast over simplification of US-Isreali ties and how they developed.
Given that we're at the level of "theyre just doing what the public wants" I felt streamlining with regards to policy was prudent.
That's two separate issues: why the US Israeli alliance formed is a complex tale.
Why the Democratic Party supports the alliance is also a complex tale, but boils down to because their base supports it. Sure, we could break down into more detail why the base supports it, but the truth of the matter is that political parties dont adopt policies that dont help them win elections.
"Because voters support it" does not actually give you a good understanding of why Biden can be so blatantly racist in his ME plank and get a pass. Like it just sprang up ex nihilo or something.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
Americans arent just evaluating facts and coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are animals. Theyre subject to a decades long and pervasive propaganda effort conducted by their own government in exchange for campaign donations.
The government isnt following public opinion, its crafting it.
Well that's a vast over simplification of US-Isreali ties and how they developed.
Our relationship with Israel is actually simple: AIPAC and IC cooperation drive it.
Prior to Bush 41, or maybe Iran-Contra, we weren't as closely tied and before Vietnam our ME pivot was actually Iran. I say Vietnam and not 79 because Vietnam saw us focus on SEA per NSC 68 likely because the Tudah didn't have a lot of power in Iran and had been waning for years before we Americanized the Vietnam war and Vietnam was currently "under threat". Interestingly, this pivot to SEA got the Shah interested in nuclear development which is part of the legacy of Iran's current nuclear program.
As far as political elites care, I imagine it is exactly about garnering votes in certain states as pointed out by others in the thread. Whether those votes are futurist Protestants or American Jews who may trend Zionist and whether it is actually true or not is immaterial because political elites, including mainstream Democrats, act as if they believe it is true.
The idea that the government is just following public sentiment on the issue is fucking wild man
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
To what degree is the foreign policy thread allowed to debate the symbiotic relationship between the pressure pushed by a populace on its representative government versus the influence government leadership has on public sentiment?
A short, though off topic, example being how poorly impeachment polled until the Democrats actively pursued it, at which point it gained more support.
It shouldn’t be controversial to note foreign policy support follows a similar dynamic.
Right, but that's why we come back to the fact that people have tried to move the needle on this issue before. It's not new. This is like if the Democrats had already impeached Trump 3 times and you are wondering if maybe the 4th time it will finally drastically change public opinion on the issue.
This analogy doesn’t make sense because we already saw what happened when leadership moved to support impeachment. It became publicly supported. As of February it was polling 50% approve to 43% disapprove according to a poll from the late January/early February period by politico
You’re still trying to make this a matter that a groundswell activist movement has to make progress on before the leadership can support it.
Your analogy uses democratic leadership’s position in the analogy to represent the BDS movement, so you can maintain the idea that the efforts to change this are futile, instead of actually grappling with the argument that Party leadership can influence public sentiment.
It doesn’t make any sense other than as a rhetorical slight of hand. In an analogy about the influence of party leadership on public sentiment, you have to maintain party leadership as the actor. You can’t substitute a non-party leadership actor to replace it because they don’t have the political clout of a major party’s leadership.
That’s why I made the analogy that I used: because Democratic leadership managed to
shift public sentiment on an issue (impeachment) to support by actually fighting for it. Likewise, the party can increase support for a more just and humane policy towards Palestine by actively fighting for it, a path that between his support of keeping the embassy in Jerusalem, demonizing BDS and blaming the lot of Palestinians as being the result of “their choices” it does not appear Biden is actually interested in. And his public positions on these issues thus are likely to reverberate in public sentiment and make things worse.
See, this all just ignores my post. Where I point out the basic problem with your argument: this isn't new. Like, it really feels like you think this issue started a few days ago with Biden. Like no one here or in the political sphere had thoughts on it ever before.
To use this impeachment analogy, if the Democrats impeached Trump again, like tomorrow, do you think it would massively shift public opinion even more? Like suddenly Republicans would go "Ok, this time maybe they are right"?
We've run these plays before. That's not a reason to give up on the issue but we shouldn't pretend like "The whole problem with public sentiment on this issue is that no one has ever said the US-Israeli relationship is not good" isn't just silly.
I'm just going to stop with this post here because it is very clear you are not listening to anything I have to say on this issue, or anything that has been said on this topic.
We know this "isn't new." We have repeatedly talked about how these are longstanding issues with Biden. We are aware. The purpose of talking about the issue is not that they are somehow novel. The purpose of talking about it is to have a conversation about the course being charted in US foreign policy regarding Israeli Apartheid against the Palestinian people, a conversation you have repeatedly attempted to scuttle by noting that it's not "new."
As for republicans, no, I don't expect them to go "Okay we'll change our mind" because that is not in their material interest. They are materially opposed to a just and humane policy regarding Israel and Palestine because they are a collection of white supremacists, theocratic eschaton worshippers and so on who are roiling, intermingled mass of people ideologically opposed to the existence of muslims, who benefit from continued US arms sales propped up by the apartheid policy and think that if they keep doing this they'll usher in the second coming of Christ once all the Palestinians are quieted and they can get Israel to rebuild the Temple.
But yes, I think that the American public can get at least a plurality, and likely a majority, of support on behalf of humane and just policy regarding the apartheid if the Democrats actually worked towards it instead of being torn between supporting it and half measures to redress the tragedy.
And the truth is, no, we really haven't run a play regarding the apartheid, because at best Democratic leadership pays lip service to the idea of a two state solution while skipping past actually calling out the apartheid for what it is: apartheid. Instead they act as if this is a conflict with two equally powered actors as if it were a conflict between two rival nation-states, instead of a conflict between an ethnostate and an oppressed, marginalized ethnic group whose land has been steadily seized for decades.
You say you know this isn't new and yet you keep ignoring the history of this issue. You think no one has been like "Man, the US-Israel relationship is not good" before? People been at this thing for a long time. It has not moved the needle, either in political circles or in public sentiment. I don't think it's coincidental that this reflects a certain kind of thinking on a ton of other political issues. There's always people pushing the idea that the only reason X hasn't happened is because no one has suggested it before.
And let's not lie right now. We can scroll back a few pages and see where this started and it was with:
Jesus christ what the fuck Joe
There is undoubtedly going to be disagreement here but between the embassy bullshit and this I'm guessing Biden just actually is fairly comfortable with the apartheid state and any attempt to intercede on behalf of the Palestinian people is going to be lip service at best. Victim blaming lip service.
or
Biden has always hated Palestinians
This is brought up, as selective quotes too, in order to push an idea that Joe Biden is some sort of fucking horror show on this issue. Let's not pretend otherwise all of a sudden. And what I've been saying is the same thing you'll see a ton of people saying in response: that this is just bog standard US foreign policy on the US-Israel-Palestine issue.
Nor is it what you see getting thrown around anyway. The main parts are all the things you expect: work with Israel and Palestine on peace efforts, reverse cutting of diplomatic ties with Palestinians, reopen consulate in East Jeruaslem, yada, yada, yada. Standard shit. You can go to his website and find it yourself if you like. You just gotta scroll way the fuck down cause it's all the way at the bottom cause it's like basically the least important issue for voters.
Among the older Dem base (which, I am sadly coming to realize, I must now count myself a part of), there's also a strong element of "Israel, and that is to say the Jews, earned a free pass for ever and ever because of the Holocaust, no matter what." Being on the receiving end of a genocide means you can do whatever you want. That they are now in the process of committing a genocide on someone else is a particularly sick irony ignored, unmentioned, or sometimes actually not known (to people who don't pay much attention in, or after, high school history class).
You constantly repeat this idea that being bog standard policy and being horrifying are mutually exclusive states or something.
No, I don't. What is mutually exclusive is the idea that this is a Biden thing, which is (as I quoted) the entire context with which it was raised and discussed here. Or that this is even some sort of failing on the part of Democratic leadership or something, which has been another popular line. As if one can find some specific favourite target to blame because the alternative would be to see it as a broad popular position that is reflected in the american government.
You constantly repeat this idea that being bog standard policy and being horrifying are mutually exclusive states or something.
No, I don't. What is mutually exclusive is the idea that this is a Biden thing, which is (as I quoted) the entire context with which it was raised and discussed here.
I tend to agree; the current Dem candidate is merely a symptom, representative of the status quo and general national mood, more of the same. Be nice if he wasn't, but that's how The People (led by the media *spit*) have voted.
You constantly repeat this idea that being bog standard policy and being horrifying are mutually exclusive states or something.
No, I don't. What is mutually exclusive is the idea that this is a Biden thing, which is (as I quoted) the entire context with which it was raised and discussed here. Or that this is even some sort of failing on the part of Democratic leadership or something, which has been another popular line. As if one can find some specific favourite target to blame because the alternative would be to see it as a broad popular position that is reflected in the american government.
Theres no reason to act like this is a complaint people only leverage against Biden.
I think I just actually want to have a meaningful discussion about America’s foreign policy, in the US foreign policy thread, regarding the enablement of the Israeli apartheid state instead of having to fucking mount a three page long defense about whether the topic actually has legitimate merit regarding being discussed. Without being brushed off as being old news or whatever nonsense next derails the attempt to talk about an actual, serious issue of one of our closest allies running an apartheid state and how we enable that.
I think I just actually want to have a meaningful discussion about America’s foreign policy, in the US foreign policy thread, regarding the enablement of the Israeli apartheid state instead of having to fucking mount a three page long defense about whether the topic actually has legitimate merit regarding being discussed. Without being brushed off as being old news or whatever nonsense next derails the attempt to talk about an actual, serious issue of one of our closest allies running an apartheid state and how we enable that.
We do. It's bad. It's probably not going to stop any time soon.
Is there more to discuss?
I think I just actually want to have a meaningful discussion about America’s foreign policy, in the US foreign policy thread, regarding the enablement of the Israeli apartheid state instead of having to fucking mount a three page long defense about whether the topic actually has legitimate merit regarding being discussed. Without being brushed off as being old news or whatever nonsense next derails the attempt to talk about an actual, serious issue of one of our closest allies running an apartheid state and how we enable that.
We do. It's bad. It's probably not going to stop any time soon.
Is there more to discuss?
Its hard to come away from these discussions with the inpression that everyone is actually really bothered by it to be honest.
I think there's a strong current of learned apathy on the part of liberals with regards to Palestinian rights. "Oh its a shame oh yeah terrible but you know there's a whole machine what can you do" and then, morality signaled, they can move along while on the other side its baying hounds looking for blood so of course thats what we get.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+4
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I think I just actually want to have a meaningful discussion about America’s foreign policy, in the US foreign policy thread, regarding the enablement of the Israeli apartheid state instead of having to fucking mount a three page long defense about whether the topic actually has legitimate merit regarding being discussed. Without being brushed off as being old news or whatever nonsense next derails the attempt to talk about an actual, serious issue of one of our closest allies running an apartheid state and how we enable that.
American officials also note that Mr. Trump was angered by a Russian flight directly over his Bedminster, N.J., golf estate in 2017. And in classified reports, the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies have contended the Russians are also using flights over the United States to map out critical American infrastructure that could be hit by cyberattacks.
Mr. Trump’s decision, rumored for some time, is bound to further aggravate European allies, including those in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, who are also signatories to the treaty.
They are likely to remain in the accord, which has about three dozen signatories, but have warned that with Washington’s exit, Russia will almost certainly respond by also cutting off their flights, which the allies use to monitor troop movements on their borders — especially important to the Baltic nations.
Is that supposed to make Trump look better or worse for this? Like he isn't doing this thing that hurts allies but because Russia annoyed him?
He's likely doing it to help Russia. I mean, all three of the Baltic states are former parts of the Russian republic, and without oversight to see what Putin's up to, lots of people are going to end up waking up with tank columns and Russian forces marching down Main Street and finding out they're part of Russia again. Essentially, it weakens allies and strengthens Russia, so Donnie's hoping for double the headpats from his Putin-senpai.
Posts
I suppose it depends on just how stupid the administration can get with Space Force.
I would not put it past them to direct the agency to begin to plan for the destruction of any foreign satellite that may attempt that.
EDIT: reading through this now
https://www.airforcemag.com/washington-debates-role-of-satellites-in-open-skies-treaty/
EDIT: it would seem the bigger benefit to Open Skies in the age of Satellite imagery is the way it actually promotes alliance, socialization and comeraderie among the nations under it, actively interacting with one another, as well as a more direct sense of the mood of other militaries:
In essence, the Open Skies treaty isn’t just the function of permitting the treaty nations to gain this intelligence via flyovers, but the treaty creates a sense of community in multiple regards for the nations under it, of cooperation and trust.
And Trump basically just set that on fire and figured out how to piss gasoline on it.
Edit: also of course there’s multiple treaty nations who don’t have the satellite capability. So they’re just SOL in both The sense of intelligence gathering AND strengthening international relations
But that's not how satellites work! The only satellites that won't go over the US are pretty low-inclination ones
Given it’s Trump, I doubt that reality matters much to what he’ll direct and expect the military to do, especially to his paranoid, zero sum, “everyone’s out to get me” mind.
At which point we get to play the fun game of “what next aspect of geopolitics will he destabilize next by announcing we’ll shoot down satellites invading US orbital airspace”
People have tried though. That's the point you keep missing. You keep acting like no one has ever tried to move the ball on this issue. They have. They've tried for decades in ways big and small. It just hasn't worked. There is no indication the general public has much interest in shifting on this issue in any significant way and so their democratically-elected representatives reflect that. There does not seem to be a radical divergence between the will of the voters and their representatives here. Nor have efforts to create one been successful.
Quite frankly voters are generally pretty indifferent to foreign policy on most fronts.
I honestly have no idea what the rest of this post is going on about though.
What evidence do you have to the contrary? Do you have polling showing public support for a different position?
To what degree is the foreign policy thread allowed to debate the symbiotic relationship between the pressure pushed by a populace on its representative government versus the influence government leadership has on public sentiment?
A short, though off topic, example being how poorly impeachment polled until the Democrats actively pursued it, at which point it gained more support.
It shouldn’t be controversial to note foreign policy support follows a similar dynamic.
Americans arent just evaluating facts and coming to the conclusion that Palestinians are animals. Theyre subject to a decades long and pervasive propaganda effort conducted by their own government in exchange for campaign donations.
The government isnt following public opinion, its crafting it.
In an explicit sense, like they have a propaganda program, or more subtly via institutions and various systemic pressures on the media?
Because if the ubiquitous camera phones are now just as good as the DSLR with the telephoto lens was, back in 1992, then they should work fine for a use case that required the DSLR back in 1992.
Like, yes, obviously we'd get more detailed imagery. Is it so much more detailed that it doesn't meet the use case? That's what I'm asking.
Edit: the non-technical/interpersonal aspects certainly seem valuable.
I mean its both. AIPAC and the like may be a sledge hammer but there are subtle things as well. Not hard to find media using the "poor bad country" yellow filter.
Right, but that's why we come back to the fact that people have tried to move the needle on this issue before. It's not new. This is like if the Democrats had already impeached Trump 3 times and you are wondering if maybe the 4th time it will finally drastically change public opinion on the issue.
How many votes do you think Biden would lose if he wasnt so racist against Palestinians?
It's silly to act like it's the govenrment here rather then a larger societal project. It's not the government that's been throwing anti-semitic accusations at anyone criticizing the US Israeli relationship for as long as I can remember. Groups like the media have been doing that just fine all on their own. And it ain't like those same criticisms haven't existed this whole time either. People have been pushing on this issue for a long time. But it ain't moving popular sentiment and that is reflected in the stances politicians in the US take on the issue.
It's not like we haven't seen public and political sentiment shift on issues just in the last like 20 years. But it hasn't worked on this one.
So you agree then that its not in fact a matter of politicians just giving the people what they want.
Even accepting this framing for the sake of the discussion, we could look at polling and see. Do you think it would hurt him? I suspect it would hit hard in places like Florida personally.
IMO: It's not good policy, but as long as it remains overwhelmingly popular (to the extent that people in this country bother to think of it at all), there is IMO not much to be done on it. Maybe that will change. IMO, it probably will not - not any time soon, and probably not before one (formerly) oppressed minority finishes their work of oppressing another right out of existence.
It is not good, it is not just, and it's hideously ironic, but there doesn't seem to be the broad political will (on the ground or in the halls of power) to change it. Nothing like the anti-apartheid sentiment/movement I recall from my youth, which is what you'd need.
Call that fatalistic, pessimistic, nihilistic, or any other -istic you wish; it's my honest take on the situation.
Your twisting of the analogy into something that doesn't make sense because we already saw what happened when leadership moved to support impeachment. It became publicly supported. As of February it was polling 50% approve to 43% disapprove according to a poll from the late January/early February period by politico. That's why I'm using it as an example of what can be done to influence public sentiment by actions and rhetoric of a major party's leadership.
You’re still trying to make this a matter that a groundswell activist movement has to make progress on before the leadership can support it.
Your analogy uses democratic leadership’s position in the analogy to represent the BDS movement, so you can maintain your idea that the efforts to change this are futile, instead of actually grappling with the argument that Party leadership can influence public sentiment. You're ignoring what actually happened in the real life instance the analogy I used is drawn from and trying to warp it to fit your own argument about the lack of success of BDS groups as a social movement, ignoring the political clout difference between the organizations in question and their impact on national public sentiment.
It doesn’t make any sense other than as a rhetorical slight of hand. In an analogy about the influence of party leadership on public sentiment, you have to maintain party leadership as the actor. You can’t substitute a non-party leadership actor to replace it because they don’t have the political clout of a major party’s leadership.
That’s why I made the analogy that I used: because Democratic leadership managed to shift public sentiment on an issue (impeachment) to support by actually fighting for it. Likewise, the party can increase support for a more just and humane policy towards Palestine by actively fighting for it, a path that between his support of keeping the embassy in Jerusalem, demonizing BDS and blaming the lot of Palestinians as being the result of “their choices” it does not appear Biden is actually interested in. And his public positions on these issues thus are likely to reverberate in public sentiment and make things worse.
See, this all just ignores my post. Where I point out the basic problem with your argument: this isn't new. Like, it really feels like you think this issue started a few days ago with Biden. Like no one here or in the political sphere had thoughts on it ever before.
To use this impeachment analogy, if the Democrats impeached Trump again, like tomorrow, do you think it would massively shift public opinion even more? Like suddenly Republicans would go "Ok, this time maybe they are right"?
We've run these plays before. That's not a reason to give up on the issue but we shouldn't pretend like "The whole problem with public sentiment on this issue is that no one has ever said the US-Israeli relationship is not good" isn't just silly.
Well that's a vast over simplification of US-Isreali ties and how they developed.
Given that we're at the level of "theyre just doing what the public wants" I felt streamlining with regards to policy was prudent.
I'm just going to stop with this post here because it is very clear you are not listening to anything I have to say on this issue, or anything that has been said on this topic.
We know this "isn't new." We have repeatedly talked about how these are longstanding issues with Biden. We are aware. The purpose of talking about the issue is not that they are somehow novel. The purpose of talking about it is to have a conversation about the course being charted in US foreign policy regarding Israeli Apartheid against the Palestinian people, a conversation you have repeatedly attempted to scuttle by noting that it's not "new."
As for republicans, no, I don't expect them to go "Okay we'll change our mind" because that is not in their material interest. They are materially opposed to a just and humane policy regarding Israel and Palestine because they are a collection of white supremacists, theocratic eschaton worshippers and so on who are roiling, intermingled mass of people ideologically opposed to the existence of muslims, who benefit from continued US arms sales propped up by the apartheid policy and think that if they keep doing this they'll usher in the second coming of Christ once all the Palestinians are quieted and they can get Israel to rebuild the Temple.
But yes, I think that the American public can get at least a plurality, and likely a majority, of support on behalf of humane and just policy regarding the apartheid if the Democrats actually worked towards it instead of being torn between supporting it and half measures to redress the tragedy.
And the truth is, no, we really haven't run a play regarding the apartheid, because at best Democratic leadership pays lip service to the idea of a two state solution while skipping past actually calling out the apartheid for what it is: apartheid. Instead they act as if this is a conflict with two equally powered actors as if it were a conflict between two rival nation-states, instead of a conflict between an ethnostate and an oppressed, marginalized ethnic group whose land has been steadily seized for decades.
That's two separate issues: why the US Israeli alliance formed is a complex tale.
Why the Democratic Party supports the alliance is also a complex tale, but boils down to because their base supports it. Sure, we could break down into more detail why the base supports it, but the truth of the matter is that political parties dont adopt policies that dont help them win elections.
"Because voters support it" does not actually give you a good understanding of why Biden can be so blatantly racist in his ME plank and get a pass. Like it just sprang up ex nihilo or something.
Our relationship with Israel is actually simple: AIPAC and IC cooperation drive it.
Prior to Bush 41, or maybe Iran-Contra, we weren't as closely tied and before Vietnam our ME pivot was actually Iran. I say Vietnam and not 79 because Vietnam saw us focus on SEA per NSC 68 likely because the Tudah didn't have a lot of power in Iran and had been waning for years before we Americanized the Vietnam war and Vietnam was currently "under threat". Interestingly, this pivot to SEA got the Shah interested in nuclear development which is part of the legacy of Iran's current nuclear program.
As far as political elites care, I imagine it is exactly about garnering votes in certain states as pointed out by others in the thread. Whether those votes are futurist Protestants or American Jews who may trend Zionist and whether it is actually true or not is immaterial because political elites, including mainstream Democrats, act as if they believe it is true.
You say you know this isn't new and yet you keep ignoring the history of this issue. You think no one has been like "Man, the US-Israel relationship is not good" before? People been at this thing for a long time. It has not moved the needle, either in political circles or in public sentiment. I don't think it's coincidental that this reflects a certain kind of thinking on a ton of other political issues. There's always people pushing the idea that the only reason X hasn't happened is because no one has suggested it before.
And let's not lie right now. We can scroll back a few pages and see where this started and it was with: or This is brought up, as selective quotes too, in order to push an idea that Joe Biden is some sort of fucking horror show on this issue. Let's not pretend otherwise all of a sudden. And what I've been saying is the same thing you'll see a ton of people saying in response: that this is just bog standard US foreign policy on the US-Israel-Palestine issue.
Nor is it what you see getting thrown around anyway. The main parts are all the things you expect: work with Israel and Palestine on peace efforts, reverse cutting of diplomatic ties with Palestinians, reopen consulate in East Jeruaslem, yada, yada, yada. Standard shit. You can go to his website and find it yourself if you like. You just gotta scroll way the fuck down cause it's all the way at the bottom cause it's like basically the least important issue for voters.
No, I don't. What is mutually exclusive is the idea that this is a Biden thing, which is (as I quoted) the entire context with which it was raised and discussed here. Or that this is even some sort of failing on the part of Democratic leadership or something, which has been another popular line. As if one can find some specific favourite target to blame because the alternative would be to see it as a broad popular position that is reflected in the american government.
I tend to agree; the current Dem candidate is merely a symptom, representative of the status quo and general national mood, more of the same. Be nice if he wasn't, but that's how The People (led by the media *spit*) have voted.
Theres no reason to act like this is a complaint people only leverage against Biden.
We do. It's bad. It's probably not going to stop any time soon.
Is there more to discuss?
Its hard to come away from these discussions with the inpression that everyone is actually really bothered by it to be honest.
I think there's a strong current of learned apathy on the part of liberals with regards to Palestinian rights. "Oh its a shame oh yeah terrible but you know there's a whole machine what can you do" and then, morality signaled, they can move along while on the other side its baying hounds looking for blood so of course thats what we get.
Then next time open with that.
He's likely doing it to help Russia. I mean, all three of the Baltic states are former parts of the Russian republic, and without oversight to see what Putin's up to, lots of people are going to end up waking up with tank columns and Russian forces marching down Main Street and finding out they're part of Russia again. Essentially, it weakens allies and strengthens Russia, so Donnie's hoping for double the headpats from his Putin-senpai.
I can has cheezburger, yes?