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.
That is, imo, only true if you've never read threads on the middle east on this board. Like fuck, you can find plenty of posters here giving their opinions on this issue from over 10 years ago. The problem if anything is the attempt to constantly frame the discussion in the context of specific groups while ignoring both the larger picture and the history of people talking about the issue.
Basically "Joe Biden thinks Palestinians deserve to die" is not going to lead to a conversation on the merits or lack there of of the US's Israel-Palestine policy, nor is assuming the worst of other people for objecting to the framing.
shryke on
+7
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
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.
Biden's campaign until everybody folded and endorsed him is another stunning example. The Party drives public opinion to an overwhelming extent. Republicans understand this and they do it constantly.
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.
Then next time open with that.
So long as I don’t, apparently, specifically cite any specific political actors.
Unless they’re Trump or a member of his administration.
Trump is okay to cite as a political actor with specific problems endemic to his and his party’s ideological positions or material interests that do not have to be shuffled under a broader holistically American policy issue.
At which point citing specific political actors is fine to talk about.
But anyone outside of that circle must be avoided and their policies attributed to a nebulously formed American gestalt policy consciousness.
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.
That is, imo, only true if you've never read threads on the middle east on this board. Like fuck, you can find plenty of posters here giving their opinions on this issue from over 10 years ago. The problem if anything is the attempt to constantly frame the discussion in the context of specific groups while ignoring both the larger picture and the history of people talking about the issue.
Basically "Joe Biden thinks Palestinians deserve to die" is not going to lead to a conversation on the merits or lack there of of the US's Israel-Palestine policy, nor is assuming the worst of other people for objecting to the framing.
This thread has no problem doing this when the frame is the context of Republican groups and Individual actors.
Which is good, because you need to be able to examine that context in understanding policy, the interaction of nations and the like. You can’t just ignore the influence of these things in driving policy and action.
But then folks absolutely lose their shit if anyone tries to handle a Democrat or the party in the same manner.
It’s maddening, it’s not healthy and it renders us unable to actually debate these issues without falling into comfortable truisms and nihilism about the chances for positive change.
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.
This entire post approaches the dissolution of America’s involvement with the Open Skies treaty ENTIRELY from the context of Donald Trump’s material interests as its driver as they relate to pleasing Vladimir Putin. Shryke, you even agreed with it, your avatar is in the corner with a little agree stamp on it!
And this is fine! The history of the Trump/Putin/Russian Oligarch relationship is a legitimate and important topic of consideration, and the trend of policy changes that help bolster Putin’s regime’s interests is concerning to say the least!
We have no problem doing this with Trump. So why the fuck did my post have to turn into a goddamn four page long argument in trying to defend its legitimacy because I tied it to Joe Biden’s ideology (regarding Palestine) influencing US foreign policy when we already handle this shit JUST FINE with Trump as an individual actor?
And yes, I am aware this specific instance that Trump's policy is a pivot away from the norm, BUT at the same time the thread has no problem individualizing a policy down to being Trump specific or Trump driven when it is a further entrenchment of a negative established norm either by America holistically or the GOP as a group
Trump is, for better or worse, leading the party that is now his. He has made it all about him. Everything else the old party establishment wants to do, their broader agenda, gets done in the shadow of his vanity, by sucking up to him, or outside his awareness.
It's been years since anyone tried to lead the Democratic party. Even as a party, it does not lead; it follows and reflects the national mood. It is the party of "everyone who isn't them." We could use a leader - some think we had some, earlier in the primary, but people did not vote for them. Even now, I don't believe most people voted for Biden, per se (though that may be my own blind spot, as I don't consider him at all inspiring); they voted for "Not Trump", the hope of a return to norms, where they didn't have to worry about all of this stuff - especially not anything outside of our borders.
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.
Biden's campaign until everybody folded and endorsed him is another stunning example. The Party drives public opinion to an overwhelming extent. Republicans understand this and they do it constantly.
Do those examples have anything to do with Israel though?
One is a fairly partisan question about one of the most disliked Presidents in American History. Democrats already hate Trump. They were just unsure about impeaching him. The party leadership decides to go for it and the members who already hate the fucker fall in line. Is there some kind of secret majority of Democrats who already dislike Israel? What about Democrats feeling strongly about the suffering of the Palestinians? Do we have polling numbers that support that?
The other is a choice between a fairly lackluster primary field (Joe was not my first choice, or even in my top 10 to be honest but let's be honest none of them could command a great deal of public force or charisma). And when people start folding people rally around the "inevitable" winner. That doesn't say to me "The Party leadership spoke and the people fell in line." That says to me "None of these people could actually sway the field, so when the Party leadership came down on Joe's side people went 'Fuck it' and went with Joe."
Do you have any examples of the party actually forcing public opinion on something that was actively being struggled against by a sizable proportion of society? The last example I can think of is the Civil Rights Act. And Johnson was a) a better leader of the party, b ) had more control of the party) and c) used JFK's assassination to push that through Congress.
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.
Then next time open with that.
I don't see why he should have to. That should be the default assumption?
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.
So you would like more expressions of outrage?
Or are you looking for discussions of what can be done to change American Foreign policy?
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'd actually be completely okay with 'yes, it's bad policy based on a racist position, discussion over.' and that being the end of it
Trump is, for better or worse, leading the party that is now his. He has made it all about him. Everything else the old party establishment wants to do, their broader agenda, gets done in the shadow of his vanity, by sucking up to him, or outside his awareness.
It's been years since anyone tried to lead the Democratic party. Even as a party, it does not lead; it follows and reflects the national mood. It is the party of "everyone who isn't them." We could use a leader - some think we had some, earlier in the primary, but people did not vote for them. Even now, I don't believe most people voted for Biden, per se (though that may be my own blind spot, as I don't consider him at all inspiring); they voted for "Not Trump", the hope of a return to norms, where they didn't have to worry about all of this stuff - especially not anything outside of our borders.
I mean, that is the history of both parties regarding the chief executive. Bush becomes the defacto head of the GOP during his term, Obama the Democrats, Trump the GOP, and so on.
I think there is an important relationship to understand regarding leadership on this issue. You are right that the party does not lead, but this does not mean it does not exert political pressure and influence. The party is still full of ideological actors who are driven by their material interests, and so group into factions in support of those material interests and the ideologies that develop from them. This is, essentially, the core of the (lower case C) conservatism of the Democrats for the last few decades. They will adapt to the gestalt American political will, but because that is still itself within the realm of conservative behavior (as averse to reactionary behavior demonstrated by the GOP). But they are not vessels of the gestalt American political will, as they are still themselves individual actors, grouped in factions, driven by material interest. They're just willing to concede a point once resisting the point is no longer viable.
I think to an extent this is the idea that Shryke is basing his responses around, but it repeatedly comes across as trying to deny the party and it's individual actors as ideological actors in favor of the idea that they are purely a vessel for the gestalt American political will. But that denies a massive part of how these organizations function.
Which ultimately why I find this whole thing so frustrating. We can readily discuss Trump as an individual actor who will influence US foreign policy and entrench a certain view within the GOP, but the moment we try to point out Biden's ideology regarding the Palestinians and the Israeli apartheid, we instead get into a four page long debate about why bring Biden up at all instead of actually doing even a moment's analysis of any of this, or the impact it will have on US foreign policy and the Democrats positions on the matter for the futre.
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.
We can think it's both bad and that there are other more pressing issues to devote our mental and emotional outrage to. It isn't healthy to get bogged down angry at every fucked up thing in the world.
Again, I don't think there's been much indication by posters here actually wanting a discussion. It reads to me mostly like rage. Because when I'm sitting here trying to have a discussion about how US foreign policy is the way it is I get told I'm a nightmare because I use a bit of introspection in my analysis.
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?
Trump is, for better or worse, leading the party that is now his. He has made it all about him. Everything else the old party establishment wants to do, their broader agenda, gets done in the shadow of his vanity, by sucking up to him, or outside his awareness.
It's been years since anyone tried to lead the Democratic party. Even as a party, it does not lead; it follows and reflects the national mood. It is the party of "everyone who isn't them." We could use a leader - some think we had some, earlier in the primary, but people did not vote for them. Even now, I don't believe most people voted for Biden, per se (though that may be my own blind spot, as I don't consider him at all inspiring); they voted for "Not Trump", the hope of a return to norms, where they didn't have to worry about all of this stuff - especially not anything outside of our borders.
I mean, that is the history of both parties regarding the chief executive. Bush becomes the defacto head of the GOP during his term, Obama the Democrats, Trump the GOP, and so on.
I think there is an important relationship to understand regarding leadership on this issue. You are right that the party does not lead, but this does not mean it does not exert political pressure and influence. The party is still full of ideological actors who are driven by their material interests, and so group into factions in support of those material interests and the ideologies that develop from them. This is, essentially, the core of the (lower case C) conservatism of the Democrats for the last few decades. They will adapt to the gestalt American political will, but because that is still itself within the realm of conservative behavior (as averse to reactionary behavior demonstrated by the GOP). But they are not vessels of the gestalt American political will, as they are still themselves individual actors, grouped in factions, driven by material interest. They're just willing to concede a point once resisting the point is no longer viable.
I think to an extent this is the idea that Shryke is basing his responses around, but it repeatedly comes across as trying to deny the party and it's individual actors as ideological actors in favor of the idea that they are purely a vessel for the gestalt American political will. But that denies a massive part of how these organizations function.
Which ultimately why I find this whole thing so frustrating. We can readily discuss Trump as an individual actor who will influence US foreign policy and entrench a certain view within the GOP, but the moment we try to point out Biden's ideology regarding the Palestinians and the Israeli apartheid, we instead get into a four page long debate about why bring Biden up at all instead of actually doing even a moment's analysis of any of this, or the impact it will have on US foreign policy and the Democrats positions on the matter for the futre.
As far as I know this is another area where Trump is legitimately different and more dangerous. He has actively taken control of the purse strings of the party meaning he is commanding and threatening it's members to bend the knee in very direct ways.
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?
Kiss Florida goodbye, and NY goes purple.
You really think NY is in contention if Biden doesnt have something in his platform abiut Palestinians being responsible for their open air prison?
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?
Kiss Florida goodbye, and NY goes purple.
You really think NY is in contention if Biden doesnt have something in his platform abiut Palestinians being responsible for their open air prison?
Yes. And FL a definite. I wish it weren't so, but I'm not a 16th level wizard so...
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.
Yes, we are enabling an apartheid state. It's brutal, evil and horrific. Hundreds of thousands have suffered and at least thousands have died while America gives Israel protection in the UN. We are complicit in that suffering and those deaths.
And I cannot think of a Presidential Candidate in the last 40 years (whether successful or unsuccessful) who has done anything to challenge that position. Bernie came the closest, but he was still a strong supporter of Israel.
That's why I said the last time this came up that it would a long grinding fight. A great deal of effort has been made to tie Israel to the idea of a "friend" "ally" or "theocratic necessity" in American Society.
There is no messiah around the corner on this. There is no brilliant leader who will change everything. The effort to tie support for Israel to a fundamental foreign policy pillar in America has been going on for decades.
How quickly do you think that is going to be overcome? And where do you start? Because I think expecting leadership from the top to change this is waiting for a train that ain't coming.
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?
Kiss Florida goodbye, and NY goes purple.
You really think NY is in contention if Biden doesnt have something in his platform abiut Palestinians being responsible for their open air prison?
Yes. And FL a definite. I wish it weren't so, but I'm not a 16th level wizard so...
Woah, woah, woah, woah.
You need to be level 17 to cast Wish. Don't try to sell us on the idea that Limited Wish is going to alter that level of politics. You would need a full Wish.
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.
We can think it's both bad and that there are other more pressing issues to devote our mental and emotional outrage to. It isn't healthy to get bogged down angry at every fucked up thing in the world.
Again, I don't think there's been much indication by posters here actually wanting a discussion. It reads to me mostly like rage. Because when I'm sitting here trying to have a discussion about how US foreign policy is the way it is I get told I'm a nightmare because I use a bit of introspection in my analysis.
I said the situation, that someone in your position could not care about a major human rights travesty, as well as the general American public’s apathy, not you, personally, is a nightmare
The whole thing feels fucking bizarre to me, as if the point is trying to defend the lack of care rather than point out what a nightmare it is that a person whose profession is (as you note) literally in public policy, let alone the wider populace as a whole, doesn't care much about one of the pivotal issues of
human rights and Middle East policy in the post-war period through early 21st-century.
Which I honestly don’t know what to tell you. This isn’t some small issue. This is an apartheid government whose typical reaction to the conflict is “drop bombs on the Palestinians, and occasionally snipe journalists and medics during riots and then go ‘whoops!’ when the international community calls them out.”
Maybe that’s actually worth being angry about.
This isn’t just some “fucked up thing in the world”
The government is seizing land, repeatedly defying calls to cease annexing land belonging to the Palestinians as their portion of land in Gaza, in the West Bank, in the scattered archipelagos of community within the borders of Israel shrink ever further. As their rights to movement and commerce are restricted. As the Palestinian people are injured, maimed and killed by the Israeli military in a power disparity that boggles the mind. As cycles of violence and hatred are set in motion, entrenched and inflamed for generations to come.
If folks are burnt out over watching the carnage and suffering continue to unfold, that’s one thing. But the tone of some of the folks in this thread doesn’t read as burn out, it reads as a sort of high minded derision for bringing up the topic and bothering to tie it to a major political actor whose stated promises are to make the situation worse, because he thinks the Palestinians are responsible for their own oppression because they made “bad choices” and the government of Israel has no choice but to respond with force against a people whose lands they’ve seized for decades, refuse to recognize the human rights of the Palestinians they have been oppressing for decades.
This is worth being angry about. Injustice, the suffering of your fellow human beings is always worth being angry about.
And the more I read your post honestly the more frustrated I get.
“ We can think it's both bad and that there are other more pressing issues to devote our mental and emotional outrage to. It isn't healthy to get bogged down angry at every fucked up thing in the world. ”
Like
What are these more pressing issues? Specifically, in the context of this, the US Foreign policy thread? What issues must the suffering of the Palestinians and our nation’s role in enabling the Israeli right wing’s execution of it wait in line behind?
The only people who would lose their minds if the US government changed it's policy on Palestine extensively would be Washington policy wonks, pundits and various associated hangers on
You'd get guys who's entire qualification is "GOP member, Lawyer, goes to parties in DC where senior DNC members are" being like "THIS IS A SERIOUS QUESTION ON THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITMENTS" yadda yadda yadda but most people do. not. give. a. fuck.
Also is it me or is “you’d lose Florida and turn New York purple” just a bit casually racist regarding connecting Jewish Americans to Israel, an issue that the community, particularly among its left wing, have been growing increasingly frustrated by (particularly its issues with racist “dual loyalty” bullshit) according to memory?
Also one that presumes there are absolutely no political groups in Israel who have a better position on the governments relationship with the Palestinian people, instead of this deal where we just keep substituting the policy preferences and material interests of Likud for Israel as a whole?
Lanz on
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Also is it me or is “you’d lose Florida and turn New York purple” just a bit casually racist regarding connecting Jewish Americans to Israel, an issue that the community, particularly among its left wing, have been growing increasingly frustrated by (particularly its issues with racist “dual loyalty” bullshit) according to memory?
Also one that presumes there are absolutely no political groups in Israel who have a better position on the governments relationship with the Palestinian people, instead of this deal where we just keep substituting the policy preferences and material interests of Likud for Israel as a whole?
I think it is up in the air over whether it would actually happen now, but it probably used to be the case, and no politician likes being the first one to have to test the paradigm shift.
Fencingsax on
+4
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Also is it me or is “you’d lose Florida and turn New York purple” just a bit casually racist regarding connecting Jewish Americans to Israel, an issue that the community, particularly among its left wing, have been growing increasingly frustrated by (particularly its issues with racist “dual loyalty” bullshit) according to memory?
Also one that presumes there are absolutely no political groups in Israel who have a better position on the governments relationship with the Palestinian people, instead of this deal where we just keep substituting the policy preferences and material interests of Likud for Israel as a whole?
Naw. Turning NY purple is just straight up delusional. Losing Florida is at least realistic and based on the fact that older Jewish voters have strong (and at this point, generally bad) opinions about Israel. Younger Jews are more of a mixed bag, but it's Florida, so the olds have it.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
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.
It’s an old party trick. It’s how they were the party of urban African Americans while also being the party of the Southerners who were lynching rural African Americans.
Also is it me or is “you’d lose Florida and turn New York purple” just a bit casually racist regarding connecting Jewish Americans to Israel, an issue that the community, particularly among its left wing, have been growing increasingly frustrated by (particularly its issues with racist “dual loyalty” bullshit) according to memory?
Also one that presumes there are absolutely no political groups in Israel who have a better position on the governments relationship with the Palestinian people, instead of this deal where we just keep substituting the policy preferences and material interests of Likud for Israel as a whole?
Democratic policy is right wing Israeli policy. That’s the joke. We don’t support “Israel”.
We bipartisanly support Likud.
+3
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I think it's not so much "lose their shit when bad Democratic policies or actors are called out" but some combination of:
the hyperbole used to exaggerate the policies (lines like the "Biden thinks Palestinians deserve to die, etc."). The actual policies are bad enough that we don't need to lie or exaggerate.
the regularity that these issues are used to paint the current Democratic candidates of the time as the same as Republicans, when there is a vast gulf between "not great" and "actively trying to destroy people." This is why the exaggeration is so infuriating to a bunch of people. Trump literally has taken steps to help Israel kill Palestinians, Biden's platform just doesn't reverse it as fast as we would like and doesn't hold Israel to account for past actions. That's still bad! But it's not the same thing and painting it as such confuses the actual issues.
the repetition of this topic in this, or other, threads ad nauesum with no real outcome except for Lanz, Styrofoam, and the other folks who are focused on things ought to be in a proper, decent world getting into arguments with Shryke and the folks more focused on what is actually possible with the regemes and political systems we have agency over. Both sides of this discussion end up in the exact same places each time, never agree, but end up arguing until someone gets banned or the mods tell folks to change topic.
Or the United States is a massively dysfunctional and violent superpower 100 percent of the time, but the Democrats know how to make educated professionals comfortable with that while the GOP just goes and says the quiet part aloud. Some of us just find the Democratic fanboys to be tiresome in their constant attempts to minimize this.
You don’t have to “support” either of them to realize that one is better than the other but still massively shitty compared to most centrist parties in other developed nations.
Biden's platform doesn't reverse it at all, and any assertion that it does, or that he's even interested in doing so, is a faith-based statement with no evidence.
Rationalizing why bad foreign policy is okay (but only in the case of certain people) because that's 'what is possible right now' has literally never led to better foreign policy.
EDIT: I’m also not sympathetic to the argument that Biden is simply reading the political tea leaves and is only taking his racist position because not doing so would lose him too many votes. Customarily on this forum, when one poses skepticism of a politician adopting a popular policy just to garner support, it’s met with the argument of ‘studies show that politicians are actually honest about their platforms and statements’ so I’m not sure why we shouldn’t take that same lesson here. The sad (and I mean that sincerely) truth is that, acknowledging that politics falls on a spectrum and not a binary scale, more Democrats need to have a 'are we the baddies?' moment, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
Javen on
+8
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
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.
Biden's campaign until everybody folded and endorsed him is another stunning example. The Party drives public opinion to an overwhelming extent. Republicans understand this and they do it constantly.
Do those examples have anything to do with Israel though?
One is a fairly partisan question about one of the most disliked Presidents in American History. Democrats already hate Trump. They were just unsure about impeaching him. The party leadership decides to go for it and the members who already hate the fucker fall in line. Is there some kind of secret majority of Democrats who already dislike Israel? What about Democrats feeling strongly about the suffering of the Palestinians? Do we have polling numbers that support that?
The other is a choice between a fairly lackluster primary field (Joe was not my first choice, or even in my top 10 to be honest but let's be honest none of them could command a great deal of public force or charisma). And when people start folding people rally around the "inevitable" winner. That doesn't say to me "The Party leadership spoke and the people fell in line." That says to me "None of these people could actually sway the field, so when the Party leadership came down on Joe's side people went 'Fuck it' and went with Joe."
Do you have any examples of the party actually forcing public opinion on something that was actively being struggled against by a sizable proportion of society? The last example I can think of is the Civil Rights Act. And Johnson was a) a better leader of the party, b ) had more control of the party) and c) used JFK's assassination to push that through Congress.
I mean we haven't had leadership in the party for a long ass time so...
But I'd argue that support for gay marriage shifted by like 30+ points after Obama and the Party started to change course on it.
You start talking about how Israel is stealing Palestinian land, dumping sewage in their water, destroying their infrastructure, and shooting protest medics on the national stage and opinion will shift. Most people just aren't fucking aware of this shit because it doesn't get mainstream coverage. You put pictures of Rouzan al-Najjar's death on the news and people will care. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouzan_al-Najjar
I think it's not so much "lose their shit when bad Democratic policies or actors are called out" but some combination of:
the hyperbole used to exaggerate the policies (lines like the "Biden thinks Palestinians deserve to die, etc."). The actual policies are bad enough that we don't need to lie or exaggerate.
the regularity that these issues are used to paint the current Democratic candidates of the time as the same as Republicans, when there is a vast gulf between "not great" and "actively trying to destroy people." This is why the exaggeration is so infuriating to a bunch of people. Trump literally has taken steps to help Israel kill Palestinians, Biden's platform just doesn't reverse it as fast as we would like and doesn't hold Israel to account for past actions. That's still bad! But it's not the same thing and painting it as such confuses the actual issues.
the repetition of this topic in this, or other, threads ad nauesum with no real outcome except for Lanz, Styrofoam, and the other folks who are focused on things ought to be in a proper, decent world getting into arguments with Shryke and the folks more focused on what is actually possible with the regemes and political systems we have agency over. Both sides of this discussion end up in the exact same places each time, never agree, but end up arguing until someone gets banned or the mods tell folks to change topic.
What does not letting the Palestinians off the hook when they're being genocided mean?
Also is it me or is “you’d lose Florida and turn New York purple” just a bit casually racist regarding connecting Jewish Americans to Israel, an issue that the community, particularly among its left wing, have been growing increasingly frustrated by (particularly its issues with racist “dual loyalty” bullshit) according to memory?
Also one that presumes there are absolutely no political groups in Israel who have a better position on the governments relationship with the Palestinian people, instead of this deal where we just keep substituting the policy preferences and material interests of Likud for Israel as a whole?
Naw. Turning NY purple is just straight up delusional. Losing Florida is at least realistic and based on the fact that older Jewish voters have strong (and at this point, generally bad) opinions about Israel. Younger Jews are more of a mixed bag, but it's Florida, so the olds have it.
While I agree, at a state level (so, for the Electoral College for President, and Federal Senate/State Governor), maybe not. But I think that Federal House in some areas might flip. And while the Democrats do have the majority, it's not an unassailable one. Lose some in New York, contest some more in the battleground states, and places like Orange County in Cali...
Biden taking the Presidency and the Senate, but losing the House, would be such a punch in the dick.
+2
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
I doubt it's Jewish Americans that politicians are primarily playing to when they announce their support of Israel's right wingiest policies. It's evangelical Americans.
I doubt it's Jewish Americans that politicians are primarily playing to when they announce their support of Israel's right wingiest policies. It's evangelical Americans.
And for the most perverse and disgusting of reasons.
+11
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
“To make this question accessible, we lied to our poll subjects about the actual reality of the conflict, about a fundamental political aspect we thought was too complicated”
As someone who's done social science research work (as an undergrad) and asked his professor (who designed the questionnaire) specifically about overly simple questions, the answer to this is "based on previous questionnnaires asking people about the individual governments would not provide statistically meaningful data, or would overwhelmingly return 'don't know,' so on the basis that some data is better than none we consolidated the questions and made sure to note we did that. It ain't great but it's what we have."
That said I think if you're expecting a random sample of Americans to draw a distinction between the PLA and Hamas you're going to be disappointed.
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.
Biden's campaign until everybody folded and endorsed him is another stunning example. The Party drives public opinion to an overwhelming extent. Republicans understand this and they do it constantly.
Do those examples have anything to do with Israel though?
One is a fairly partisan question about one of the most disliked Presidents in American History. Democrats already hate Trump. They were just unsure about impeaching him. The party leadership decides to go for it and the members who already hate the fucker fall in line. Is there some kind of secret majority of Democrats who already dislike Israel? What about Democrats feeling strongly about the suffering of the Palestinians? Do we have polling numbers that support that?
The other is a choice between a fairly lackluster primary field (Joe was not my first choice, or even in my top 10 to be honest but let's be honest none of them could command a great deal of public force or charisma). And when people start folding people rally around the "inevitable" winner. That doesn't say to me "The Party leadership spoke and the people fell in line." That says to me "None of these people could actually sway the field, so when the Party leadership came down on Joe's side people went 'Fuck it' and went with Joe."
Do you have any examples of the party actually forcing public opinion on something that was actively being struggled against by a sizable proportion of society? The last example I can think of is the Civil Rights Act. And Johnson was a) a better leader of the party, b ) had more control of the party) and c) used JFK's assassination to push that through Congress.
I mean we haven't had leadership in the party for a long ass time so...
But I'd argue that support for gay marriage shifted by like 30+ points after Obama and the Party started to change course on it.
You start talking about how Israel is stealing Palestinian land, dumping sewage in their water, destroying their infrastructure, and shooting protest medics on the national stage and opinion will shift. Most people just aren't fucking aware of this shit because it doesn't get mainstream coverage. You put pictures of Rouzan al-Najjar's death on the news and people will care. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouzan_al-Najjar
I think it's not so much "lose their shit when bad Democratic policies or actors are called out" but some combination of:
the hyperbole used to exaggerate the policies (lines like the "Biden thinks Palestinians deserve to die, etc."). The actual policies are bad enough that we don't need to lie or exaggerate.
the regularity that these issues are used to paint the current Democratic candidates of the time as the same as Republicans, when there is a vast gulf between "not great" and "actively trying to destroy people." This is why the exaggeration is so infuriating to a bunch of people. Trump literally has taken steps to help Israel kill Palestinians, Biden's platform just doesn't reverse it as fast as we would like and doesn't hold Israel to account for past actions. That's still bad! But it's not the same thing and painting it as such confuses the actual issues.
the repetition of this topic in this, or other, threads ad nauesum with no real outcome except for Lanz, Styrofoam, and the other folks who are focused on things ought to be in a proper, decent world getting into arguments with Shryke and the folks more focused on what is actually possible with the regemes and political systems we have agency over. Both sides of this discussion end up in the exact same places each time, never agree, but end up arguing until someone gets banned or the mods tell folks to change topic.
What does not letting the Palestinians off the hook when they're being genocided mean?
I don't even know. I don't think anyone here knows either. It reads to me like politician speak of saying something without saying anything.
"Any decision impinging on Hong Kong's autonomy and freedoms as guaranteed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law would inevitably impact our assessment of One Country, Two Systems and the status of the territory," Pompeo said in a statement Friday.
The controversial national security law, which is expected to ban sedition, secession and subversion of the central government in Beijing, is set to be introduced at the annual meeting of the National People's Congress (NPC), China's rubber stamp parliament.
Vincent Lee is Reuters' China Breaking News Editor:
"Any decision impinging on Hong Kong's autonomy and freedoms as guaranteed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law would inevitably impact our assessment of One Country, Two Systems and the status of the territory," Pompeo said in a statement Friday.
The controversial national security law, which is expected to ban sedition, secession and subversion of the central government in Beijing, is set to be introduced at the annual meeting of the National People's Congress (NPC), China's rubber stamp parliament.
Vincent Lee is Reuters' China Breaking News Editor:
If only the Chinese government feared this President. But they don't. They might accept that Trump will possibly engage in military action (because he's a petulant child), but I think they might actually welcome that.
But concerns that he might be able to use economic or diplomatic pressure, gaining the coalition needed for that to actually have an impact? Yeah, Trump spent three years pissing that away.
And that's assuming they don't have substantial kompromat on Trump (not directly, like Putin, but gathered by MSS, or possibly given by North Korea), which would be almost a given by now, that'll curtail any significant threat from the President. Because looking weak is Trump's greatest fear.
Pompeo's just bleating out threats because what else is he going to do? It's clear he's only barely more qualified to be SecState than Trump is to be President.
"Any decision impinging on Hong Kong's autonomy and freedoms as guaranteed under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law would inevitably impact our assessment of One Country, Two Systems and the status of the territory," Pompeo said in a statement Friday.
The controversial national security law, which is expected to ban sedition, secession and subversion of the central government in Beijing, is set to be introduced at the annual meeting of the National People's Congress (NPC), China's rubber stamp parliament.
Vincent Lee is Reuters' China Breaking News Editor:
If only the Chinese government feared this President. But they don't. They might accept that Trump will possibly engage in military action (because he's a petulant child), but I think they might actually welcome that.
But concerns that he might be able to use economic or diplomatic pressure, gaining the coalition needed for that to actually have an impact? Yeah, Trump spent three years pissing that away.
And that's assuming they don't have substantial kompromat on Trump (not directly, like Putin, but gathered by MSS, or possibly given by North Korea), which would be almost a given by now, that'll curtail any significant threat from the President. Because looking weak is Trump's greatest fear.
Pompeo's just bleating out threats because what else is he going to do? It's clear he's only barely more qualified to be SecState than Trump is to be President.
I'm conflicted about this. I think it's right for the current administration to attack China over this (and many other things really), but because they're a bunch of child sycophants it's hard to believe they would move forward on it. Given Biden's current campaigning strategy of attacking Trump for bowing down to China on a lot of things, it seems like a Biden administration might actually take the Chinese to task, which I would welcome because they deserve it. BUT, it also heightens the risk of a military fuck-up, which I don't want.
Or the United States is a massively dysfunctional and violent superpower 100 percent of the time, but the Democrats know how to make educated professionals comfortable with that while the GOP just goes and says the quiet part aloud. Some of us just find the Democratic fanboys to be tiresome in their constant attempts to minimize this.
You don’t have to “support” either of them to realize that one is better than the other but still massively shitty compared to most centrist parties in other developed nations.
What other centrist parties in other developed nations exactly?
“To make this question accessible, we lied to our poll subjects about the actual reality of the conflict, about a fundamental political aspect we thought was too complicated”
As someone who's done social science research work (as an undergrad) and asked his professor (who designed the questionnaire) specifically about overly simple questions, the answer to this is "based on previous questionnnaires asking people about the individual governments would not provide statistically meaningful data, or would overwhelmingly return 'don't know,' so on the basis that some data is better than none we consolidated the questions and made sure to note we did that. It ain't great but it's what we have."
That said I think if you're expecting a random sample of Americans to draw a distinction between the PLA and Hamas you're going to be disappointed.
If Americans do not understand the difference between the PLA and Hamas, then wouldn't "don't know" be a more accurate answer reflecting both their position and the reality of the political situation?
If people don't know, then they don't know. It seems like trying to get "some data" in this case is going to give you a misrepresentation of thing you're trying to model.
I think it's not so much "lose their shit when bad Democratic policies or actors are called out" but some combination of:
the hyperbole used to exaggerate the policies (lines like the "Biden thinks Palestinians deserve to die, etc."). The actual policies are bad enough that we don't need to lie or exaggerate.
the regularity that these issues are used to paint the current Democratic candidates of the time as the same as Republicans, when there is a vast gulf between "not great" and "actively trying to destroy people." This is why the exaggeration is so infuriating to a bunch of people. Trump literally has taken steps to help Israel kill Palestinians, Biden's platform just doesn't reverse it as fast as we would like and doesn't hold Israel to account for past actions. That's still bad! But it's not the same thing and painting it as such confuses the actual issues.
the repetition of this topic in this, or other, threads ad nauesum with no real outcome except for Lanz, Styrofoam, and the other folks who are focused on things ought to be in a proper, decent world getting into arguments with Shryke and the folks more focused on what is actually possible with the regemes and political systems we have agency over. Both sides of this discussion end up in the exact same places each time, never agree, but end up arguing until someone gets banned or the mods tell folks to change topic.
I'm gonna add something to this. People can take it or leave it, of course.
One frustration I have in these conversations is how my and others' responses in here are treated as malicious or as a moral failing rather than as a genuine skepticism and people just trying their best to grapple with the vast complexities of social/economic/foreign policy. Things are complicated, policy is hard, there are rarely correct or wrong answers to these things. Immediately after the above post the next two are:
Or the United States is a massively dysfunctional and violent superpower 100 percent of the time, but the Democrats know how to make educated professionals comfortable with that while the GOP just goes and says the quiet part aloud. Some of us just find the Democratic fanboys to be tiresome in their constant attempts to minimize this.
You don’t have to “support” either of them to realize that one is better than the other but still massively shitty compared to most centrist parties in other developed nations.
Biden's platform doesn't reverse it at all, and any assertion that it does, or that he's even interested in doing so, is a faith-based statement with no evidence.
Rationalizing why bad foreign policy is okay (but only in the case of certain people) because that's 'what is possible right now' has literally never led to better foreign policy.
EDIT: I’m also not sympathetic to the argument that Biden is simply reading the political tea leaves and is only taking his racist position because not doing so would lose him too many votes. Customarily on this forum, when one poses skepticism of a politician adopting a popular policy just to garner support, it’s met with the argument of ‘studies show that politicians are actually honest about their platforms and statements’ so I’m not sure why we shouldn’t take that same lesson here. The sad (and I mean that sincerely) truth is that, acknowledging that politics falls on a spectrum and not a binary scale, more Democrats need to have a 'are we the baddies?' moment, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
Framing these conversations, or the people opposite of you in the conversation, as some kind of moral failing is legitimately exhausting to argue against and rarely even fruitful or worth arguing against. Once you reach the point where "they're just evil" you've lost any hope of actually having a decent conversation about a topic without facetious shitposting or just unhelpful comments.
I agree with Javen's post there: rationalizing bad foreign policy is not good to do, but trying to understand why people have their policy positions can be instructive and even helpful. And in my mind it's neither instructive nor helpful to say "Biden just wants Palestinians to die" as explanation for his policy position.
And this phenomenon is not just in this thread, but in pretty much every other thread talking about policy or anything remotely controversial. I agree with most of the things people argue for in this and other threads, but I'm not going to post my agreement because if I wanted an opinion circle-jerk I would go on twitter.
Posts
That is, imo, only true if you've never read threads on the middle east on this board. Like fuck, you can find plenty of posters here giving their opinions on this issue from over 10 years ago. The problem if anything is the attempt to constantly frame the discussion in the context of specific groups while ignoring both the larger picture and the history of people talking about the issue.
Basically "Joe Biden thinks Palestinians deserve to die" is not going to lead to a conversation on the merits or lack there of of the US's Israel-Palestine policy, nor is assuming the worst of other people for objecting to the framing.
Biden's campaign until everybody folded and endorsed him is another stunning example. The Party drives public opinion to an overwhelming extent. Republicans understand this and they do it constantly.
So long as I don’t, apparently, specifically cite any specific political actors.
Unless they’re Trump or a member of his administration.
Trump is okay to cite as a political actor with specific problems endemic to his and his party’s ideological positions or material interests that do not have to be shuffled under a broader holistically American policy issue.
At which point citing specific political actors is fine to talk about.
But anyone outside of that circle must be avoided and their policies attributed to a nebulously formed American gestalt policy consciousness.
This thread has no problem doing this when the frame is the context of Republican groups and Individual actors.
Which is good, because you need to be able to examine that context in understanding policy, the interaction of nations and the like. You can’t just ignore the influence of these things in driving policy and action.
But then folks absolutely lose their shit if anyone tries to handle a Democrat or the party in the same manner.
It’s maddening, it’s not healthy and it renders us unable to actually debate these issues without falling into comfortable truisms and nihilism about the chances for positive change.
This entire post approaches the dissolution of America’s involvement with the Open Skies treaty ENTIRELY from the context of Donald Trump’s material interests as its driver as they relate to pleasing Vladimir Putin. Shryke, you even agreed with it, your avatar is in the corner with a little agree stamp on it!
And this is fine! The history of the Trump/Putin/Russian Oligarch relationship is a legitimate and important topic of consideration, and the trend of policy changes that help bolster Putin’s regime’s interests is concerning to say the least!
We have no problem doing this with Trump. So why the fuck did my post have to turn into a goddamn four page long argument in trying to defend its legitimacy because I tied it to Joe Biden’s ideology (regarding Palestine) influencing US foreign policy when we already handle this shit JUST FINE with Trump as an individual actor?
And yes, I am aware this specific instance that Trump's policy is a pivot away from the norm, BUT at the same time the thread has no problem individualizing a policy down to being Trump specific or Trump driven when it is a further entrenchment of a negative established norm either by America holistically or the GOP as a group
It's been years since anyone tried to lead the Democratic party. Even as a party, it does not lead; it follows and reflects the national mood. It is the party of "everyone who isn't them." We could use a leader - some think we had some, earlier in the primary, but people did not vote for them. Even now, I don't believe most people voted for Biden, per se (though that may be my own blind spot, as I don't consider him at all inspiring); they voted for "Not Trump", the hope of a return to norms, where they didn't have to worry about all of this stuff - especially not anything outside of our borders.
Do those examples have anything to do with Israel though?
One is a fairly partisan question about one of the most disliked Presidents in American History. Democrats already hate Trump. They were just unsure about impeaching him. The party leadership decides to go for it and the members who already hate the fucker fall in line. Is there some kind of secret majority of Democrats who already dislike Israel? What about Democrats feeling strongly about the suffering of the Palestinians? Do we have polling numbers that support that?
The other is a choice between a fairly lackluster primary field (Joe was not my first choice, or even in my top 10 to be honest but let's be honest none of them could command a great deal of public force or charisma). And when people start folding people rally around the "inevitable" winner. That doesn't say to me "The Party leadership spoke and the people fell in line." That says to me "None of these people could actually sway the field, so when the Party leadership came down on Joe's side people went 'Fuck it' and went with Joe."
Do you have any examples of the party actually forcing public opinion on something that was actively being struggled against by a sizable proportion of society? The last example I can think of is the Civil Rights Act. And Johnson was a) a better leader of the party, b ) had more control of the party) and c) used JFK's assassination to push that through Congress.
I don't see why he should have to. That should be the default assumption?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
So you would like more expressions of outrage?
Or are you looking for discussions of what can be done to change American Foreign policy?
I'd actually be completely okay with 'yes, it's bad policy based on a racist position, discussion over.' and that being the end of it
It's the 'well actually...' that's pretty gross.
I mean, that is the history of both parties regarding the chief executive. Bush becomes the defacto head of the GOP during his term, Obama the Democrats, Trump the GOP, and so on.
I think there is an important relationship to understand regarding leadership on this issue. You are right that the party does not lead, but this does not mean it does not exert political pressure and influence. The party is still full of ideological actors who are driven by their material interests, and so group into factions in support of those material interests and the ideologies that develop from them. This is, essentially, the core of the (lower case C) conservatism of the Democrats for the last few decades. They will adapt to the gestalt American political will, but because that is still itself within the realm of conservative behavior (as averse to reactionary behavior demonstrated by the GOP). But they are not vessels of the gestalt American political will, as they are still themselves individual actors, grouped in factions, driven by material interest. They're just willing to concede a point once resisting the point is no longer viable.
I think to an extent this is the idea that Shryke is basing his responses around, but it repeatedly comes across as trying to deny the party and it's individual actors as ideological actors in favor of the idea that they are purely a vessel for the gestalt American political will. But that denies a massive part of how these organizations function.
Which ultimately why I find this whole thing so frustrating. We can readily discuss Trump as an individual actor who will influence US foreign policy and entrench a certain view within the GOP, but the moment we try to point out Biden's ideology regarding the Palestinians and the Israeli apartheid, we instead get into a four page long debate about why bring Biden up at all instead of actually doing even a moment's analysis of any of this, or the impact it will have on US foreign policy and the Democrats positions on the matter for the futre.
We can think it's both bad and that there are other more pressing issues to devote our mental and emotional outrage to. It isn't healthy to get bogged down angry at every fucked up thing in the world.
Again, I don't think there's been much indication by posters here actually wanting a discussion. It reads to me mostly like rage. Because when I'm sitting here trying to have a discussion about how US foreign policy is the way it is I get told I'm a nightmare because I use a bit of introspection in my analysis.
Kiss Florida goodbye, and NY goes purple.
As far as I know this is another area where Trump is legitimately different and more dangerous. He has actively taken control of the purse strings of the party meaning he is commanding and threatening it's members to bend the knee in very direct ways.
You really think NY is in contention if Biden doesnt have something in his platform abiut Palestinians being responsible for their open air prison?
Yes. And FL a definite. I wish it weren't so, but I'm not a 16th level wizard so...
Yes, we are enabling an apartheid state. It's brutal, evil and horrific. Hundreds of thousands have suffered and at least thousands have died while America gives Israel protection in the UN. We are complicit in that suffering and those deaths.
And I cannot think of a Presidential Candidate in the last 40 years (whether successful or unsuccessful) who has done anything to challenge that position. Bernie came the closest, but he was still a strong supporter of Israel.
And remember if you want to change minds on this, you aren't fighting just the Republicans. You are fighting these guys too.
That's why I said the last time this came up that it would a long grinding fight. A great deal of effort has been made to tie Israel to the idea of a "friend" "ally" or "theocratic necessity" in American Society.
There is no messiah around the corner on this. There is no brilliant leader who will change everything. The effort to tie support for Israel to a fundamental foreign policy pillar in America has been going on for decades.
How quickly do you think that is going to be overcome? And where do you start? Because I think expecting leadership from the top to change this is waiting for a train that ain't coming.
Woah, woah, woah, woah.
You need to be level 17 to cast Wish. Don't try to sell us on the idea that Limited Wish is going to alter that level of politics. You would need a full Wish.
I said the situation, that someone in your position could not care about a major human rights travesty, as well as the general American public’s apathy, not you, personally, is a nightmare
Which I honestly don’t know what to tell you. This isn’t some small issue. This is an apartheid government whose typical reaction to the conflict is “drop bombs on the Palestinians, and occasionally snipe journalists and medics during riots and then go ‘whoops!’ when the international community calls them out.”
Maybe that’s actually worth being angry about.
This isn’t just some “fucked up thing in the world”
The government is seizing land, repeatedly defying calls to cease annexing land belonging to the Palestinians as their portion of land in Gaza, in the West Bank, in the scattered archipelagos of community within the borders of Israel shrink ever further. As their rights to movement and commerce are restricted. As the Palestinian people are injured, maimed and killed by the Israeli military in a power disparity that boggles the mind. As cycles of violence and hatred are set in motion, entrenched and inflamed for generations to come.
If folks are burnt out over watching the carnage and suffering continue to unfold, that’s one thing. But the tone of some of the folks in this thread doesn’t read as burn out, it reads as a sort of high minded derision for bringing up the topic and bothering to tie it to a major political actor whose stated promises are to make the situation worse, because he thinks the Palestinians are responsible for their own oppression because they made “bad choices” and the government of Israel has no choice but to respond with force against a people whose lands they’ve seized for decades, refuse to recognize the human rights of the Palestinians they have been oppressing for decades.
This is worth being angry about. Injustice, the suffering of your fellow human beings is always worth being angry about.
And the more I read your post honestly the more frustrated I get.
“ We can think it's both bad and that there are other more pressing issues to devote our mental and emotional outrage to. It isn't healthy to get bogged down angry at every fucked up thing in the world. ”
Like
What are these more pressing issues? Specifically, in the context of this, the US Foreign policy thread? What issues must the suffering of the Palestinians and our nation’s role in enabling the Israeli right wing’s execution of it wait in line behind?
You'd get guys who's entire qualification is "GOP member, Lawyer, goes to parties in DC where senior DNC members are" being like "THIS IS A SERIOUS QUESTION ON THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITMENTS" yadda yadda yadda but most people do. not. give. a. fuck.
Also one that presumes there are absolutely no political groups in Israel who have a better position on the governments relationship with the Palestinian people, instead of this deal where we just keep substituting the policy preferences and material interests of Likud for Israel as a whole?
I think it is up in the air over whether it would actually happen now, but it probably used to be the case, and no politician likes being the first one to have to test the paradigm shift.
Naw. Turning NY purple is just straight up delusional. Losing Florida is at least realistic and based on the fact that older Jewish voters have strong (and at this point, generally bad) opinions about Israel. Younger Jews are more of a mixed bag, but it's Florida, so the olds have it.
It’s an old party trick. It’s how they were the party of urban African Americans while also being the party of the Southerners who were lynching rural African Americans.
“Just the way things are.”
Democratic policy is right wing Israeli policy. That’s the joke. We don’t support “Israel”.
We bipartisanly support Likud.
You don’t have to “support” either of them to realize that one is better than the other but still massively shitty compared to most centrist parties in other developed nations.
Rationalizing why bad foreign policy is okay (but only in the case of certain people) because that's 'what is possible right now' has literally never led to better foreign policy.
EDIT: I’m also not sympathetic to the argument that Biden is simply reading the political tea leaves and is only taking his racist position because not doing so would lose him too many votes. Customarily on this forum, when one poses skepticism of a politician adopting a popular policy just to garner support, it’s met with the argument of ‘studies show that politicians are actually honest about their platforms and statements’ so I’m not sure why we shouldn’t take that same lesson here. The sad (and I mean that sincerely) truth is that, acknowledging that politics falls on a spectrum and not a binary scale, more Democrats need to have a 'are we the baddies?' moment, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
I mean we haven't had leadership in the party for a long ass time so...
But I'd argue that support for gay marriage shifted by like 30+ points after Obama and the Party started to change course on it.
You start talking about how Israel is stealing Palestinian land, dumping sewage in their water, destroying their infrastructure, and shooting protest medics on the national stage and opinion will shift. Most people just aren't fucking aware of this shit because it doesn't get mainstream coverage. You put pictures of Rouzan al-Najjar's death on the news and people will care. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rouzan_al-Najjar
What does not letting the Palestinians off the hook when they're being genocided mean?
While I agree, at a state level (so, for the Electoral College for President, and Federal Senate/State Governor), maybe not. But I think that Federal House in some areas might flip. And while the Democrats do have the majority, it's not an unassailable one. Lose some in New York, contest some more in the battleground states, and places like Orange County in Cali...
Biden taking the Presidency and the Senate, but losing the House, would be such a punch in the dick.
And for the most perverse and disgusting of reasons.
As someone who's done social science research work (as an undergrad) and asked his professor (who designed the questionnaire) specifically about overly simple questions, the answer to this is "based on previous questionnnaires asking people about the individual governments would not provide statistically meaningful data, or would overwhelmingly return 'don't know,' so on the basis that some data is better than none we consolidated the questions and made sure to note we did that. It ain't great but it's what we have."
That said I think if you're expecting a random sample of Americans to draw a distinction between the PLA and Hamas you're going to be disappointed.
I don't even know. I don't think anyone here knows either. It reads to me like politician speak of saying something without saying anything.
Vincent Lee is Reuters' China Breaking News Editor:
If only the Chinese government feared this President. But they don't. They might accept that Trump will possibly engage in military action (because he's a petulant child), but I think they might actually welcome that.
But concerns that he might be able to use economic or diplomatic pressure, gaining the coalition needed for that to actually have an impact? Yeah, Trump spent three years pissing that away.
And that's assuming they don't have substantial kompromat on Trump (not directly, like Putin, but gathered by MSS, or possibly given by North Korea), which would be almost a given by now, that'll curtail any significant threat from the President. Because looking weak is Trump's greatest fear.
Pompeo's just bleating out threats because what else is he going to do? It's clear he's only barely more qualified to be SecState than Trump is to be President.
I'm conflicted about this. I think it's right for the current administration to attack China over this (and many other things really), but because they're a bunch of child sycophants it's hard to believe they would move forward on it. Given Biden's current campaigning strategy of attacking Trump for bowing down to China on a lot of things, it seems like a Biden administration might actually take the Chinese to task, which I would welcome because they deserve it. BUT, it also heightens the risk of a military fuck-up, which I don't want.
What other centrist parties in other developed nations exactly?
If Americans do not understand the difference between the PLA and Hamas, then wouldn't "don't know" be a more accurate answer reflecting both their position and the reality of the political situation?
If people don't know, then they don't know. It seems like trying to get "some data" in this case is going to give you a misrepresentation of thing you're trying to model.
I'm gonna add something to this. People can take it or leave it, of course.
One frustration I have in these conversations is how my and others' responses in here are treated as malicious or as a moral failing rather than as a genuine skepticism and people just trying their best to grapple with the vast complexities of social/economic/foreign policy. Things are complicated, policy is hard, there are rarely correct or wrong answers to these things. Immediately after the above post the next two are:
Framing these conversations, or the people opposite of you in the conversation, as some kind of moral failing is legitimately exhausting to argue against and rarely even fruitful or worth arguing against. Once you reach the point where "they're just evil" you've lost any hope of actually having a decent conversation about a topic without facetious shitposting or just unhelpful comments.
I agree with Javen's post there: rationalizing bad foreign policy is not good to do, but trying to understand why people have their policy positions can be instructive and even helpful. And in my mind it's neither instructive nor helpful to say "Biden just wants Palestinians to die" as explanation for his policy position.
And this phenomenon is not just in this thread, but in pretty much every other thread talking about policy or anything remotely controversial. I agree with most of the things people argue for in this and other threads, but I'm not going to post my agreement because if I wanted an opinion circle-jerk I would go on twitter.