Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Nikki Haley Is Making a List…
In the spirit of the season, and I mean Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Year’s Day, our Ambassador to the UN warned every other nation’s delegation that…
She’s making a list.
She’s checking it twice.
She’s already found out who’s naughty and nice (final list at 1:57:55). [Thanks to @arahant for screen capture.]
Santa Claus will no longer hand out American taxpayers’ cash to UNgrateful nations that disrespect US.
It is a refreshing change to have our most public diplomat represent the will of the American people to the UN and not the other way around. There are a number of nations who either are in denial or who are blinded to their own peoples’ interests because of deeply embedded Jew-hatred at the core of their foreign offices. They are now finding American elections have consequences. So…
Happy New Year: President Trump will really put US interests over the UN and his choice of Ambassador Nikki Haley ensures his intent is supported, not opposed, by our diplomatic mission. Scott Johnson of PowerLine favorably compares Nikki Haley in this moment to Daniel Patrick Moynahan denouncing the infamous “Resolution 3379, declaring Zionism a form of racism.”
Happy Hanukkah: President Trump’s move to fulfill US law and the repeated promises of multiple presidents to recognize the Jewish people’s ancient and abiding connection to Jerusalem.
Merry Christmas: President Trump brought presents of promises fulfilled. He is also clearly stating there is a naughty list his chief UN elf has prepared for him. President Trump announced moving our embassy both as a matter of honor and in the hope it might disabuse the Palestinians of their eliminationist fantasy, creating the possibility of real negotiations in search of peace on Earth, or at least in that little sliver of land where Christ was born so long ago.
.
Published in Foreign Policy
Love it.
Kay, that deserted land sure produced a lot of refugees.
Yes, our First Woman President!!
Zafar, so many problems with those maps.
First, the first map does not start at an earlier date such as before the partitioning of Jordan.
Second, the first map counts a s”Palestinian lands” all lands not named as Jewish settlements. This includes government lands and other uninhabited lands including lands owned by Jews not regarded as settlements.
Third, the Muslims were the ones who did not accept the partition plan and started (really just escalated) a genocidal war.
Fourth, from 1949-67, the green lands were not treated as “Palestine”, but Jordan and Egypt. Or you should say they were the Occupied Territories.
Fifth, again you ignore that this was not enough for the Muslims.
Sixth, the last map ignores the delineations of Oslo which restrict aspects of Israeli control over much of the white area in the West Bank
Not perfect, but still pretty indicative.
So what? Palestinians didn’t live in Jordan, they lived in Palestine.
Most land that wasn’t a Jewish settlement was used by Palestinian Arabs in one capacity or other. Even what you’d call the desert in the Negev. None of it was just uninhabited land without a people.
Looking at the map, the partition plan was manifestly unjust, giving the majority of Palestine to Israel even though the vast majority of people in Palestine were Palestinian Arabs:
And also, what is this ‘the Muslims’ thing? The majority of Palestinians are Muslims, but there are a significant number of Palestinian Christians as well. They were also made refugees, though less consistently, and they’re also Palestinians. I understand that defining it as a Islam vs the Judaeo-Christian world has an emotional resonance in the US, but it simply isn’t true.
You are confusing Palestinian land (ie the land that Palestinians lived on, that they controlled as their personal property) with a Palestinian state. The two are not the same at all, it’s trying to compare apples and oranges.
Again with ‘the Muslims’. Is this elision of Palestinian Christians from the conflict conscious or unconscious?
Arguably there isn’t much restriction:
It’s because they believe the US is wrong about this. And economically they aren’t vulnerable to cuts in aid.
It seems like an admission of moral defeat when you have to start buying votes, but meh.
Or simple hatred of Jews.
Buying votes ? Twisted thinking . We give money away like no other nation on the planet. Not to give, is not buying votes.
Extremely unlikely. Two large countries that voted against (India and China) have zero anti-semitism in their popular culture. It is really just absent, and that’s a good thing.
Well clearly you thought you were buying votes, hence the offended ‘we aren’t giving money to you any more’ thing.
Yes, indeed
Jafar, your like my progressive friends. They poo poo what is plain to see.
Give me a list of nations that give vast amounts of cash to other nations that are critical of or work against their sovereign acts. Where a nation puts it’s embassy is between the host nation and that nation. No one else’s business, least of all the UN.
Antisemitism, such an ugly thing. It should not be rewarded.
Zafar, you really need to catch up on your history. Those who rewrite it to suit themselves are hard pressed to convince others. Over a million Jews were thrown out of Arab lands, Jews who had lived in those lands for centuries, without being paid for their homes and most without any possessions. Most of them came to Israel as they had no place else to go. The cowardly Arabs who ran away 1948 who thought they were going to take possession of Jewish homes were called “refugees” but the millions of Jews who were real refugees were not called refugees.
Try watching this: The Silent Exodus by Pierre Rehov.
Not caring. The debate never ends, premises are always changing. There comes a point where history doesn’t matter and only possession does. And I really don’t care who was where first or who has the best claim. It’s boring. Just stop killing over it.
Kevin, if you didn’t consistently mis-spell my name I would have more confidence that you read what I write before drawing your conclusions.
Pot, meet kettle :-)
Indeed. I am not convinced.
Also – you seem to believe that two wrongs make a right. I don’t think that’s the case.
How many Christians, Zafar? The linked pieces don’t give percentages, but I think you told us once that it’s perhaps 3%? According to Reuters:
* The Palestinian Authority says the Christian population in the West Bank has shrunk over the last three decades due to emigration, many to Australia, Canada and the United States, but lacks accurate figures. The rise of Islam is cited by some among reasons for disquiet. But few Christians give that as a reason for emigration. Most say they leave for better living standards. Christians, by tending to be better educated and wealthier than the Palestinian average, have more opportunities to emigrate.
If we assume that the Christian emigres aren’t happy in Palestine, it would seem they aren’t leaving because the Muslim Arabs are mean to them, but they aren’t leaving because they feel oppressed by Israel either.
By the way, you don’t mention any of the dysfunction or infighting—e.g. Hamas vs. Fatah—in Palestine. Nor the problem of terrorism—not just in Israel, but elsewhere too. Nor the corruption that means many millions poured in from various charitable sources not used for constructing tunnels under the barriers into Israel, or buying weapons is probably going into the fat-cats bank accounts (rather than improving the economy so that more muslims can afford to emigrate?) Why would they want this conflict to go away? If peace broke out, they’d have to get real jobs.
Do you really envision the Palestinian Arabs (especially Muslims, given the rise of radical Islamism in the region) as having any interest in creating a unified multi-ethnic, multi-faith state? Do you really imagine that, given the chance, the Palestinians would refrain from murdering all the Israelis? And before you say “and vice versa” I’d add that the Israelis already have the chance—that is, the capability— to kill their way out of this dilemma. Do you believe in your heart that the Palestinians would show a similar, or even superior, restraint if the situation was reversed?
True of so many places and people in the world.
Yes, exactly. This isn’t peculiar to the Palestinians; it appears to be human nature. N.O.W. doesn’t really want to solve sexism, and the NAACP doesn’t want racism to end. They’ve got a payroll to meet and retirement plans. Whole careers are constructed around Social Justice, meaning that actual social justice would be a disaster for those who, in theory, seek it.
Zafar, I humbly apologize for the miss-spell of your name . It was not consciously intentional. I am sorry.
I always read what you write. Your post’s are very thought full, elegantly written and challenge my thinking. However, I generally disagree completely.
I would love to feel less cynical about the Palestinian situation, BTW. For that matter, I wish I could be other than intensely cynical about the NAACP, not to mention #BLM.
We’re all together on that. The Reluctant Cynics sounds like a good band name.
You don’t have to assume, Kate, you can ask them. They’re only an email away.
There’s no need to imagine – just ask them. They can speak for themselves – and, going by the articles, write their thoughts down fairly coherently.
That open letter from Palestinian Christians wasn’t signed by ‘anonymous’. Here you go:
NECC office
Happy googling.
Would you have an interest in creating a unified mutli-ethnic, multi-faith state?
I believe that you would have such an interest.
Just like there are Christian versions of you, there are Muslim versions of you.
Why would you assume that there aren’t?
First of all, I don’t believe that all Israelis want to just kill off all Palestinians. I don’t even believe that most Israelis want to kill off all Palestinians. (Similiarly I don’t believe most Palestinians want to murder all Israelis. A lot of them want Israeli Jews to go back to Europe – but that isn’t the same thing at all.)
Additionally: I don’t believe that Israel could realistically do so, even if it wanted to. Israel is utterly dependent on US public opinion – iow, on how people like you see it (and see the Palestinians in contrast).
Massacres of Palestinians may pass muster on the Right, including Ricochet (so long as we pretend all Palestinians are Muslims) – but I don’t think they’d be broadly acceptable or align with how Israel is currently seen in the US. It’s not an option.
Really? So you’d say that AIPAC and the ADL don’t want to get rid of anti-semitism because it’s in fact their bread and butter?
That’s a very cynical view of the world.
Kevin, I’m not offended at all – but if you consistently mis-spell it, that makes me feel as if you have already made your mind up wrt what you see and respond to. I don’t think it’s conscious on your part fwiw, and I certainly don’t think it’s malicious.
Wow, just Wow. I hope you don’t believe this. You could not be more wrong.
The Religious right is pro life, all life, because we are all image bearers of God. Even life that believes repugnant things.
The secular Right would find “massacre” abhorrently repugnant as well as just 1 murder. Because we respect life and find it manifestly valuable. Even life that believes repugnant things.
I read most post’s on Ricochet since my becoming a member. I have come across No One who would think massacre of any group of people or murder of one person to pass muster.
Warfare is another matter.
Well, other than me. of course, but I’m with the Libertine Party. And, gotta have a hobby.
Yabbut massacres take place as part of warfare, it’s not like they ‘just happen’ without that context. Seems like a universal loophole.
Has anybody else (and perhaps I am imagining this?) read an article on Ricochet about a terrorist attack, and then going through the comments finds variations of ‘we should just pick a Muslim city at random [or with some rationale] and bomb [mebbe nuke?] it – and the next time there’s a terrorist attack, we’ll bomb another one – and they’ll finally get the message and stop’?
Warfare? Arguably, albeit with an enemy that’s so amorphously defined that parts of it may not realise they’re at war with you.
Massacre of civilians? Most definitely. That’s what bombing a city does.
I’ve never read any pushback on views like that. Did I miss it?
A lot of people talk (or type) big, especially when in their cups, but this does not mean that a) they really mean it, or b) that it is any sort of solution to escalate in this manner, and c) that it is in accordance with the laws of war. The Nazis massacred people and faced war crimes trials, and that is as it should be.
There has been pushback. And sometimes, we also consider the source, especially on a Saturday night with a known drinker when the spelling and typing goes all askew. Or sometimes it is a joker like me saying some fool thing. But I know when I do that, I do get pushback, too.
I believe the phrase is “Mutually Assured Destruction”, and it did a pretty good job of preventing the use of weapons of mass destruction during the cold war.
If Islamic terrorists ever do succeed in using WMDs in a western country, I would expect your hypothetical scenario to play out.
I’m not sure I have seen such a thing, tho’ it’s possible I missed it. I know that I would push back against such a notion. There are people who say—hyperbolically, at times—dumb things. It should be obvious, but maybe it’s not; I want good things for the Palestinian people. I want really, really good things: peace, happiness, creativity, intellectual curiosity, freedom from fear and want, the whole shebang. I definitely do not want them to be injured or killed. Super-against injuring and killing. My philosophy? Not Dead Is Good. Everything other than “dead” we can work with.
How do we get to: Fewest Dead People, Most Good Stuff?