US outnumbered 14 to 1 as it vetoes UN vote on status of Jerusalem - Polidicks

Situation of Crimea is confusing, to say the least. While Russia currently has a military in Crimea, it still belongs to Ukraine on paper. You see, to confirm the annexation of the lands, there is a need for a treaty. A treaty of region transfer between two nations or after the more agressive approach, a peace treaty. The latter one is out of question for Russia for obvious reasons. To have region ceded to another power, there is a requirem for two-way agreement. For now, Russia has Crimea on it's own rules, but internationally it's recognized as an Ukrainian occupied territory. And rightfully so. The situation with Jerusalem is similiar, with few main differences. Palestinian state is not recognized internationally, yet "it exists". Unless there is an agreement between those two states, Israel occupies Eastern part of Jerusalem. And so US is in the wrong here, my support goes for the UN and the rest of the world here. Feel free to discuss my stance though.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;52989166]How is our statements are moaning, we are not complaining about ineffectivness of international rules, we merely notice that following them is absurd.[/QUOTE] But you bemoaning the absurdity of adhering to international treaties is exactly what creates the absurdity in the first place.

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;52988444]The united states is an embarrassment[/QUOTE] The current US administration is an insult that won't be forgotten.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52989186]But you bemoaning the absurdity of adhering to international treaties is exactly what creates the absurdity in the first place.[/QUOTE] i'm not sure we will ever reach a point where treaties are truly effective when they aren't backed up with military strength.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52989062]I remember reading a fascinating story about an ISIS prisoner of war who wasn't even all that invested in Islam but whose region was economically devastated after the Iraq war, which pushed him towards ISIS when he grew up. Which when you consider that the Iraq war was a made up phoney baloney war anyway, doesn't make the US look too hot.[/QUOTE] Sure, but if the civil war in Syria was quelled in a timely manner like it should have been, ISIS wouldn't have formed and other terrorist groups wouldn't have increased their numbers. Even if there was no vacuum in Iraq, ISIS or a similar group would have still popped up, and still potential have taken land in Iraq. The Iraqi military was as incompetent in 2003 as they were just a few years ago. [editline]19th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;52989091]This is one of the most godawful takes on geopolitics I've seen on Facepunch. You're essentially saying "might makes right". You can wax lyrical about how it's wrong but if you're not even willing to put your foot down and say "this territory is not yours, we do not recognise it as such" then who the hell are you trying to convince?[/QUOTE] Would you like to start campaigning for Russia to give back land to Finland, or for every country surrounding Germany to give it its land back? Jerusalem and the Crimea are the only land grabs anyone cares about, the former for religious reasons, and the other because its recent. You might not like it, but "Right of Might" has been rule #1 on the international stage since countries were a thing. Not being ass holes to eachother is a recent thing. If you start giving back conquered lands, the map of the world is gonna change drastically, its silly to do. [editline]19th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52989203]i'm not sure we will ever reach a point where treaties are truly effective when they aren't backed up with military strength.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. To keep the bullies in check, you need a bigger bully, and to keep the bigger bully in check, you need a bigger bully, and so on. We'll never reach a point where "hey don't be an asshole" is a creed all governments will live by.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52990285]Jerusalem and the Crimea are the only land grabs anyone cares about, the former for religious reasons, and the other because its recent. You might not like it, but "Right of Might" has been rule #1 on the international stage since countries were a thing. Not being ass holes to eachother is a recent thing. If you start giving back conquered lands, the map of the world is gonna change drastically, its silly to do.[/quote] Both occurred during the last century, it's not the 1800s anymore. I'd say a rule of thumb is that if there are still people alive that remember the annexation, and it isn't backed up by any sort of treaty, then it's definitely ethically dubious. [Quote]Pretty much this. To keep the bullies in check, you need a bigger bully, and to keep the bigger bully in check, you need a bigger bully, and so on. We'll never reach a point where "hey don't be an asshole" is a creed all governments will live by.[/QUOTE] Fucking simplistic. Military might alone hasn't defined geopolitics for a looong while. In the now globally connected world, the amount of allies and partners a country has is much more important than how big your air force is. "Might makes right" is an outdated as fuck principle that doesn't even apply in practice anymore, see Russian sanctions for instance.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52990399]Both occurred during the last century, it's not the 1800s anymore. I'd say a rule of thumb is that if there are still people alive that remember the annexation, and it isn't backed up by any sort of treaty, then it's definitely ethically dubious.[/quote] The Finnish land annexation and the German land reparations were also within the last century, and there are people still alive who remember it. So the thing that defines land annexations as being "ok" is a piece a paper that one party was forced to sign lest they be annihilated? [QUOTE=_Axel;52990399] Fucking simplistic. Military might alone hasn't defined geopolitics for a looong while. In the now globally connected world, the amount of allies and partners a country has is much more important than how big your air force is. "Might makes right" is an outdated as fuck principle that doesn't even apply in practice anymore, see Russian sanctions for instance.[/QUOTE] It being simplistic doesn't mean it isn't true. I'm not cool with the "Right of Might" ways of the world but that doesn't mean it isn't like that. NATO v Warsaw Pact/Russian Federation is the modern equivalent of single nations being bullies. And it still clearly holds true as Israel still occupies contested lands after decades, and Russia still holds the Crimea despite all those nasty sanctions. Furthermore, nobody will do any [i]actual[/i] damage to Russia over the Crimea because they control the valve to Europe's natural gas. So how does a big nation being a big bully not exist in today's day and age?

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52990462]The Finnish land annexation and the German land reparations were also within the last century, and there are people still alive who remember it. So the thing that defines land annexations as being "ok" is a piece a paper that one party was forced to sign lest they be annihilated?[/QUOTE] Would you rather it be the case that land annexations are considered legitimate even without that piece of paper? Because that's what you're arguing for right now.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;52990475]Would you rather it be the case that land annexations are considered legitimate even without that piece of paper? Because that's what you're arguing for right now.[/QUOTE] Not arguing for it. My point is that that piece of paper is often signed while under threat of annihilation. Is it anymore valid if the annexed land was taken with a piece of paper that one party was forced to sign? A treaty was signed after the 6 day war, does that make the lands Israel occupies just? Is that the qualifier we're using now or do we have to figure out a new one to condemn Israel but also condemn the Crimea? My point is that it's completely arbitrary.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52989091]This is one of the most godawful takes on geopolitics I've seen on Facepunch. You're essentially saying "might makes right". You can wax lyrical about how it's wrong but if you're not even willing to put your foot down and say "this territory is not yours, we do not recognise it as such" then who the hell are you trying to convince?[/QUOTE] My point is that if someone has committed enough military assets to take and hold a position and there is essentially zero possibility that they will give it up via diplomatic or military means, then denying ownership is pointless. If you are serious about something not belonging to an adversary, then you put your foot down. The problem is that doesn't mean hollow condemnations. It means showing up with a military force capable of reclaiming it. If there is no reasonable sequence of events that would lead to it's return, then denying reality accomplishes nothing.

Remember that when Israel took the totality of Jerusalem, they took it from Jordan, not some Palestinian state. It's also interesting to note that Jordan expelled essentially all Jews from their half of the city, tore down the vast majority of the Synagogues, and purposefully desecrated many Jewish holy sites. [editline]19th December 2017[/editline] Jordan also formally renounced its claims to the West Bank. So as far as preexisting nations go, Israel is the only one with a real claim. Other than Jordan, no Arab state laid claim to the land, including any new Arab Palestinian state, until after the Israeli occupation.

From a realpolitik perspective, the question to be asked is a rather gross one. "What do we get from liberating Palestine?" Palestine's infrastructure is of questionable constitution, the population politically unstable and not too wealthy, etc. Ignoring the underlying causes for these issues (Israeli domination, Imperialism, etc), what makes the plight of the Palestinians an attractive damsel in distress for countries in the region? Support for the palestinians is a political facade, as Palestinians are generally looked down upon by populations of the region, but since most countries in the area are very religious and have civil populations with quite a bit of anti-israeli sentiment (whether it be anti-semitism or disdain for genuine, empirical policy), speaking against Israel just gives the leaders free flex points at the cost of relations with a single small Jewish state they probably don't even border (As seen in Malaysia's bombastic statement when Trump recognized Jerusalem's capital status). The only ones with genuine motivation to save the Palestinians from their plight are people guided by sentiment and ideology from all over the world, even in Israel. I agree that the Palestinians are suffering unfairly for the actions of their elders, and their spite is to be expected from a people repressed for so long. Do I agree with their drive for self-determination? Yes. Do I believe that violence is the right way to reiterate such nationalistic ambitions? No, not at all. I'm just so incredibly frustrated by the Palestinian's plight, as well as Israel's handling of the issue. However, an important couple of things to be reminded of: A large portion of Israel's population is conscripted, meaning that Palestinian attacks on IDF members usually wind up harming civilians on temporary military duty, personally and fundamentally affecting these civilians' perspective on peace, in the same way that Israeli airstrikes and military action winds up harming Palestinian citizens, personally and fundamentally affecting their perspectives on peace as well. It's incredibly frustrating that such a beautiful place with such rich history and vibrant cultures produces a perpetual nightmare war where the descendants on both sides are just reinforcements.

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;52990475]Would you rather it be the case that land annexations are considered legitimate even without that piece of paper? Because that's what you're arguing for right now.[/QUOTE] there is a difference between recognizing something as politically legitimate and recognizing the on-the-ground reality of the situation.

[QUOTE=yeong-ho;52988741]On the one hand, it's basically impossible to refute Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital. Pragmatically speaking, the State of Israel grew around its ownership of East-Jerusalem and cemented its claim in 1967, as it annexed West-Jerusalem and proclaimed the newly-unified city its capital. Trump's move was merely an official reiteration of this fact, whether as a heartfelt but short-sighted move to support Israel or a ham-fisted screech, essentially a "lol, arab countries and muslims, get triggered" way to state geopolitical ambitions in the area and his desire to stir up the shitpot in the region. On the other however, Trump's declaration could also be seen as an intentional inappropriate clusterfuck-initiator that rubs salt into the reeling region's sandy wounds, an especially dangerous move given the fact that the area may only have [I]seemingly[/I] calmed somewhat following Daesh's re-containment to the Syrian warzone and the ensuing general media silence on the group's actions compared to what you'd see a year or two ago, but it may very well remain a geopolitical shatterpoint. The US, realizing the shocking enormity of the blood-orgy it has inadvertently caused after having to kill the consequences of its Iraqi adventure a generation or two earlier, is re-focusing its priorities as seen by the growing presence of US, Euro, and even Canadian special forces in Saharan Africa, as well as the strengthening of Poland and the Baltic states' defences through NATO mandates, manoeuvres, and personnel/equipment deployments. Israel, mostly surrounded by enemies, must find strong geopolitical teammates in order to counteract Iran's regional ambitions, as it always has since its creation. Now that the US is not necessarily retreating but simply reassessing its commitments in the region, Israel is in dire need of friends it can count on if it doesn't want to potentially get screwed by a US-Exit and subsequently get curbstomped by Iran and its sphere of influence if that were to happen. As such, in recent years, Israel has been improving relations with its neighbours, regardless of popular faith/ideology, in order to form a sort of loose anti-Persian league to serve as a deterrent or shield in case of outright war. Jordan is a nice little sort-of progressive friend to have, but Turkey, with a strong military, is a far more helpful candidate. The Saudi Kingdom, already at odds with Iran (unlike fairly ambiguous Turkey), is even more-so, but now that this declaration was made by Trump & his Administration, the already tough-sell of a positive alignment with Israel will be a pill even harder to swallow by the populations of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as well as Jordan and a previously sort-of indifferent Egypt (with whom Israel actually signed a peace treaty). Trump's meme mouth potentially ruined Israel's chance at hopefully reconciling with neighbours in order to fall into anti-Iran strategic alignment, a steep price for a one-country on-paper recognition of a troubled city's capital status at the heart of an already troubled relationship between long-repressed Palestine and precariously-poised Israel. The worst part about all of this is that the possibility of a US-Exit in the distance still looms over Israel, and IIRC Rex Tillerson or the USA's State Department said something along the lines of "it could take years to move an embassy" which means that this reignition of regional social tensions might very well have been literally for nothing, even if earlier promised by Trump on campaign. -Apologies for length and potential issues related to clarity, open to discussion especially if due to problems related to the latter-[/QUOTE] Lets be honest here. Its impossible to dispute that presumed status, just because most of us refuses to see that region for what it is before that crazy mandate, which is a multiracial, multiethnic home to its almost indigineuous people, and decided to side with the rich. And we still did now