15 ms·
This UN vote shows how completely isolated we are from world opinion
- dhdudbd 3y agoyes... America has only now just joined the wrong side of history...
- whatshisface 3y agoSince the only real thing about America is the people who vote in her (or his because it's "uncle" sam?) elections, it has a chance to join the right or wrong side of history once anew every generation.
- cncovyvysi 3y ago[dead]
- extheat 3y agoThis particular rejection vote by the US in the UN is a bit peculiar to me. Obviously, I understand the sensitivity around the situation--so why not abstain from the vote? Why when given that option, not use abstention and instead choose rejection? It sends a powerful and deliberate message, and I'm not sure who it's supposed to appease nor what interests that represents.
- whatshisface 3y ago"We really like what the US is offering, but our citizens are not as cynical about the impactfulness of UN resolutions as we are and would be upset if we voted against it."
- zer0-c00l 3y agoThankfully pg isn’t in charge of foreign policy, because it seems like he can’t distinguish performative UN votes from reality. Would love to see how some of these countries would vote if it actually meant anything.
- thriftwy 3y agoDo you think that all of these countries are so committed to Israel as to give it a get out of its own mess free card? I think Israel is a wonderful country but at the same time its government does completely untenable thing. I believe all these countries may be sincere. What's the worst that can happen after the vote, for them?
- jeroenhd 3y agoI must say I'm pleasantly surprised by the way Europe voted on this resolution. There aren't many European states that recognise the state of Palestine, but it seems that at the very least the Palestinian people themselves have some diplomatic support. I wonder what drove Micronesia and Nauru to vote against the resolution rather than stay out of it.
- xeckr 3y agoI assume bribes.
- eynsham 3y ago> There aren’t many European states that recognise the state of Palestine. Malta, Serbia, Albania, Cyprus, Czechia, Slovakia, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, and Sweden do.
- defrost 3y agoWRT Nauru the answer of least resistance is dark. The largest "industry" on Nauru was the processing of Australian offshore immigration seekers, a sordid business that has closed one end of the pipe and is now winding down leaving the facilities and the private security company looking for money. I would not be suprised if the promise of future USofA offshore processing of US Asylum seekers (come to US|Mexico border seeking asylum? Get sent to a Pacific Island to wait) has influenced the vote in Nauru.
- abeppu 3y agoPoking around, I think this is the thing that vote was about: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N23/318/77/PDF/N2331877.pdf?OpenElement https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N23/318/77/PDF... While I agree with PG that this outcome should be jarring and force Americans to consider why our country has taken the positions it has, I think we also have to interrogate the resolution. What does a right to self-determination mean? Who gets to be a 'people'? If such a group is not unanimous in what they want, what does self-determination at the group level mean? When multiple such groups attempt to 'self-determine' in ways which are clearly in conflict, what does it mean for the international community to recognize such a general right?
- whatshisface 3y agoI think the language was chosen to mirror what a similar fraction of the world, except this time including the united states, would say that the people living on the right side of Israel's internal partition should have.
- abeppu 3y agoI dunno that such a large majority of the world would agree with such a statement. I'm all for human rights, individual rights. I agree that there is a basic floor of those rights which should be respected on either side of the partition, and everywhere else. But rights of a group of people to act as "a people" with a state, and control over a contiguous block of territory, seems way less credible. Does every civilian have a right not to be bombed or shot at or have power and water cut? Yes. Also rights to be treated equally before the law, not be subject to arbitrary detainment, fair and public trials, etc. But "a people" as a group having rights? Would Catalonia, Veneto, Wallonia etc have a "right" to be separate states if their populations desire it? Unclear. What if Afrikaners tried to assert such a right? Seems sus. Did people inside the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone have rights to create it? Probably not, even if they had organized a plebiscite first. So where's the line?
- krapp 3y agoA "state" is nothing more than an abstraction, a collective social construct. The monopoly on violence is a franchise granted by the people, not nature. Self-determination can't be a right which only belongs to certain groups of people (say, Americans or Israelis) but not others.
- beastman82 3y agoHis two proposed explanations are laughably reductive
- whatshisface 3y agoUsing a place of refuge as the US' too-dirty-for-the-CIA instrument of deniable espionage, for going on 50 years now, has created a lot of ties the public is totally ignorant of and the rest of the world blames Israel for. If there is one thing to take away from the existence of the "Israeli foreign lobby" conspiracy theory it is that public ignorance of international relationships leads to impactful confusions as people seek to explain what is advertised by the mainstream in terms of ideas advertised by extremists rather than facts that have not been advertised at all.
- zozbot234 3y agoThat "too dirty for the CIA [sic]" country is still the freest and most highly developed of the entire Middle East, and that's without the fossil resource-based economy that many Arab countries have. It's not a dirty place, it's a shining city on the hill that's been hated so much because of how it puts everywhere else to shame.
- whatshisface 3y agoThe country isn't what's dirty, it's what they have been doing at the behest of the united states all around the world that's "too dirty for the CIA," in the sense that tasks are offloaded to their intelligence services as a way of distancing the CIA from those tasks. That is why Israel and the US are such strong allies despite there not really having been much of a war. The people who say Israel is getting anything "for free" are ignorant of the heavy ethical price Israel pays through its singular intelligence services for its unique relationship.
- Fervicus 3y agoWhat do you think has made it a highly developed shining city on the hill? Something to think about.
- BurningFrog 3y agoMy loose thought is that since the US will vote against and veto any anti Israel resolutions, other countries don't have to take the heat from voting No.
- letmeinhere 3y agoThis was a vote on a resolution in the general assembly, where there are no vetoes. It was approved.
- znpy 3y agoI have nothing specific to add on the subject, but… It’s ironic to see PG flagged on basically his own website.
- nikolay 3y agoMany voices of reason have been flagged here.
- nikolay 3y agoThe Israeli lobby is the most powerful, and it mostly consists of disoriented pseudo-Christians who misread the Bible and people who directly benefit from doing so. Most prominent American Jews support Palestine; Religious Jews, too!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- havelhovel 3y ago> The Israeli lobby is the most powerful This is simply not true. If you look at spending since 2016, Israel is 10th, but didn't even break top 10 in 2023: 1. Liberia $183,313,959 2. Saudi Arabia $47,703,350 3. Japan $35,712,625 4. China $35,659,291 5. Hong Kong $30,717,811 6. Bahamas $26,763,000 7. Marshall Islands $26,579,703 8. United Arab Emirates $25,903,225 9. South Korea $24,050,739 10. Qatar $16,063,590 https://www.opensecrets.org/fara?cycle=2023 https://www.opensecrets.org/fara?cycle=2023
- stonogo 3y agoI'm not entirely sure that spending and lobbying are synonymous.
- havelhovel 3y agoI think that's a fair critique. Do you have any alternative metrics for evaluating the "most powerful" lobbies in the US? Because I'm curious how AIPAC and Israel get this reputation if it's not based on something objective like financial statements.
- stonogo 3y agoIt's tough, because there's a lot of overlap between groups that advocate for Jews and groups that advocate for Israel. The difficulty in conceiving metrics which can account for 'soft power', like influence via political and popular media, is (in my estimation) part of what makes people so attracted to bizarre consipiracy theories on the matter. Even trying to formulate such metrics (on any topic, not just Israeli affairs) quickly leads to sounding like one has arrived at the far side of weird. I don't have the right answers, but raw dollar input in the lobbying industry simply can't be the whole story; humans are more complex than "money in, opinions out".
- mikrl 3y agoThere’s no such thing as a right or wrong side of history. If the allies lost WW2 the right side of history would involve singing the Horst-Wessel-Lied with your morning coffee. It is only thanks to human sacrifice and spirit of will that we don’t. What about Perestroika? Which side of history was the right/wrong one there, the USSR or the RF? Is the modern Polish or Ukrainian state on the right or wrong side? Israel and Palestine? History is history, there’s just one and it’s written by humanity.
- whatshisface 3y agoIt's thanks to the spirit of will that we're not Nazis? That's what they said would lead to everyone being Nazis...
- mikrl 3y agoWhen you take the perspective of those to the East of the Nazi regime, every victory, every person alive today and every inch of border is because some humans 80 years ago willed it into existence at the cost of their life. It’s why Ukraine perseveres today, and why Poland is considered a bulwark of NATO.
- orwin 3y agoEasy. The ones pushing for autodetermination, for everyone (including women) are on the right side of history. [edit] and yes, that mean that despite my dislike for the liars who pushed and implemented brexit, accepting this new relationship was the right thing to do.
- somewhereoutth 3y agoHamas made the calculation that Israel's response to the atrocities of October 7th would be vengeful and unsubtle (and indeed it has been), and that world opinion would reel Israel in before they could seriously degrade Hamas as an organisation. Is this what we want?
- whatshisface 3y agoIf the extreme Israeli rightwing is collaborating with Hamas to use violence as a tool to legitimize them both I think that makes them enemies to the civilized world, not allies against the other of the two. (This goes for Hamas supporters as well.)
- somewhereoutth 3y agoI have to agree with you, and this is deeply sad. I read an article about Netanyahu that suggested he views any viable Palestinian state as a security threat to Israel, and hence has been doing everything possible to stop that from happening, up to and including enabling Hamas (to discredit/disrupt the Palestinian Authority).
- krapp 3y agoI categorically reject the premise that giving Israel free rein to be as vengeful and unsubtle as they want is the only way they can degrade Hamas as an organization. If that's the case, then Hamas is perfectly justified in retaliating with equal violence against Israel. Either we hold modern societies, particularly our allies, up to standards of civilization or else we're back to eye for an eye. Yes, we want to reel Israel in before they can commit genocide regardless of whether it degrades Hamas as an organization because Palestinians are human beings, not orcs. "Just let them keep killing until the problem goes away" isn't supposed to be an acceptable policy position in modern societies. And it turns out it isn't - except to Israel, the US and Micronesian states which I assume are just vassals to the US.
- somewhereoutth 3y agoHow else do you suggest we destroy Hamas, given that they've already said they'd do October 7th again as soon as they can? Hamas was never imposed on the Palestinian people, of which a sizable proportion support the elimination of Israel ("from the river to the sea"). Maybe the horror of the calamity befalling them might concentrate some minds.
- havelhovel 3y agoI'm curious which lobbying group Paul Graham is referring to as "America's most powerful lobby." Here are the top ten, by spending, in the US as of 2023: 1. US Chamber of Commerce $49,970,000 2. National Assn of Realtors $33,661,316 3. Blue Cross/Blue Shield $21,634,765 4. Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America $21,043,000 5. American Hospital Assn $20,928,991 6. American Medical Assn $15,330,000 7. Amazon.com $14,970,000 8. Meta $14,640,000 9. Business Roundtable $13,490,000 10. CTIA $11,570,000 https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders
- CrypticShift 3y agoYou here made a list of "American Lobbies" and down another list of "Foreign Lobbies," which is clever but desinginious. He is talking about America's most powerful lobby FOR a foreign country. So this list is useless. Also, your second list only includes official foreign agents, while most pro-Israel lobbying is not registered as such (notably AIPAC).
- havelhovel 3y agoI don't think that providing actual lists of top spenders is either "clever" or "disingenuous," but if you have a better way to empirically evaluate the claims being made about lobbying influence please share. > He is talking about America's most powerful lobby FOR a foreign country. I'm only interested in discussing the actual text that received (as of writing) 2.3 million views and is the subject of this thread, not your own revision. > Also, your second list only includes official foreign agents, while most pro-Israel lobbying is not registered as such (notably AIPAC) I was responding to a comment about the "Israeli lobby." Israelis are not Americans, which is why I addressed foreign spending. But since you're insinuating that AIPAC is a channel for foreign influence despite being a US organization with 3 million American members, changing its status wouldn't influence the list I provided, so I don't see the relevance of this argument to the larger question of lobbying power.
- CrypticShift 3y ago
- Dowwie 3y agoDoes it, though?
- patmcc 3y agoIt's also possible (likely?) that it's similar to the "US only country to vote against making food a human right" thing, where it's actually a bit more complicated than a single headline summary would suggest. At a start - what's the entire text of the resolution?
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago> This will be a chapter in American history that we'll later be ashamed of. There have been other such chapters, but in most of them America was at least acting in its own interest. This time we're just being used. 9/11 is the parallel that jumps out to me the most. And while maybe the many American servicepeople killed during the wars that came after that care about the distinction, I'm not sure many of the other dead find it a salient consideration. And that's assuming you accept that the wars in response to 9/11 were in America's "own interest", which no longer seems to be something you can take for granted even from Republican Presidents.
- gmuslera 3y agoAnd is not the only vote where US shown how isolated are from world opinion. Migrants rights, Cuba embargo, economic coercion against developing countries are a few recent examples of UN resolutions that follow that pattern. And it is a pattern by itself.
- paulmd 3y agoin fairness, the EU (for example) has not really lived up to its principled position on migrant rights in practice. The northern states have pushed policies that stick the burden for migrants on the first state in which the refugee enters, and since there's not a lot of migrants coming from the arctic circle this pretty much means the much poorer southern states have to shoulder all the costs and effort of assimilation, while the northern states tut about the principles.
- mopsi 3y ago> since there's not a lot of migrants coming from the arctic circle That's not true at all. Finland closed the entire border with Russia because Russians kept ferrying migrants to Finnish border. Russia had tried the same tactic against Norway, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland too. Strong response prevented the issue from snowballing out of control like in the Mediterranean where we see one artificial justification after another why nothing can be done.
- nvm0n2 3y agoDon't feel bad. UN resolutions don't actually reflect world opinion or even political opinion in those countries. Nobody cares what the UN thinks so even when countries vote in a particular way, the local politicians and voters barely notice. The story of people who get sent to represent the country there aren't elected and don't try to find out what people really think, they are just the usual NGO crowd.