This UN vote shows how completely isolated we are from world opinion | Hacker News Reader

This UN vote shows how completely isolated we are from world opinion

twitter.com

54 pointsflurly92 comments

I 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.

> 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.

I assume bribes.

WRT 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.

> 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.

This 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.

"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."

Poking around, I think this is the thing that vote was about: 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?

I 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.

I 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?

A "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.

Do Gazans not have self determination?

Yes, they do, that was my point.

Who says their self-determination will be any less violent if their right is rejected and they do it anyway?

Let's face a simple truth, Israel has no plan for Palestine but refuses to let it go. They are not winning this except by ethnic cleansing.

We can imagine a State of Palestine stabilizing eventually, but we can't imagine how Israel can ever stabilize its roofless GULag camp.

Even supposing you're right purely for the sake of argument, do you really think Hamas' plan for Palestine is any better? Given their Oct 2023 atrocities, they're no different than ISIS at this point.

They can eventually settle down. Israel atrocities are already two orders of magnitude worse at this point.

Hamas is not, and never was a majority in Palestine. It's trending upward since mid-november (what's happening in the West Bank might be the reason why).

> Hamas is not, and never was a majority in Palestine.

Well, except Hamas won the last elections held in Gaza way back in 2007.

Check the election stats, Hamas "won" but without any clear majority.

Moreover they won on the promise that they would seek a peaceful resolution with Isreal and they were (at that time) clearly the better of the only two realistic choices.

The Hamas of 2007 was not the Hamas of last year.

I’ve done some research. In fact, Hamas won 74 seats out of 132 [1] and, hence, acquired a convenient house majority. Assignment of seats were done by applying a mixed proportional and majority rule (similar to how it works in FRG), that’s why their voter share of 44% translated into more then twice the amount of seats. But, nevertheless, Hamas won the elections even by voter share alone. However, governance in Palestine is split between president and parliament. Since Fatah did not want to grant power to Hamas, president Abbas did not cooperate in the aftermath of the elections eventually resulting in a civil war and an ejection (and murder) of Fatah supporters establishing Hamas‘ one-party governance of Gaza. Israel’s sanctions came into effect after Hamas failed to renounce violence against Israel and its citizens.

(BTW: The elections were held in January 2006 — not in 2007 as I have stated above.)

[1] https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=c0e0eae4...

They enjoy a plurality of support, in the ballpark of 50%. This is higher than, e.g., US Republicans.

Let not be the type of person that doesn't let facts get in the way.

Hard fact Israel cleared out of Gaza 17 years ago and since then the Palestinians have let themselves be ruled by a terrorist organization. So doesn't seem like the Palestinians should be allowed to have their own government. Normally the solution to this sort of problem is they'd be handed over to some other government. Problem is no one wants the headache.

The hard reality is the Palestinians are a couple of million people that can't get their shit together vs 30 million refugees many of whom are in grave danger not of their own making.

After 50 years of paying attention to these guys I really can't care anymore. And that's really what everyone else should do. Because if no one cared about them anymore they'd have to deal with their own shit.

> So doesn't seem like the Palestinians should be allowed to have their own government

Why not? Isn't that an universal right? How are Sudanese or Lebanese better than Palestineans in that regard?

Your attention is worthless because it did not led Israel to implement two-state solution. What would you want? Retirement benefits?

I explained why not, because they elect terrorists to rule them. I'll add they regularly start wars that they then lose. Nobody else gets an endless amounts of do overs. And I think for them that needs to stop. They should get what every other group gets when they do stuff like what they did on Oct 7th. Your leaders get annihilated and you lose your sovereignty.

Contrast with Lebanon where despite everything that have some form of practical government. Sudan where it is an internal civil war. I'll point out there was far more refugees in Sudan than Palestinians. And most of those unlike the Palestinians are blameless. By rights every dime we give to the Palestinians should go to them instead.

Human rights apply to all humans, as the individuals they are, not as members of a group you assign them to.

"They" is doing a lot of work here. Who is "they"? Half of the population of Gaza are under the age of 15. "They" keep electing terrorists and keep starting wars.

> They should get what every other group gets when they do stuff like what they did on Oct 7th.

Again, "they". What other group? Name them. Name one. Outside of what the Nazis did and how they rationalized it. Outside of how terrorist groups rationalize and attempt to justify what they do.

> This too does the for a totalitarian environment so well prepared vernacular express in its own way when it no longer speaks of "the" Russians or "the" French, but tells us what "the" Russian or "the" Frenchman wants.

-- Hannah Arendt

So cause the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet right now..

https://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-website/alerts-archive/issue...

.. blow up infrastructure and make fun of that...

https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17317722618482647...

https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/174329670657626944...

https://twitter.com/ytirawi/status/1743411493813575711

.. and then "they" will... stop being radicalized into terrorism?

And while you're at it, attack refugee camps in the West Bank? Because children who weren't even born in 2006 elected terrorists in Gaza, and enough is enough.

Nonsense. And everybody know it is.

> "In the context of de-legitimization - Hamas is an asset (for Israel) and the Palestinian Authority is a liability"

-- Smotrich, https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1741196470399783296

> If we act strategically correctly, there will be immigration and we will live in the Gaza Strip. We will not allow a situation where 2 million people live there. If there are 100-200 thousand Arabs in Gaza, all the talk about the day after will be different. They want to leave, they have been living in the ghetto for 75 years and are in need"

-- Smotrich, https://twitter.com/GLZRadio/status/1741347524693127398

So if you keep electing people who are murdering civilians to commit ethnic cleansing to take over the land, or keep electing leaders that supply those other leaders with weapons to do that, and then, as an adult, go on a forum to re-iterate that you personally agree with it, that's fine. But kids in Gaza, they have to pay for what they did.

The government of Ariel Sharon removed any Israel military presence from Gaza way back in 2005. So it is very far fetched to say Israel occupied Palestine — unless you pretend all of Israel‘s territory belongs to the palestines which does not give much room for compromise.

Since then Hamas established a brutal dictatorship taking all of the inhabitants of Gaza as hostages. Freedom of speech? Nope. Women‘s rights? Forget it. Gay rights? Of course not. Taxes and international monetary support was side channeled to establish an underground military force using hospitals and schools als command centers. For decades they fired rockets on Israel civilians and still Israel let them going on. Until they crossed the border last year killing hundreds of civilians and even took over a thousand of hostages including children.

When you insist Gaza being „Israel‘s gulag camp“ you are being delusional, put yourself far outside any civilized discourse and make yourself essentially a supporter of a truly criminal and violent gang.

I wish Gaza people all the best but their only hope for freedom is the total and utter destruction of Hamas‘ network of terrorists.

> The government of Ariel Sharon removed any Israel military presence from Gaza way back in 2005

Gaza is still militarily occupied. Israel controls the flow of goods and people, prevents Gazans from leaving the territory, uses violence and collective punishment against the civilian population, and discriminates against Palestinians.

> For decades they fired rockets on Israel civilians

for decades, the people of Gaza have been subject to apartheid. i don't agree with violence but claiming that Israel has the moral high ground here is ridiculous considering that Palestinian civilians have been terrorized since 1948.

> even took over a thousand of hostages including children

"An estimated 10,000 Palestinian children have been held in military detention over the past 20 years, with Save the Children noting that they are "the only children in the world who are systematically prosecuted in military courts.'"

yes, taking children as hostages is horrible. but your focus shows your bias and leads me to believe that you're not arguing in good faith.

> their only hope for freedom is the total and utter destruction of Hamas‘ network of terrorists.

we know this is absolutely false because this ethic cleansing predates the creation of Hamas. Israel was in fact involved in the creation of Hamas and supported it in the early days as a way to prevent the left-wing PLO from taking power.

in short, your "argument" completely ignores history and the context of this conflict.

I think the "Gulag" label is a bit hyperbolic, but that's because Gulags were forced labor camps, whereas Gaza under the blockade has had extremely high unemployment due to the severely hamstrung economy. The "open-air prison" description that others have used seems close to being correct, however.

I think you tried to engage in goal-post moving, by arguing that Israel has not "occupied" Gaza following the "disengagement", which is not directly tied to the "Gulag" label you were disagreeing with. While I think the claim that Israel was not occupying Gaza during this period is literally true, this is only because international legal definitions of occupation have multiple specific requirements. Though Israel was not stationing soldiers inside the territory, and was not running a sole government in the territory, it has still had enormous control. Imposing a blockade by sea, air and land for years on end, and continuously imprisoning Palestinians without charge or trial, is technically not "occupation", but it is an enormous projection of state force over a territory that Israel claimed was not in its control. Perhaps it's not "occupation" as defined in international law -- fine. So let's come up with a new word for it, but continue to recognize it as abusive.

In that context, talking about the rights of women and gays inside Gaza seems like bad faith whataboutism; if Israel cared about their rights and equality, it could let women and queer people living in Gaza leave.

> but it is an enormous projection of state force over a territory that Israel claimed was not in its control

You conveniently ignore why Israel has been controlling Gaza’s borders. Because it is ruled by Hamas since 2007 misusing their power to build up an armed terrorist origanization instead of a country. And they keep attacking Israel’s territory. If Israel had established an open border policy (which they had when they were actually occupying Gaza) last year‘s massacre would have happened already years back.

I keep getting criticized for „ignoring history“ but your post is a very good example how the self-proclaimed supporters of Palestinians, here, are constantly engaging in cherry-picking the historical facts trying to win their arguments. Israel haters should really step back for a moment at least and consider who they are supporting and what cause.

Gulags imprisoned individual people based on insufficient sham judicial procedures, but they say least made a show of imprisoning people who had done something to earn it. Keeping Israel as an open-air prison for residents who have not specifically done anything wrong is arguably worse. Detaining thousands of civilians in officially Israeli prisons without charges or trials

I have no objections to Israel trying to control the flow of dangerous individuals and materiel across its own land. Why should it have a right to block sea and air access? Why should it stop the flow of ordinary goods? Nowhere have I recommended open borders; there are lots of options between open borders and the blockade system.

I'm not actually a supporter of Palestinians. You'll note that I started this sub thread arguing that the UN resolution talking about right of a people to self-determination doesn't seem coherent. But I am a supporter of human rights, and this is a situation in which there seem to be many serious violations.

I suspect a "The Catalan people deserve self-representation" would get lots of yes votes and Spain would vote no.

I suspect similar for "The Quebequois" and Canada. The Scottish and the UK.

On a surface level it doesn't say much.

And 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.

in 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.

> 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.

Don'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.

I have nothing specific to add on the subject, but…

It’s ironic to see PG flagged on basically his own website.

Many voices of reason have been flagged here.

It'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?

Hamas 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?

If 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.)

I 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).

I 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.

How 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.

> How else do you suggest we destroy Hamas, given that they've already said they'd do October 7th again as soon as they can?

Stopping blowing kids to pieces through indiscriminate air raids and ending apartheid would be a good start. That will cause a big recruitment problem for Hamas. Perhaps if people are given a bare minimum of dignity, if they have something to lose, I don't think they could be easily motivated to rush tanks by foot with handheld IEDs like in Saving Private Ryan.

Agreed that indiscriminate air raids are both militarily ineffective and terrible for civilians. But it is so easy to reach for them against an enemy without proper air defenses, as the chance of your own casualties is very low. It is also NATO/US doctrine - establish air superiority and then explode everything vaguely threatening.

>Maybe the horror of the calamity befalling them might concentrate some minds.

So when Hamas kills indiscriminately, it's evil, but when Israel does it, it's simply necessary?

Hamas opened the gates of hell, awfully hard to prevent what happens next.

Imagine if the Mexican army went on a rampage through Texas (again) - how could a similarly overwhelming response be avoided?

If the Mexican army went on a rampage through Texas, indiscriminately "opening the gates of hell" on Mexican civilians would not be justifiable. A similarly overwhelming response could be avoided because we are human beings, not demons driven only by an insatiable lust for vengeance and blood.

I think I'm done with this conversation. Good night.

Opening the gates of hell is not an actual thing.

And the comparison with Mexico falls flat because the US isn't run by a government working hand in hand with religious zealots who talk about how Mexico actually belongs to them, and if they can just drive out or kill all people there, they could move there.

> "In the context of de-legitimization - Hamas is an asset (for Israel) and the Palestinian Authority is a liability"

-- Smotrich, https://twitter.com/BarakRavid/status/1741196470399783296

-- also Smotrich, https://twitter.com/GLZRadio/status/1741347524693127398

> Just as it is clear that the [Israeli] right wing was right, today everyone says it is clear all Gazans must be annihilated"

-- MK Moshe Saada, https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17424904213961198...

If killing 1000+ people is opening the gates of hell, what is killing 20k+ people and setting 500k+ on the course to die of famine or disease? Opening the gates of the Underverse? That's all Lord of the Flies nonsense. In reality, the terrorists of Hamas are responsible for their terrorism, and IDF and Isreali government for their crimes against humanity. One doesn't excuse the other, that's not how it even remotely works. That's only how you whip up people into actions they cannot justify and that cost them dearly.

The Mexico comparison is flat out weird and ahistorical.

In that sense, the comparison is quite in line with the rest of the conversation on this site.

I am a direct descendant of people who signed on the Texas Declaration of Independence. Those folks moved to an "empty" area where there were a bunch of people who they didn't consider to be "real" people (because my ancestors were objectively racist) and then when the government of the area forbade keeping chattel slaves they performed an armed revolt and established a racist state. That racism was so important to them that Oklahoma has a panhandle.

If the descendants those people are scared that a tide of brown folks are going to do the same thing to them, I can understand why- I don't agree that other groups of people operate with the same sociopathic view towards their fellow humans, but their fears aren't mine.

Unfortunately you're not going to find much of a critique of that incorrect view of how humans deal with each other amongst the tech bros- they are such a product of this time and place that it's like asking fish what they think about the water.

The entire focal point of the power that generated Texas is the idea that that there are "real" humans who have rights and are people, and then there are folks who aren't. And the real folks have a destiny to be the historical victors, and the rest of us just better hope their machines break before they make the planet uninhabitable for the rest of us, because they have the guns and the bomb and if they draw a line on the map it is as real as they are, and if you don't respect that line you're not a real person anyhow.

So of course folks who are happy to think of "Texas" as if it had just been existing there forever, without history, think it is okay to kill 20k people as if it were some kind of historical necessity.

It's a similar racism that exists everywhere in these colonialist situations. It's not the only element in play in any of these situations but it's an important structure.

That racism is such an vital element of that power that it appears invisible, often even to folks who are suffering its effects.

Johnnyworker, I appreciate the fight you're engaged in on HN.

I generally have a couple of searches open for different topics; for the last couple of months mostly about the situation in Palestine. I've enjoyed seeing some of your writing across several threads.

Typically the people on this site have some pretty horrific ideas about the world, full of bizarre premises that appear (to them) as banal and natural understandings of the world.

I don't especially blame them for that viewpoint; if you've never spent a lot of time around, say, the reservation system for indigenous folks in the US or if you've never, like, read a materialist history of what the US has done in Guatemala, Indonesia, Korea, Vietnam, and so on- if you've never gotten any other history than that of the far-right US victors in the second world war, you might be forgiven.

Power creates specific subjects, and those subjects are often blind to certain facts about how power works to create a world that seems uncreated, natural, and necessary.

People who have been able to function well under these highly authoritarian regimes are interesting; that is why I read what they write here.

It is an important viewpoint to mark because it is the viewpoint of the people with the guns, people who think they will never have to even see the carnage they create, much less suffer a similar fate.

They are happy to see power work on other people because it maintains the fantasy that power is not working upon themselves.

"If you never think to move, you'll never see your chains" and all that nonsense. Or, if you prefer, it feels to me like people in these systems often take some comfort that power is operating on "the bad guys" because that is how they feel like sane good guys. If power only works on brown bodies, then it must not be working on their own hearts and brains.

Anyhow.

I don't think you'll change any minds here- I personally don't think it's worth engaging on the topic of imperial power with folks employed to work at the heart of the imperial core.

But still, it' is nice to see folks at least speaking up occasionally. Keep up the good fight.

Thank you, so much. Maybe you give me too much credit in that I do it for a form of moral self hygiene, too. I'm German, and trying to grapple with the Nazis and the Holocaust is something I'll do as long as I live. So this strikes home on several levels, the trauma that the Nazis seeded into Israel, the way the Holocaust is now used to dehumanize Palestinians or to smear critical people as anti-semites, and the all too familiar (having read dozens of books on the subject) tropes and fallacies used to defend these crimes, the dehumanizing language, the thinking of people in blobs. All of it.

Hannah Arendt is my favorite person in the world, period, so if I don't say anything about this, I cannot use the site for other discussions with remotely a good conscience. So it's selfish, that way. But I also hope and wish it helps a little, somehow.

> back to eye for an eye.

One thing that's missed about the whole "eye for an eye" thing, is that at the time, it was a step forward from the status quo. A way to prevent a lost eye becoming a lost arm becoming a lost life, becoming 3 lost lives and so on.

Now it's become a by-word for barbarity, but it was state of the art of civilization at one point, thousands of years ago.

And sadly, if 'eye for an eye' was the rule followed in the current conflict, there would be less criticism of the Israeli government's response, as there'd be a lot less dead people.

Thankfully 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.

Do 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?

Does it, though?

My 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.

This was a vote on a resolution in the general assembly, where there are no vetoes. It was approved.

yes... America has only now just joined the wrong side of history...

Since 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.

The 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!

> 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

I'm not entirely sure that spending and lobbying are synonymous.

I 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.

It'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".

> I think that's a fair critique. Do you have any alternative metrics for evaluating the "most powerful" lobbies in the US?

It appears to be the only one able to consistently get US citizens working for US employers in US soil fired for expressing opinions about a conflict halfway to the other side of the globe. If it were Russia or Ukraine lobbists getting US people fired, probably the FBI would be already indicting people for foreign interference in domestic matters.

> It appears to be the only one able to consistently get US citizens working for US employers in US soil fired

Can you provide some examples of Israeli lobbyists getting US citizens fired by US employers for expressing their opinions?

Do you have any links to news stories about these firings? Curious to know more.

Also I think your analogy is a bit misplaced; I sure as hell hope the FBI responds differently to enemies than they do to allies.

By "powerful" I meant being powerful enough to overcome public opinion. The vast majority of Americans are against our bombs being used to commit genocide, yet, our senile president is fully supporting turning Gaza into a parking lot.

I think you radically misunderstand the distribution of viewpoints of your fellow Americans (on Biden, on "genocide," and on selling our weapons to our military allies).

There are polls and surveys. There's no war in Gaza - only a textbook example of genocide and this is coming directly from prominent American Jews.

I’m not sure why you’re pointing specifically to American Jews as the source of authority on a conflict in the Middle East, but in terms of polls and surveys:

“About a quarter [of Americans] (27%) say Israel is going too far in its current military operation, while about as many (25%) say it is taking the right approach; 16% of Americans say Israel is not going far enough militarily.” So more Americans support Israel’s campaign than do not.[1]

“81% of American Jews support Israel continuing its military operation to ‘recover all Israeli hostages and remove Hamas from power.’” Which implies the vast majority of “prominent American Jews” are not calling this genocide.[2]

And on this last point, this is hardly a “textbook example of genocide” when scholars of genocide contest this label[3], it is outright rejected by the US State Department[4], and casualties fall within the expectations of urban warfare experts[5]. The textbook example of genocide is the Holocaust.

All this hyperbole and generalization, just like we saw in Paul Graham’s tweet, makes it impossible to have productive discussions.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/12/08/americans-vi...

[2] https://jewishinsider.com/2023/12/poll-overwhelming-majority...

[3] https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/how-to-define-genocid... and https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-ex...

[4] https://www.reuters.com/world/us-not-seeing-acts-genocide-ga...

[5] https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/07/opinions/israel-hamas-gaza-no...

> I’m not sure why you’re pointing specifically to American Jews

They weren't. They were referring to prominent American Jews. They probably have specific statements in mind, by specific individuals but for the sake of brevity, didn't include them.

Also, I'd subtract the people who just lapped up all sorts of dehumanizing, sanctimonious propaganda, such as the stuff which even Joe Biden simply parroted: https://www.declassifieduk.org/beheaded-babies-how-uk-media-...

What some people think they are supporting and what they are supporting are vastly different.

As for the "military operations" and "urban warfare":

https://twitter.com/ireallyhateyou/status/174329670657626944...

https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17317722618482647...

> For all those asking why there is no education Gaza. Oops, we've had a missile fall on them. That sucks. Ohhh, too bad. That's how you'll not be engineers anymore.

-- Israeli soldier standing before Al-Azhar university, https://twitter.com/ytirawi/status/1743411493813575711

https://www.972mag.com/israel-torture-camp-gaza-detainees/

And then there's the murder and attacks on civilian infrastructure in the West Bank, too. Or the bulldozing of a cemetary. I'll spare you posting dozens and dozens of pieces of proof each of which belie the claim of calling this a "war", much hiding the arbitrary, cruel attacks on civilians under the cover of "urban warfare".

As for "productive" discussions, for the purposes of ethnic cleansing and genocide, all that is required is a.) to continue sending arms b.) pretending this is a defensive "war".

Famine and disease will do the rest: https://jewishcurrents.org/epidemiological-war-on-gaza

And that is part of the openly espoused calculus.

-- Smotrich, https://twitter.com/GLZRadio/status/1741347524693127398

Again, just one of many examples, more here

https://law4palestine.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Law-for...

And even that is just the tip of the iceberg.

There’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.

It's thanks to the spirit of will that we're not Nazis? That's what they said would lead to everyone being Nazis...

When 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.

Easy. 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.

His two proposed explanations are laughably reductive

Using 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.

That "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.

The 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.

What do you think has made it a highly developed shining city on the hill? Something to think about.

What has made South Korea a thriving economy whilst North Korea remains one of the poorest and most oppressive places in the world? Same answer right there.

> That "too dirty for the CIA [sic]" country is still the freest and most highly developed of the entire Middle East

yeah, if you ignore apartheid against 5 million Palestinians. sudan is also the freest and most highly developed nation in africa if you ignore the violence and economy and status as a failed state.

I'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

You 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).

I 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.

No he wasn't. He said "America's most powerful lobby". Not its most powerful lobby "FOR a foreign country". Words mean things!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com