-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Donald Trump on illegal Israeli settlements: "Keep going"
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
- Status
That's true, though Sanders seems to be the only one wanting a two-state solution, whereas all of the bigger politicians seem to be pro-Israel, including Hillary Clinton.
Father_Brain
Banned
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
Were you old enough to understand it all those years ago?
Because it sounds more like you got tired and quit roughly 25% of the way through, missing the parts about how (according to Bin Laden) all Jews are evil, everybody in America should convert to Islam or suffer the consequences, Sharia law is the only moral law and is given by god, the deaths of thousands of civilians on 9/11 was perfectly justified because those people were guilty of electing the governments that acted on their behalf.
Not to mention a fairly detailed argument, extending over several paragraphs, for why the US has no right to exist since it has brought on the most harm and evil upon humanity and planet earth out of any other nation bar-none.
Sprinkled in there are attacks on homosexuality, commercialism, gambling and drug use, sex-trafficking, incest, the rise of dictatorships and more - all of which are blamed on America.
America is also blamed for white supremicy, nuclear war, and inventing AIDS and unleashing it on the world.
But maybe I'm being unfair and you just missed those parts.
TheStruggler
Report me for trolling ND/TLoU2 threads
Do you realize that conservatives want Jesus back right? And supporting Israel is part to the plan for that.
Dayner_Kurdi
Banned
the next 4 year is going to be interesting if he ever win...
i'll start working on my nuke shelter now and hope Mr Trump not going to glass my country...
i'll start working on my nuke shelter now and hope Mr Trump not going to glass my country...
You seem to have a very limited an incorrect view of how the Jews of Europe ended up in Israel. You might want to read this:
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005129
and this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Committee_on_Palestine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
I'll give you the tl;dr version. After the holocaust, tens of thousands of surviving Jews were displaced in Europe. Many, if not most, had lost their homes and had nowhere to turn to. To make things worse, antisemitism didn't just end with the holocaust. There were numerous anti-Jewish riots and pogroms in the following years, especially in Poland where many were stranded. For instance, a pogrom in Kielce in 1946 killed 42 Jews and assaulted many others. This led to many trying to emigrate. This did not work because almost no country would have them. The US and the UK, among others, had very strict immigration quotas. Other countries closed their borders entirely. No one wanted to take in Jews. As a result, tens of thousands ended up in refugee camps in western controlled territory. Many thousands did try to emigrate to Palestine - which looked positively safe by comparison - but this was, actually, very much illegal because the same rules applied there as did in the rest of the UK territories. The Jewish Brigade Group of the British Army banded together with other paramilitary organisations in Palestine and tried to organise ships to bring them to Palestine, but the Royal Navy intercepted and turned away most of these. Many were put in detention camps on Cyprus.
Eventually, the British were losing their empire and couldn't hold on to Palestine. They brought it to the UN Security Council where it was decided to give parts of Palestine, including Jerusalem, to the Jews and recommended that Jews be allowed to emigrate there. Jewish leaders welcomed the decision but Arab leaders rejected it. Even after the decision, Britain was slow to act and kept Jews away for most of the remaining time of their mandate.
The decision did not go over well in the already unstable region and a civil war quickly broke out in 1947 as the British Mandate was expiring. It should be noted that Arab militias fired the first shots, but Jewish groups like Irgun responded with bombs. The British forces in Palestine did not intervene. The Jews of Palestine did not have a military at this time and lacked international support, so they formed militia units like the Haganah. The Jewish forces came out victorious and hundreds of thousands of Arab Palestinians fled. As the war ended, the state of Israel was formed in 1948. Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia declared war and invaded more or less instantly but were defeated. The rest is history. A way out of Europe for the Jews finally became reality. By 1953, 170,000 Jews had emigrated.
EDIT: And before people jump me, this is not meant as an excuse for the settlements or other atrocities Israel is doing today. It's simply meant to illustrate that the circumstances for why Israel came to be does in fact somewhat explain - but not excuse - them.
Is it prejudiced to point out that powerful evangelical leaders have amassed wealth and power and used it to leverage support for fairly extreme right wing policies?
I never in fact hear charges of prejudice when explaining the factual reality of the various groups of politically powerful Christian organizations but for whatever reason there is an instant declaration of anti-semitism by some the moment you begin discussing powerful, primarily Jewish organizations like Aipac.
Actually, that's the whole reason Israel was created. The UK asked the UN to take over the Mandate for Palestine and come to a solution because they couldn't handle the number of Jews trying to migrate to Palestine post-war.
Netherscourge
Banned
This is exactly the type of shit people need to worry about.
1. Trump being OK with Russia annexing Crimea or supporting al Assad in Syria.
2. Trump being OK with Israeli expansion into Palestinian territory.
It's the "give an inch, take a country" philosophy that he's too stupid to understand.
1. Trump being OK with Russia annexing Crimea or supporting al Assad in Syria.
2. Trump being OK with Israeli expansion into Palestinian territory.
It's the "give an inch, take a country" philosophy that he's too stupid to understand.
Mr. Giggles
Member
And_Gignac
Member
I was hoping his foreign policy being less interventionist (and by proxy I assumed Trump was less pro settlements) would force Clinton to also be less interventionist. Guess I was wrong.
What a pitiful election this will be.
What a pitiful election this will be.
The Albatross
Member
But that's not what was presented. What's presented is "Living in New York it shouldn't be a surprise that Trump/Clinton are surrounded by wealthy zionists." The implication obviously being that New York is, as Pres Harry Truman put it "Kiketown," and that living amongst wealthy Jews seduces you into supporting Israel (more so than living amongst wealthy Catholics or wealthy Irish)
Yes, a minority of wealthy American Jews care about Israel. This isn't very different from a minority of wealthy Irish Americans disproportionately caring about Irish Republicanism throughout the 20th century, and it shouldn't manifest itself in "Most wealthy Irish Americans are tied to the IRA" or "Most wealthy American Jews are tied to Israel" which is what was said and what me (and others) would argue is veiled antisemitism.
I'm not Jewish, though I live in an area that is more Jewish than most throughout the US, and while I grew up amongst Jews I did not grow up in the Jewish community. The idea that Judaism compels Jews to support Israeli policy is simply untrue, though, yes many Jewish organizations are more apt to defend Israeli policy. This isn't very different from the idea that Islam compels American Muslims to act on the behalf of Wahhabist in Saudi Arabia. Are there Islamic centers in the US that do not look critically at Saudi foreign or domestic policy? Yes. But Islam, as a religion, does not compel Muslim Americans to be secret agents for Saudi Arabia, no more than the Jewish religion compels American Jews to have secret motives for Israel. Racists and xenophobes tend to believe both of these things.
And that was really my point. Jewish organizations or community groups may not be proportionately critical of Israeli policy, but this isn't different from Irish groups like the Order of Hibernians not being critical of Irish Republicanism throughout the 20th century, or Islamic community groups not being critical of policy in some Islamic countries. It's also simply false that Jewish organizations don't speak out against egregious Israeli policy. This is a similar brand of racism that you hear from Trump supporters and American xenophobes who say things like, "Why don't Islamic scholars denounce Al Qaeda -- they must be complicit!" Of course there are Islamic scholars who denounce Al Qaeda and of course there are Jewish scholars who denounce Israeli policy (although to be sure, I am not conflating Israeli policy with Al Qaeda, just using both to illustrate how anti-Muslim racists and anti-Jewish racists come up with similar arguments and try to justify the veiled -- and in many cases probably accidental/incidental -- racism).
There is an undercurrent of racism that Donald Trump has somehow combined in his campaign: uniting anti-Israeli antisemitic conspiracy theorists and xenophobic anti-Muslims and anti-Latin Americans. It's fascinating that one campaign can bring both out, although you've also seen this on the far right of European politics throughout the decades.
Oh, no, don't try to change the discussion to pretend that someone was talking about Aipac. I found two points to be antisemtic, neither of which have anything to do with aipac:
- Trump and Clinton have been seduced to supporting Israeli because he's/she's from New York and surrounded by wealthy Jews.
- That most wealthy Jews have connections to Israel
These are antisemitic. Nobody was arguing about aipac or the Jewish lobby. The first is your typical Jewish conspiracy theory. "New York is filled with Jews, they're all rich, and they've seduced our politicians." This isn't even a fridge opinion, it's been a hallmark of antisemitism in America, Europe, and elsewhere for centuries... FDR, Truman, and Nixon (especially the last two) particularly agreed with it. 50 years prior to them, the French largely blamed the failure of the Panama Canal (and the seeds of the Dryfus Affair) on the same allegation. The second is accidental or incidental antisemitism. I don't think that somebody who repeats that is even antisemitic most of the time, it's just that they hear it second hand from people who either are antisemitic or people who are repeating it from another antisemite... "Most wealthy Jews have ties to Israel." It's simply, factually, false. But beyond that, it is an allegation that is mostly unique to American Jewry. While there are some other instances of it, like racist Americans who believe that wealthy Muslims are shipping money back to Saudi Arabia for Wahhabism or something, it's an idea that has persisted the longest about American Jews.
In the case of the second point, the person who wrote that (in my opinion) wasn't writing out of bad faith or in the interest of being antisemitic... He/she just thought it was true. "Most wealthy American Jews have connections to Israel." It's something you hear all the time, and then somebody else later comes in and says "BUT AIPAC SHOWS THIS IS TRUE!" So the person who first thought, "Most wealthy American Jews have ties to Israel" might not realize that, no, most wealthy American Jews have no tie to Israel and most Americans Jews have no tie to Israel. Most American Jews are probably divided and conflicted on Israel (supporting some things, not supporting other things, being unsure of a lot), like most Americans are, and why? Because American Jews are Americans.
Extra Sauce
Member
I can't tell the difference between Trump quotes and Trump parody quotes.
Biff
Member
Ummmm....
Hate to break it to you but that is actually fact.
Like... Even the most anti-Israel people know that literally thousands of missiles have been fired into Israel. They have killed 50 and wounded 1900 since 2001.
All of these are considered illegal attacks under international law due to the indiscriminate targeting of civilians, by the way.
It's ethnic cleansing, but not genocide. It's not like it's that much better though.
Bill Clinton was the last person to get us even close to a two state solution. Hillary was involved in the Obama administration pivot away from Israel during a time when the poltiical rumor mill had it that she and Obama distinctly distrusted Netanyahu and believed his real motivations to be luring the U.S. into a war with Iran, removing the most legitimate ally of Palestine from the board permanently. She said nice things about Israel at AIPAC (just like Obama did). Read that as you see fit.
The Albatross
Member
On the page you linked it says:
- Hillary Clinton negotiated a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine
- Hillary Clinton opposes Iran from aquiring/developing Nuclear weapons
- Clinton supported Obama's use of sanctions on Iran
- Hillary Clinton supported Israel building a defense barrier
- Clinton supported the release of Israeli soldiers held by Hamas and Hezbollah
- Clinton blocked foreign support of Hamas, called the Palestinian anti-terrorism act
- Clinton called for Syria to stop supporting terrorism in the middle east
(I cut out the quotes from CNN or others about Hillary and isolated her stance on the issues from this page)
If that's "massively pro-Israel" aside from, say, building the security barrier (which I could see could divide most people) are any of those really bad things? I can see arguments on both sides about the security barrier and see how some people are for and some people are against, but many of those other issues... I wouldn't disagree with them or think they're bad? I support a two-state solution, pulling back on settlements, and negotiating a return of land acquired in 1973, and while I'm kind of pessimistic on peace, I think I'd support most of those same things from the list... Am I massively pro-Israel?
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
I think this is the one a lot of people would consider massively pro Israel.
OK, lets actually review your link.
Vacuous statement.
Do you have any idea how diplomats actually speak? These statements are two clear "we disagree on policy" couched with the diplomat rhetoric equivalent of "bless their heart" thrown on the end.
So wait, it's a bad thing to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons? What the fuck? And those sanctions worked, FYI, they brought Iran to the bargaining table and a peaceful solution has been reached that took a lot of wind out of Netanyahu's sails.
No shit. Nuclear proliferation is incredibly dangerous to everyone. We already have too many countries with nukes who lack the ability to properly police them. A nuclear device set off by terrorists in a major city is probably a matter of when, not if, already. Further proliferation will only expedite that process. Not to mention that Iran has allied itself closely to North Korea on this issue before and would only expedite NK getting a nuke, which they would likely use as part of their imminent death rattle on South Korea and/or Japan.
Again, this is her having an opinion any responsible adult should have.
They're an ally right? We have a mutual defense treaty with them, right? The U.S. can't turn it's back on those treaties as without them Putin, the PRC, etc. would have very little reason to hold back on expansionist desires they have already expressed, even quite recently.
Again, if any politician doesn't hold this view that should be an immediate disqualifier for any foreign policy post.
Again, I'm not seeing how this is a bad thing. Hell, if you're pro-Israel it probably would be as Israel would roll over Palestine in a heartbeat. She talked Israel down from annihilating Palestine but she's pro-Israel for doing so?
That's another vacuous statement.
So having credibility with the Jewish community is immediately a bad thing? Bordering on outright anti-Semitic at this point if this is what is seen as a damning statement.
If built within the correct boundaries how is this a problem?
When is opposing propaganda ever a bad thing?
And? Isn't freeing any prisoners of political incarceration firmly in the "good thing" category?
They drop thousands of explosives on Israel, indiscriminately killing civilians. How else do you define "terrorist"?
Again, how the hell is this a bad thing?
Quite the scathing accounting there, her Nuclear non-proliferation views and general opposition to terrorism are truly damning.
Bel Marduk
Banned
Hillary Clinton is no better than Trump on this issue
The strongest language she can seem to muster is that the settlements are "not helpful" however her actions as senator and then secretary of state seem to suggest otherwise
AIPAC has deep pockets
The strongest language she can seem to muster is that the settlements are "not helpful" however her actions as senator and then secretary of state seem to suggest otherwise
AIPAC has deep pockets
correctrecord.com said:
Which is a quote from a CNN article entitled "Hillary Clinton must once again win over some in Jewish community" while mentioning her support for an Iran nuclear deal.
Correct Record indeed :lol
You know what else is illegal under international law? Illegal settlements.
Have hamas fired rockets, yeah of course, you'd be hard press top find anyone that would deny that, but don't pretend Israel is not retaliating back. Between air strikes and bombing hospitals, Israel is just as wrong as Palestine.
Father_Brain
Banned
It's not exactly controversial to argue that one's opinions are heavily influenced by the social circles one runs in. The Catholics/Irish analogy would only work if there were some sort of of pro-Vatican or pro-Ireland geopolitical agenda widely shared by these subgroups, which there isn't.
The problem is that you're drawing a sharp, clear line between "Jewish religion" and "Jewish culture" that doesn't really exist, at least not from inside the tent.
The phrase you used was "the Judaism that is practiced in America." I don't know a single fellow American Jew, whatever their views on Israel, who would define that so narrowly as to exclude Hebrew schools, summer camps, Birthright trips, campus Hillels, etc. from that category.
Secondly, even if you restrict your definition of "Jewish practice" to what goes on during synagogue services, that's far from true. Many include prayers for the state of Israel or even recitations of Hatikvah, and I went to a few as a kid that included fairly right-wing rhetoric during the rabbi's sermon.
There are Jewish organizations that do, but they're a marginalized minority within (and outside) the American Jewish establishment.
For instance, J Street - a "pro-Israel, pro-peace" organization despised by the likes of Sheldon Adelson, yet so tepidly liberal in its Zionism that it refused to condemn Protective Edge in 2014 - was still deemed too left-wing on Israel to be granted membership into the leading American Jewish umbrella organization.
Obviously, but the U.S. can either completely withdraw support from two conflicting sides with their own demons, allowing them to descend into a full on religious war, or it can elect to leverage an alliance with Israel to force the more powerful of the two nations into being an rational actor and hopefully eventually achieving a two state solution.
This falls under the same umbrella as the condemnation of the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia. Those taking either stance expose only one thing: a clear lack of foreign policy understanding within their own thought processes. You can't change a culture when you refuse to interact with it.
The US, forcing and rational are words that should not go together when it comes to the isral-palestinian conflict considering how often israel disregards anything the US proposes and does what it wants no matter how many international laws it breaks
Clinton has said many times that she's in favor of a two state solution. Its not mutually exclusive with being "pro-Israel". In fact, I'm not really sure how you could want a two state solution and not be pro-Israel (i.e. is Bernie pro-Israel too?) The alternative would seem to be the destruction of the Israeli nation?
So Israel has occupied all of Palestine then? Come the fuck on. Hillary Clinton herself talked Israel down from a full on military invasion as Sec. of State.
yanipheonu
Member
...I have no idea wtf he's even trying to say. It's like his brain is trying to combine buzz phrases in his head and it just comes out as inane nonsense.
UberTag
Member
Let me get this straight... Trump will openly advocate tyranny and oppression where Hillary will make a frowny face about it and behave like a hypocrite while lining their coffers with money and advocating the status quo. Have I got that right?
Or the continued destruction of the Palestinian people.
I think it's obvious, Trump would support Israel ethnically cleansing all of the Israeli territories. He's saying that Israel should keep using force until they stop the attacks for good, no matter what that means. Because that's would he would do. He's obsessed with the "strong leader" archetype. Just look at how he thinks about foreign policy: Putin is a good leader because he's strong, Obama is a bad leader because he's weak, that's why Russia invaded Ukraine and intervened in Syria. ISIS is allowed to exist because the US is too weak to do what is necessary. The world is taking advantage of the US because it doesn't stand up for itself.
So what is the logical conclusion in his mind? Use force to get your point across. That's why he wants to "cut the head off ISIS and take their oil" and kill the families of terrorists with no blow-back. That's why he thinks he can simply stare down Putin and strike up a bromance after that. That's why he thinks he can bully Mexico into paying for the damn wall.
If Israel enacted a full on genocide on the Palestinians I doubt Trump would want to lift a finger because in his mind, might makes right.
This news is slightly surprising to me because I remember seeing an interview with Trump where he strongly implied that Netanyahu's dealings in peace negotiations aren't genuine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGiOHG_kEU
Then again, it's Trump so I don't trust anything he says that isn't xenophobic or racist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGiOHG_kEU
Then again, it's Trump so I don't trust anything he says that isn't xenophobic or racist.
There's no condom big enough for the hard-on America has for Israel, it's creepy.
Legit wondering why the US has such close ties to Israel, I don't see them having anything the US would want (like oil). Did it just come to be for no real reason or what?
Someone fill me in on US/Israel relations please.
Prodigal Son
Member
Well at the very least he's bold enough to be vocal about his awful, pandering support for Israel's bullshit. Hillary on the hand...
EDIT: Worst thing about Clinton as a candidate is that she has 'progressives' convinced it's cool to have a candidate that won't even acknowledge Israel's disproportionate attacks. It's so fucked up.
EDIT: Worst thing about Clinton as a candidate is that she has 'progressives' convinced it's cool to have a candidate that won't even acknowledge Israel's disproportionate attacks. It's so fucked up.
Well for one, outside of Israel, the US has by far the largest Jewish population in the world. The two of them together account for over 80% of the total jews in the world.
What HK-47 said as well has the U.S. along with its Western allies helped create the State of Israel. As a result, they can never turn their back on the country. Well, unless they decide to go crazy and drop a nuke for no reason.
Meus Renaissance
Member
It's pretty obvious from reading that article that Trump isn't actually aware of what these illegal settlements are.
I do actually think that Trump - and not Clinton - would offer us a fresh approach to the Israel/Palestinian conflict as he isn't as entrenched with the Neocon ideology when it comes to foreign policy in the Middle East. No doubt people will try to 'educate' him, but being the arrogant type, I think it's likely that he'll make his own judgement.
I do actually think that Trump - and not Clinton - would offer us a fresh approach to the Israel/Palestinian conflict as he isn't as entrenched with the Neocon ideology when it comes to foreign policy in the Middle East. No doubt people will try to 'educate' him, but being the arrogant type, I think it's likely that he'll make his own judgement.
They say they want him back but I think they are going to regret it when they find out he is a progressive socialist.
BinaryPork2737
Unconfirmed Member
So much for wanting to be neutral like he said back in February.
oh wait, he already said that he was only going to pretend to be neurtal to strike a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians.
oh wait, he already said that he was only going to pretend to be neurtal to strike a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians.
He'll have a lot of moneylenders and bankers to deal with. No time for anything else, apocalypse delayed.
That's really doesn't have anything to do with it. The Palestinian Jews received no support at all after the UNSC vote triggered the civil war in British Palestine and were left to fend for themselves again after the Arab League invaded as soon as the country came into existence. The western allies, who were really no such thing at that time, "turned their back" on Israel pretty much as soon as physically possible. Hell, Israeli and British forces basically exchanged shots during the 1948 war because the Brits were allied with and flew from Egyptian air bases to "observe" the conflict.
After that, France and Britain formed an alliance of convenience with Israel during the Suez Crisis - but the US was on the opposite side and allied with Egypt, using diplomatic pressure to force the Israeli-Franco-British coalition to back off. The US maintained cool relations with Israel until well into the Johnson administration of the 60s then they switched to a more supportive attitude. It wasn't until after the Six Day War of 1967 that they became something resembling allies, and only because the US felt that most Arab nations had aligned themselves permanently with the USSR at that point anyway.
The US has maintained warm relations with Israel since then, but it never had anything to do with a sense of responsibility. It took them almost two decades to get to that point and Israel was left alone when it needed help the most. It was about realpolitik from the start, it's only later that Americans have established a more ideological and cultural bond with the country.
- Status