Politics in Israel

[shnozzola]

A (scary?) new face in Israeli politics - Naftali Bennett.   Interesting article in the New Yorker.

To Bennett, there is nothing complex about the question of occupation. There is no occupation. “The land is ours”: that is pretty much the end of the debate. “I will do everything in my power, forever, to fight against a Palestinian state being founded in the Land of Israel,” he said. “I don’t think there is a clear-cut solution for the Israeli-Arab conflict in this generation.      

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/21/130121fa_fact_remnick#ixzz2N56eQl00

- so a new generation of never ending idiocy and a unwillingness to be brothers and sisters begins..............may this conflict  last until the sun burns out, continuing to escalate and affect progress for people worldwide.   

[Nick]

And the US will be there backing them up all the way...because we have to in order for the"end times" to play out correctly.

[Quesi]

Wow.  Thanks for sharing.  He certainly is a scary character.

And the article seems to predict an increasing role for the reactionary right in Israel with a certainty I have not seen before.  Very upsetting.

[Tonus]

And the US will be there backing them up all the way...because we have to in order for the"end times" to play out correctly.

I suppose that much of the ebb-and-flow of their politics is influenced by who our President happens to be.  Obama is less supportive of Israel than Bush was, and I think that encourages hard-liners to become more vocal and active, whereas Bush's Mideast aims aligned much more closely with Israel's, which prompted a move towards a more conciliatory push that has caused Netanyahu quite a few headaches over the past several years.  I figure most Israelis would like to find some kind of equilibrium that keeps things from blowing up.  So they walk a tightrope between an aggressive stance that warns its neighbors it means business, and a passive stance that offers to find some sort of compromise that keeps the bloodshed to a minimum.

[Nick]

Actually, Obama has been more supportive than Bush was.  Even the def minister of Israel stated as much.  But you are right about the right wing over there coming to more and more power.

[Backspace]

To Bennett, there is nothing complex about the question of occupation. There is no occupation. “The land is ours"

Hitler said the same thing about Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, and Western Russia.  Hitler called it Lebensraum, "a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races; especially if the people of a superior race were facing overpopulation in their given territories."[1] The paralles are so close to be laughable, but mention this to a fundimentalist Jew, and you'll immediately be labled an anti-semite.  It's the Israeli equivilent of America's Manifest Destiny - hence fundamentialst America's fervent support of such land grabs.

1.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

[Bereft_of_Faith]

To Bennett, there is nothing complex about the question of occupation. There is no occupation. “The land is ours"

Hitler said the same thing about Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, and Western Russia.  Hitler called it Lebensraum, "a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races; especially if the people of a superior race were facing overpopulation in their given territories."[1] The paralles are so close to be laughable, but mention this to a fundimentalist Jew, and you'll immediately be labled an anti-semite.  It's the Israeli equivilent of America's Manifest Destiny - hence fundamentialst America's fervent support of such land grabs.

1.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

Agreed, however, I don't think it's a matter of superiority, but rather, the jewish/israeli belief that they have been given the land by god.  The borders of that land are defined in the bible, IIRC.  That is (one of the reasons) why israel did not push on into egypt when the tide turned in the yom kipur war, and why they so easily gave up the sinai for peace with egypt.  By contrast, the west bank is defined by them (at least the hard right jews) as judea and samaria. 

I remember long ago, watching Pat Robertson showing the map of the lands promised to the jews, and talking gleefully about how recent israeli grabs (I believe in their occupation of southern lebanon) fulfilled the prophesy.  (They invaded to create a buffer zone against palestinian  attacks during the civil war with lebanon's two christian militias, whom the israelis nominally supported.) 

For israel, it is less about race and far more about bible prophesy as they define it.  That however, in the case of the west bank, it may be a distinction without a difference.

It also may be worth remembering that the israeli state had been fairly pragmatic.  Pragmatism was in play in both the case of egypt mentioned above, and their pull back from lebanon, as well as their annexation of the golan heights (strategic).  In recent years however, they have, IMO, abandoned that pragmatism and a good deal of their 'soul' in their treatment of the people living in the territories they refuse to relinquish.

[screwtape]

Agreed, however, I don't think it's a matter of superiority,

oh, it's superiority all right.  They are the Chosen People. 

I would not object to our drones blowing up illegal settlements.

[Backspace]

I don't think it's a matter of superiority, but rather, the jewish/israeli belief that they have been given the land by god. 

What more superiority do you need? 

[Bereft_of_Faith]

@backspace / screwtape

First, if either of you are of the opinion that the jewish people have no right to Israel, and that they should either be driven into the sea by force, or subsumed into a Palestinian state, then I will only say that I disagree, and tell you that I'm not interested in yet another debate about the right of Israel to exist.  I find it exhausting.

As for drone strikes on settlements, I trust that was hyperbole.  One cannot seriously advocate the wholesale killing of people.  One however, can advocate the removal, by measured force if necessary, of the settlers, and the bulldozing of the settlements themselves (just for a bit of payback).  I have stated a number of times that I am against the Israeli settlement policy, not just for the inexcusable damage done to the Palestinians, but also for the long term security of Israel, in a number of different ways.

One caveat before I continue.  My comments below exclude Orthodox jews, and the right wing from which they have emerged.  They are religious nuts, and I have no more time for them than the right wing of any other religion.

In your replies, you have countered my argument with the term 'chosen people'.  That term is not generally used by jews.  It is a term most often used derisively by gentiles to refer to jews.  It is a veiled insult with enough baggage to be useful for just about any thing.  At most, the average jew views the term with bitter irony in the face of a history of persecution, expulsion, pogroms and a very ambitious attempt to eradicate them from the face of the earth.

The jews are a people, defined not only by their religion, but also by their shared culture, history and resulting mindset.  Profound inferiority is part of the jewish character.  Up until the middle of the twentieth century, every jew knew that he or she existed only so long as no pharaoh, king, dictator, tsar or religious demagogue took a scapegoating interest in them.  When that happened, it was time to pack their bags and run somewhere else, before the chariots, Jesuits, Crusaders, Cossacks or Gestapo arrived.  Young jews were not taught that they were special or protected by god.  They were warned that the world was set against them.  Until the foundation of Israel, they saw themselves as weak, powerless, and alone in the world. 

The aggressive policies of Israel are not based in any feeling of superiority.  They are based in fear.  They are a small state surrounded by people who see them as enemies, some of whom have the expressed desire to drive them into the sea.  I am not excusing their policies, but to suggest that such come from anything other than fear is incorrect.

[Noman Peopled]

First, if either of you are of the opinion that the jewish people have no right to Israel, and that they should either be driven into the sea by force, or subsumed into a Palestinian state, then I will only say that I disagree, and tell you that I'm not interested in yet another debate about the right of Israel to exist.  I find it exhausting.

Hm.
Maybe you'd be interested in one about how the jewish people, back then, had no right to Israel where it was instituted - but now they do by virtue of a lack of alternative?

[screwtape]

First, if either of you are of the opinion that the jewish people have no right to Israel, and that they should either be driven into the sea by force, or subsumed into a Palestinian state, then I will only say that I disagree, and tell you that I'm not interested in yet another debate about the right of Israel to exist.  I find it exhausting.

Well, I find it to be a loaded question.  Does a state that has been exinct for 2000 years have a right to be a state again?  What does it even mean to say a state has a right?  How do you define "Israel"?  Is there an intrinsic connection between a person and an ancient ancestral home to the point where they have the right to kick out the people who live there? 

I think if jews wanted to live in Palenstine, in harmony and peace with the people who already lived there, buying land instead of stealing it, that would probably be okay.  I think they would probably not be seen as international villains.  I think the problem is when they define it as a jewish state and then engage in a long, slow war of ethnic cleansing.  Israel is an apartheid state and they have no interest in peace with palestinians.  They are racists.   

Suppose my friend Vinny Sacramano and a bunch of his friends and relatives - all zeus worshippers and descendents of the Roman Empire - wanted to go back to Rome to reestablish the Empire of old? No big deal. Unless they started kicking out the xian Italians who live there now, trying to justify it by saying "it's not really their land" and trying to ensure the people who have lived there since the fall of the Roman Empire had no political power.  Exact same problem in israel.

As for drone strikes on settlements, I trust that was hyperbole.  One cannot seriously advocate the wholesale killing of people.  One however, can advocate the removal, by measured force if necessary, of the settlers, and the bulldozing of the settlements themselves (just for a bit of payback).

They are terrorists engaged in a war against civilians.  Isn't that what drones are for?
http://mondoweiss.net/2012/10/settlers-receive-an-escort-from-the-israeli-military-to-intimidate-palestinians-harvesting-their-olive-trees.html

Look at some of the photos on this one: http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/d/sp/i/33045/pid/33045/cat_id/722/icids/722/
did you see the guy wearing the tshirt that says:
"Are you jewish? Yes= life. No= death."

My comments below exclude Orthodox jews, and the right wing from which they have emerged. ...

In your replies, you have countered my argument with the term 'chosen people'.  That term is not generally used by jews. It is a term most often used derisively by gentiles to refer to jews.  It is a veiled insult with enough baggage to be useful for just about any thing. 

On what grounds do you say this?  If orthodox jews say this, how is it that this is a slur to less stringent jews? 

The closest I have found to your interpretation is this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/jews-gods-chosen-people_b_1079821.html
And it still smacks of superiority. 

I've read a bunch of articles on what the chosen people means.  They all try to say it does not mean the jews are special, but they never actually make that argument.  The arguments they use make the exact opposite point. They say things like "the concept of a chosen people within Judaism has nothing to do with racial superiority, but rather is a description of the special relationship between God and Jews."[1]  Right.  That special relationship no other people on the planet has.  That doesn't make them better or superior.  It just makes them...special.  In a superior way.

They are a small state surrounded by people who see them as enemies,

Oh, baloney.  That is a myth.  They've been at peace with Egypt for 40 years, with Jordan for 20 years. Iraq does not border Israel, but is in shambles anyway.  Saudi Arabia has been non-antagonistic and has tried to pressure Israel to fix their Palestinian policy.  Syria and Lebanon are impotent.  Israel worrying about them is like the US worrying about Cuba.  And while Ahmedinijad of Iran may have said some really scary things, what have they actually done?  Nothing.  What can they do?  Nothing.  Iraq and Turkey are between them.  Ahmedinijad has no power to act on his stupid words.

The whole notion that they are this little underdog with their back against the wall is preposterous.

And the only reason they are seen as an enemy in the region is because of their racist and violent policies.  If you move into a neighborhood by breaking into a house, killing a couple fo the kids and making the rest of the family who lived there move to a tent in the back yard, yes, the neighbors are unlikely to be friendly.

You make a good point and I agree with you.  Fear does play into the dynamic of israeli politics.  But if you think they don't think of themselves as superior to the the palestinians, akin to the way the nazis thought of jews, then I think you are being naive.

1.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_the_chosen_people#Ethnocentrism_and_racism

[Quesi]

The Jewish people have been marginalized, oppressed and persecuted throughout most of documented human history.  They have been a “nation without a state” since before the concept of a “state” even existed.   On our modern globe, in which every piece of land has been carved out into defined political boundaries, most people who are members of stateless nations would like their nation to have its own state.    And after thousands of years, the Jewish people were finally granted their own state. 

The problem, of course, is that the land they were granted already belonged to someone else.   And just as an abused child sometimes grows up to be a child abuser, a percentage of the Zionists who sought refuge from oppression within the borders of a Jewish state, have themselves become brutal oppressors of the Palestinians. 

It is ironic that a man like Bennett, who uses education, parlor tricks and money obtained outside of the political borders of Israel, can gain power on a platform of oppression.   And when an article like this predicts that his brand of power-hunger is representative of a growing trend within Israel, I am genuinely dismayed. 

[screwtape]

They have been a “nation without a state” since before the concept of a “state” even existed.

I don't buy into that.  That is the zionists' narrative.  Not all jews were kicked out of Roman Judea. That is a myth.  The only place they were forbidden by the Romans was Jerusalem itself.  Many, if not most, of them stayed in Judea.  Or, those who left, left to establish an independent state outside Jerusalem.  Over time and through various conquests, their culture changed.  Most of them became muslims.  So the Palestinians whom the israelis hate, are really the descendents of the Judeas, while they themselves are a mix of various north African and Arab (Sephardic) and eastern European (Ashkenazi). 

This article points out that pretty much every jewish "exile" is mythical.
http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel

There has been no real research into this turning point in Jewish history, the cause of the diaspora. And for a simple reason: the Romans never exiled any nation from anywhere on the eastern seaboard of the Mediterranean. Apart from enslaved prisoners, the population of Judea continued to live on their lands, even after the destruction of the second temple. Some converted to Christianity in the 4th century, while the majority embraced Islam during the 7th century Arab conquest.

Not all jews are or were zionists.  Many jews in Europe were and wanted to be seen as good citizens of the countries in which they lived and had lived for generations.  It is not as if they were vagabonds and nomads who lived in wagons and wandered from place to place. 


Naftali Bennett is a horrible person.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/21/130121fa_fact_remnick

[nogodsforme]

Just a comment that this is a very reasoned and informed discussion of a issue that often deteriorates quickly into angry name-calling and flaming. Good on ya'll.

The Israeli government's claim to the land where Palestinian Arabs have lived for generations is based on "might makes right" and "we won the war, we keep the prize". Which means, we were more ruthless, more desperate, and more willing to break rules and kill Palestinian civilians. And that only makes the Palestinians more desperate and willing to kill Israeli civilians.

Exactly the same mentality as manifest destiny to take the native people's land, and the 1848 US grab of the southwest from Mexico at gunpoint.  No wonder we in the US don't see anything wrong. It's European colonization with a slightly different religious face and better weaponry.

Israel is indeed a small country, but a few nuclear warheads and a superpower buddy are amazing equalizers.

[Nick]

Has anyone seen that commercial on TV about how people in Israel and hungry and for $25.00 you can have a box of food sent to them.  It implies that they have to spend so much on protection that many are going hungry.  I wonder what group is doing this and where the money actually goes?

[shnozzola]

Nick,
      Are these the commercials?




I believe the group is:
           International Fellowship of Christians and Jews®

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind folks it is even cold in Pennsylvania this time of year  (well, not -60F).  Please send what you can.

[Nick]

The box the lady is carrying looks like the box in the commercial I saw.  It would be interesting to see what %age of the 25 bucks actually goes to this as opposed to administration fees.  An is this even a concern in Israel?

[Backspace]

I wonder what group is doing this and where the money actually goes?

Iron Dome -- each one of those Tamir interceptors is $35,000–50,000.[1]

1.	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome

[nogodsforme]

Has anyone seen that commercial on TV about how people in Israel and hungry and for $25.00 you can have a box of food sent to them.  It implies that they have to spend so much on protection that many are going hungry.  I wonder what group is doing this and where the money actually goes?

Can't they buy food with some of the 3 billion bucks a year of my US taxes that goes to Israel?

[The Gawd]

As an African-American, I am a people without a state. I choose Israel as my new state. All I need is some strong armed buddies to push the current inhabitants out and give me rightful legal ownership of the land  Of course it wont be called Israel after it is mine, we'll call it Gawd's Land.

Sounds ridiculous?
Sounds like the sequel to an already bad movie...

I just cant see defending the current state of events there. Far be it from me to pick sides in a war between factions where their religions play a large role in the animosity, but there is a clear wrong here. I'll stop short of saying there is a "right" however. As a US citizen, concerned with my local city, Chicago, where infants are being shot to death; I say we pull out, let Yahweh save Israel since he chose 'em, and build some community centers and fix our schools right here in the 773, 312, and 708 (for safe measure).

[12 Monkeys]

@backspace / screwtape

First, if either of you are of the opinion that the jewish people have no right to Israel, and that they should either be driven into the sea by force, or subsumed into a Palestinian state, then I will only say that I disagree, and tell you that I'm not interested in yet another debate about the right of Israel to exist.  I find it exhausting.

As for drone strikes on settlements, I trust that was hyperbole.  One cannot seriously advocate the wholesale killing of people.  One however, can advocate the removal, by measured force if necessary, of the settlers, and the bulldozing of the settlements themselves (just for a bit of payback).  I have stated a number of times that I am against the Israeli settlement policy, not just for the inexcusable damage done to the Palestinians, but also for the long term security of Israel, in a number of different ways.

One caveat before I continue.  My comments below exclude Orthodox jews, and the right wing from which they have emerged.  They are religious nuts, and I have no more time for them than the right wing of any other religion.

In your replies, you have countered my argument with the term 'chosen people'.  That term is not generally used by jews.  It is a term most often used derisively by gentiles to refer to jews.  It is a veiled insult with enough baggage to be useful for just about any thing.  At most, the average jew views the term with bitter irony in the face of a history of persecution, expulsion, pogroms and a very ambitious attempt to eradicate them from the face of the earth.

The jews are a people, defined not only by their religion, but also by their shared culture, history and resulting mindset.  Profound inferiority is part of the jewish character.  Up until the middle of the twentieth century, every jew knew that he or she existed only so long as no pharaoh, king, dictator, tsar or religious demagogue took a scapegoating interest in them.  When that happened, it was time to pack their bags and run somewhere else, before the chariots, Jesuits, Crusaders, Cossacks or Gestapo arrived.  Young jews were not taught that they were special or protected by god.  They were warned that the world was set against them.  Until the foundation of Israel, they saw themselves as weak, powerless, and alone in the world. 

The aggressive policies of Israel are not based in any feeling of superiority.  They are based in fear.  They are a small state surrounded by people who see them as enemies, some of whom have the expressed desire to drive them into the sea.  I am not excusing their policies, but to suggest that such come from anything other than fear is incorrect.

Can the original inhabitants of North America start doing the same as Israel? can we just re-establish our "homelands" as Israel has done,if so why can't we? please back up your reasons why it is ok for one group and not another.

[12 Monkeys]

The Jewish people have been marginalized, oppressed and persecuted throughout most of documented human history.  They have been a “nation without a state” since before the concept of a “state” even existed.   On our modern globe, in which every piece of land has been carved out into defined political boundaries, most people who are members of stateless nations would like their nation to have its own state.    And after thousands of years, the Jewish people were finally granted their own state. 

The problem, of course, is that the land they were granted already belonged to someone else.   And just as an abused child sometimes grows up to be a child abuser, a percentage of the Zionists who sought refuge from oppression within the borders of a Jewish state, have themselves become brutal oppressors of the Palestinians. 

It is ironic that a man like Bennett, who uses education, parlor tricks and money obtained outside of the political borders of Israel, can gain power on a platform of oppression.   And when an article like this predicts that his brand of power-hunger is representative of a growing trend within Israel, I am genuinely dismayed.

Is an Indian on a reservation the same as a Jewish person without a state? Can we begin the re-establishment of our "states"?

[Quesi]

Is an Indian on a reservation the same as a Jewish person without a state?

On or off a reservation, the indigenous people of the Americas are members of nations without a state. 

Can we begin the re-establishment of our "states"?

A valid question, and one that should be asked frequently, so that people remember the historical events that contributed to the creation of the nation states that were carved out in our hemisphere.  We don't like to think about genocide, enslavement, and the semi-apartheid conditions that are part of our history, and that continue to exist in some of those nation states.

But removing everyone who is not native to the Americas is even more impractical than removing the Jews from Israel. 

[nogodsforme]

Which is why the idea of expelling anyone from the place they have lived for generations is absurd, whether it is the pogroms against the Jews in Europe, or the "reconquista" where Catholics kicked out the Muslims who had been there for only, oh, 600 years or so.[1]

Most people are "nations without states". Very few countries are homogenous with nearly everyone of the same language and ethnicity. Japan, North and South Korea, maybe Somalia.[2] Since there are over 3500 ethnic and language groups on the planet, and only 200 countries, most everyone is going to be living in a country with lots of different kinds of people.

Most of us don't approve of colonization anymore, so we don't expect to be handed a country of our very own so we can kick out the local residents and fill 'er up with just "our kind of people". We all have to suck it up and try to get along with people who are not exactly the same as us.

Israel can't expect to pass itself off as a modern, multicultural, secular democracy (like the US and most other western countries aspire to be) if it also wants to maintain its status as a "Jewish state". You can have one or the other. Not both. 

1.	The native folks of the world are perfectly justified in kicking out anyone whose people arrived after 1400, if we accept the "reconquista" as valid. The Palestinians would certainly be justified in kicking out the Israelis, most of whom arrived from Europe less than 100 years ago.
2.	Iceland probably qualifies, too. Besides that, it is an awesome place, with the world's first openly lesbian head of state.

[Nick]

@backspace / screwtape

First, if either of you are of the opinion that the jewish people have no right to Israel, and that they should either be driven into the sea by force, or subsumed into a Palestinian state, then I will only say that I disagree, and tell you that I'm not interested in yet another debate about the right of Israel to exist.  I find it exhausting.

As for drone strikes on settlements, I trust that was hyperbole.  One cannot seriously advocate the wholesale killing of people.  One however, can advocate the removal, by measured force if necessary, of the settlers, and the bulldozing of the settlements themselves (just for a bit of payback).  I have stated a number of times that I am against the Israeli settlement policy, not just for the inexcusable damage done to the Palestinians, but also for the long term security of Israel, in a number of different ways.

One caveat before I continue.  My comments below exclude Orthodox jews, and the right wing from which they have emerged.  They are religious nuts, and I have no more time for them than the right wing of any other religion.

In your replies, you have countered my argument with the term 'chosen people'.  That term is not generally used by jews.  It is a term most often used derisively by gentiles to refer to jews.  It is a veiled insult with enough baggage to be useful for just about any thing.  At most, the average jew views the term with bitter irony in the face of a history of persecution, expulsion, pogroms and a very ambitious attempt to eradicate them from the face of the earth.

The jews are a people, defined not only by their religion, but also by their shared culture, history and resulting mindset.  Profound inferiority is part of the jewish character.  Up until the middle of the twentieth century, every jew knew that he or she existed only so long as no pharaoh, king, dictator, tsar or religious demagogue took a scapegoating interest in them.  When that happened, it was time to pack their bags and run somewhere else, before the chariots, Jesuits, Crusaders, Cossacks or Gestapo arrived.  Young jews were not taught that they were special or protected by god.  They were warned that the world was set against them.  Until the foundation of Israel, they saw themselves as weak, powerless, and alone in the world. 

The aggressive policies of Israel are not based in any feeling of superiority.  They are based in fear.  They are a small state surrounded by people who see them as enemies, some of whom have the expressed desire to drive them into the sea.  I am not excusing their policies, but to suggest that such come from anything other than fear is incorrect.

Can the original inhabitants of North America start doing the same as Israel? can we just re-establish our "homelands" as Israel has done,if so why can't we? please back up your reasons why it is ok for one group and not another.

They are the chosen people.

[12 Monkeys]

Chosen by whom?,they have yet to prove their "God" exists,and just because it is written down does not make it real. If something that is written is real,the crooks in the banks would receive the same sentence as a bank robber.....instead of jail time,they get salary bonus

[12 Monkeys]

Is an Indian on a reservation the same as a Jewish person without a state?

On or off a reservation, the indigenous people of the Americas are members of nations without a state. 

Can we begin the re-establishment of our "states"?

A valid question, and one that should be asked frequently, so that people remember the historical events that contributed to the creation of the nation states that were carved out in our hemisphere.  We don't like to think about genocide, enslavement, and the semi-apartheid conditions that are part of our history, and that continue to exist in some of those nation states.

But removing everyone who is not native to the Americas is even more impractical than removing the Jews from Israel.

who said anything about removal of non-indigenous peoples? In Canada we are still wards of the state.

[Tonus]

Israel can't expect to pass itself off as a modern, multicultural, secular democracy (like the US and most other western countries aspire to be) if it also wants to maintain its status as a "Jewish state". You can have one or the other. Not both.

You can have both if it is politically expedient to do so.  I mean, it's not like the leaders of the nations that support Israel really believe that it's god's favored nation (though there may have been a touch of "Pascal's Wager" involved when they were handed the territory they now call home).  I see support of Israel in the same way I see the 2004 invasion of Iraq: it helps many outside nations (the USA, in particular) to have a lot more political influence in the area than they otherwise would.  And it's more convenient to funnel weapons, money, and intel to a friendly in the area than it is to keep bases (though they would like both, if they can swing it).

IMO, global politics has not really changed since the first time a man draw a line in the dirt, and the guy standing on the other side grabbed a rock and slammed it into his face.