You're going to find a hard time ever finding someone to vote for in a general, then.
-
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.
Hillary: Must elect "a president with a deep, personal commitment to Israels future"
- Thread starter benjipwns
- Start date
- Status
You're going to find a hard time ever finding someone to vote for in a general, then.
CitizenVectron
Member
If Clinton was speaking to the National Trout Fisherman's convention, she'd say you must elect a president with a deep, personal commitment to the fishing industry too. Just saying.
do you really think the pro Israel stance responsible for the American relations in the middle east?
you don't think the constant supporting of dictators, toppling of governments in pursuit of oil, and bombing and killing tens of thousands of people is the reason?
benjipwns
Banned
Jill Stein should be on most state ballots.
I'm unsure of Gary Johnson's position on Israel specifically.
Just Hilary pandering. Nothing new.
He said one of the reasons and he's totally right. Israel's policies with Palestine are absolutely abhorrent and are decades overdue for international damning, but due to Israel being one of the only Western "allies" in the region, it's got free reign to be as shitty as it wants. America gives zero fucks about who runs a country so long as they accomodate them. How they treat their people or other nations matters little to nought.
He said one of the reasons and he's totally right. Israel's policies with Palestine are absolutely abhorrent and are decades overdue for international damning, but due to Israel being one of the only Western "allies" in the region, it's got free reign to be as shitty as it wants. America gives zero fucks about who runs a country so long as they accomodate them. How they treat their people or other nations matters little to nought.
Let me rephrase that: Good luck finding someone that has any chance of winning the general and effecting actual policy change on the issue, then.
benjipwns
Banned
There will only be one winner, him voting for Stein or Johnson will be no different for the outcome than him voting for Trump or Hillary.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Johnson has a fairly meh history with statements on Israel. I don't think he's ever really condemned them and has talked about them as an important military ally.
Father_Brain
Banned
"Don't be to the right of Obama on Israel" isn't an unreasonable thing to ask of the Democratic nominee.
That said, as much as I loathe Hillary's stance on this issue, you do have to play the long game to some extent. There's not going to be any sea change in the US-Israel relationship within the next eight years, but it's going to get harder and harder for both the US political and American Jewish establishments to deny that Israel has no meaningful desire to end the occupation, and that probably (well, hopefully) means that AIPAC's influence will diminish.
Omegasquash
Member
There's a heck of a lot more than that snippet. He goes on to talk about how we need to be a friend to the Palestinian people.
Macho Madness
Member
So he's on both sides of the issue.
Megalosaro
Banned
Notice I said "one of the reasons".
Of course. He is on the side of a sovereign state of Israel - but not on the side of the current government and it's criminal actions.
You should read the whole text instead of just cherry picking lines.
Omegasquash
Member
Well...yes. He recognizes that Israel ain't exactly in the friendliest of neighborhoods, but doesn't want to let them take their dog next door to shit in the neighbors' yard (to put it mildly). Give the whole thing a read. It's worth looking at.
The sea change is already happening. Obama has set the table on foreign policy with the following moves:
1. pushed U.S. oil and gas production, including fracking, to catapult the U.S. into the leading producer of fossil fuels in the world.
2. used that fact to drive down the price of oil, weakening various political rivals (Iran, Russia) and taking the wind out of the sails for overly aggressive allies (Saudi Arabia).
3. maintained a contain and stall approach towards intervention in Iran, Ukraine, etc.. Embargoed the offending parties (Russia, Iran), and then watched their financial reserves drain.
4. used that advantage to secure a reasonable nuclear nonproliferation agreement with Iran just in time to curtail Israeli saber rattling and an attempt to drag the U.S. into a conflict with Iran with a preemptive attack.
5. now we see Russia backing out of Syria just before negotiations, a clear sign that they're running out of resources to fund their campaign and that they're willing to leave Assad out to dry if needed.
The amazing thing is that the U.S. foreign policy "playbook" is a pretty set in stone doctrine that is then compounded by all of the European "free riders" wanting the U.S. to carry their water while demonizing U.S. aggression when it suits them. The entire game is rigged to put as much pressure on a POTUS to maintain the status quo as possible and Obama successfully found enough ways to circumvent those established standards to really impact foreign policy in his own meaningful way.
I think it is unfair to presume to really know exactly how Hillary Clinton would guide foreign policy herself, since foreign policy is very much built on reacting to ever-changing events and setting internal objectives that can't be shared or discussed without compromising the ability to achieve them. I have serious doubts that she is substantially more pro-Israel than Obama however, as both her and her husband were pushing for a two state solution with the Clinton Parameters.
thiscoldblack
Unconfirmed Member
So.. to summarize what a large portion of this thread is saying: I don't like this at all, but everyone does it, so it's fine / unavoidable.
Almost as if he acknowledges that it's a complicated problem with stake holders on many sides, rather than simplifying it to Israel good, everyone else bad.
Yeah, I am getting some strong war, power and expansion vibes from her.
I mean, honestly you are right its one of the reason, many Arabs in the middle east hate Israel very deeply, Israel is the "devil" that's to blame for all their problems.
its just kinda ridiculous when the US has done way more to fuck over the middle east and its citizens then Israel.
Israel is often used as a political bogeyman to deflect and draw attention away from the shitty internal governance of many middle eastern nations and groups. If Israel is out of the picture, they'll be forced to find something new to latch onto.
- Status