Obama humiliated Netanyahu at the White House

Mrs.Lucysnow

03-26-10, 08:26 AM

Israel has put itself and the United States in a bad political spot. The President of the United States is apparently threatening to start playing hardball with the current Israeli regime.

It's not so hard to figure out. It's just that everyone's having a hard time believing an American president would carry the ruse so far. Obama is making a point.

What point? Leaving for his quarters? That's hardly playing hard ball. Even if they US DID manage to stop giving Israel financial aid they will continue to behave as they do. What is more is that Obama is only president for another 3 years? I don't see Bibi going anywhere anytime soon.

All Obama has done is made a 'show' of discontent. There has been no news of cutting off Israeli financial support. Just saying 'I'm not happy with you' is not playing hard ball.

Hard ball is financial and military arm twisting full stop and Obama shows no sign of playing either cards.

"Israeli Prime Minister Binjamin Netanyahu - even after being on the receiving end of the public displeasure of Washington over continued settlement expansion in occupied east Jerusalem - nevertheless still felt emboldened enough to deliver a speech in Washington at the annual conference of the powerful Israeli lobbying organisation AIPAC a few days ago in which he declared with extraordinary bombast that there will be no negotiation over the right of Israel to develop and build homes in any part of Jerusalem.

His words directly contradicted an earlier speech given to the same audience the day before by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and an earlier statement issued by the so-called quartet of nations involved in attempt to reinvigorate a peace process which condemned continued settlement expansion.

So where does this leave the international community when it comes to yet another attempt at forging the trust required for meaningful peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians?

The brutal answer is nowhere, unless the international community demonstrates the political will to move beyond empty rhetoric and start to implement economic and political sanctions against Israel in the face of its continued intransigence."

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/88422

How about this? Tell me if you think this is the US playing hard ball or public relations as the world did in the Dubai passport scandal?

The United Nations Human Rights Council has passed three resolutions condemning Israel over its policies in occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories.

HOWEVER, THE UNITED STATES VOTED AGAINST THEM ALL.

Another resolution, calling for a fund to compensate Palestinians who suffered losses during Israel's offensive in Gaza 14 months ago, is expected to be passed on Thursday.

One resolution on "grave human rights violations" by Israeli forces in the Palestinian territories - which was passed by 31 votes to nine, with seven abstentions in the 47-member Council - demanded that Israel end its occupation of Palestinian land, occupied since 1967.

The US and the European Union, whose seven members on the Council vote separately but generally in unison, opposed the resolution, with both saying it was unbalanced.

Another resolution called on Israel to stop building all settlements in the occupied territories.

The third condemned Israel for what it called systematic violation of the rights of the people of the occupied Syrian Golan Heights. The US voted no, while 15 countries, including EU members, abstained.

The US, which itself is in a diplomatic row with Israel over settlements which the government of Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is vowing to pursue, told the Council that the three resolutions would do nothing to help peace.

It said the UN body was too often being used as a platform to single out Israel for condemnation while rights violations by other countries were ignored.

The Council is effectively dominated by a developing country bloc in which the Organisation of the Islamic Conference has a strong influence and which is routinely supported by China, Russia and Cuba.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/03/2010324194843763504.html

Don't get your hopes up.

joepistole

03-26-10, 08:32 AM

Mrs.Lucysnow

03-26-10, 08:38 AM

Again what is the sign that they are playing hard ball with either? The Chinese can dump the US economy and still land itself ahead though it would suffer from the loss of trillions.

I suggest you read the second link I posted regarding the UN, the US and Israel which appeared two days ago.

joepistole

03-26-10, 08:40 AM

Mrs.Lucysnow

03-26-10, 08:42 AM

That is why I added by historical standards which are not very high. :)

Look again. Both links are recent, current:

The United Nations Human Rights Council has passed three resolutions condemning Israel over its policies in occupied Palestinian and Syrian territories.

HOWEVER, THE UNITED STATES VOTED AGAINST THEM ALL.

"The US, which itself is in a diplomatic row with Israel over settlements which the government of Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, is vowing to pursue, told the Council that the three resolutions would do nothing to help peace."

Nothing has changed simply because Obama bloated his chest and snubbed someone. Its is not the same as playing 'hard ball'.

I suggest you watch this recent footage and tell me who is playing hard ball:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/03/201032371632903629.html

sandy

03-26-10, 08:55 AM

Mrs.Lucysnow

03-26-10, 08:58 AM

Cowboy

03-26-10, 09:07 AM

Israel really isn't much of a friend or ally. They've committed an act of war against us (the attack on the USS Liberty), they've sold our technology to communist China, they've spied on us and bartered the stolen secrets to the USSR.

In the case of the spying, that piece of shit Netanyahu has tried to get the convicted spy, Jonathan Pollard freed from prison.

Cowboy

03-26-10, 09:10 AM

joepistole

03-26-10, 09:39 AM

sandy

03-26-10, 09:48 AM

If God tells me to do something I'm going to do it. He says we are to protect and stand by/with Israel, so that's what I'm going to do.

Word from Netanyahu today is: No Change on East Jerusalem Plans.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Netanyahus-Office-No-Change-on-East-Jerusalem-Plans-89258402.html

Mrs.Lucysnow

03-26-10, 09:48 AM

Well I think the issue here is what is best for the people who live in Israel. I don't think it in the best interests of the Israel or the Palestinians to live in a state of fear and violence. They need to find peace. And I think they will find peace illusive if they continue the endless tit for tat games that have been played there for decades.

Unfortunately both sides have suffered from leadership problems. I think both sides and the world needs good leaders in order to perfect a peace in the region...else one day the world could wake up to find the region devistated. Peace is in everyones interest in the region. But doing the same old things, the same old way is not going to get us any closer to a safe and stable Israel.

I agree with you Joe but the Israeli government have their own agenda which is the same agenda of yore. There are those in Israel that would like to see change but there are also those who still remain insecure or live in a climate of fear or simply believe what they believe for religious reasons.

The US on the other hand...

Well they are simply grandstanding. Nothing else. Nothing significant anyway.

Medicine*Woman

03-26-10, 09:52 AM

Regardless of your political stance on the issue, there is an expected level of professionalism when you are the President.
*************
M*W: Not this president.

sifreak21

03-26-10, 09:53 AM

I don't get this. Israel is one of our dearest allies. Why is Obama so rude, inconsiderate, and arrogant??

Netanyahu came for a meeting. Obama refused cameras. (Unheard of). Obama treated him like a thug. Today Obama walked out of their meeting to go eat dinner. WTF?

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/25/report-obama-humiliated-netanyahu-at-the-white-house/

lol sandy you would source a sight such as that.. but one question for you.. how does refusing cameras make obama a thug.. and if there was no cameras in the meeting... how do you know obama did treat him like a thug? sounds like a bunch of fiction rather than fact to me

Medicine*Woman

03-26-10, 09:58 AM

Medicine*Woman

03-26-10, 10:00 AM

Yeah; basing military and political alliances on a 2000 year old fairy tale does sound a bit strange. A bit theocratic, too.

Our alliance with Israel has given us nothing but what CIA-types would refer to as "blowback". If they're "God's chosen people", they don't need our help or taxpayer money, do they?
*************
M*W: Since they are god's chosen people, maybe he gives them lottery numbers.

sifreak21

03-26-10, 10:04 AM

*************
M*W: A 5000+ year-old book written (questionably) by Hebrew scribes (who were subject to human error) tells you what to do, and you follow this?

haha agreed, a book that was written to be missunderstood but theists interpritation is right no one elses is

PieAreSquared

03-26-10, 10:04 AM

It says the Jews are God's chosen

seeing as they wrote the book...

sandy

03-26-10, 10:08 AM

*************
M*W: A 5000+ year-old book written (questionably) by Hebrew scribes (who were subject to human error) tells you what to do, and you follow this?

Yes. It is the ONLY reason my life is so awesome.

sifreak21

03-26-10, 10:13 AM

*************
M*W: A 5000+ year-old book written (questionably) by Hebrew scribes (who were subject to human error) tells you what to do, and you follow this?

i wouldnt debate with sandy on that all will do is cite the bible and say as she said further down that her live is only good because the invisable friend is in her life. u may get further arguing with a pen

sandy

03-26-10, 10:16 AM

i wouldnt debate with sandy on that all will do is cite the bible and say as she said further down that her live is only good because the invisable friend is in her life. u may get further arguing with a pen

Nope, I'm not saying another word about it. This thread is about Obama and Netan, not me and God.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032601296.html

sifreak21

03-26-10, 10:20 AM

Nope, I'm not saying another word about it. This thread is about Obama and Netan, not me and God.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032601296.html

not askign you to just letting another member know its pointless to argue with u on the subject because u always seem to bring it up in every thread your in or cite it bu n e ways back on topic.

i think obama didnt allow cameras in for respect and a more personal meeting between the 2

sandy

03-26-10, 10:27 AM

i think obama didnt allow cameras in for respect and a more personal meeting between the 2

You're joking, right?

sifreak21

03-26-10, 10:31 AM

You're joking, right?

no im not.. no cameras flashing in your face you get a more of a one on one meeting adding cameras creates chaos and the spin doctors to start spinning, exactly how does not allowing cameras into a meeting automatically mean oboma grabed him by his coat pushed him up against a wall and start talking *(&^... ?

sandy

03-26-10, 10:45 AM

I’m afraid we’ll have to take the possibility that Obama is not merely no friend of Israel, but a downright enemy, seriously now:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7521391/Obama-snubbed-Netanyahu-for-dinner-with-Michelle-and-the-girls-Israelis-claim.html

Here’s what happened: Netan thought that the worst of the crisis in Israel’s relationship with the U.S. was over. He met with Obama, believing both sides would work out their differences. It didn’t take the Israeli prime minister a long time to realize he was wrong. Obama had no intention to be conciliatory. He immediately presented Netan with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem. When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.”

As he left, Netan was told to consider the error of his ways. There is no humiliation exercise that Obama did not try on the prime minister and his entourage. Obama reserves this treatment for America’s traditional allies such as Israel, Britain and France; allies he apparently is determined to alienate.

It’s a troubling development that Obama doesn’t even feel the need to keep up appearances with Israel any longer. You have to wonder what this will mean for the security of the small Jewish nation-state, surrounded by dozens of much bigger enemies.
Exit question: any guesses as to why we have to rely on British, instead of America media to report on how badly Obama treats Israel?

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/03/26/obama-snubbed-netanyahu-to-have-dinner-with-michelle-and-the-kids/

superstring01

03-26-10, 10:56 AM

I don't get this. Israel is one of our dearest allies. Why is Obama so rude, inconsiderate, and arrogant??

Netanyahu came for a meeting. Obama refused cameras. (Unheard of). Obama treated him like a thug. Today Obama walked out of their meeting to go eat dinner. WTF?

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/25/report-obama-humiliated-netanyahu-at-the-white-house/

A dear ally who regularly gets caught spying on us!

While I agree, Israel is an ally and should be respected, the United States should do everything possible to stop the settlements in the West Bank.

~String

Cowboy

03-26-10, 10:57 AM

It�s a troubling development that Obama doesn�t even feel the need to keep up appearances with Israel any longer. You have to wonder what this will mean for the security of the small Jewish nation-state, surrounded by dozens of much bigger enemies.

Maybe Israel should turn to Russia for help? After all, that's who the American secrets stolen by Jonathan Pollard were sold to. :bugeye:

spidergoat

03-26-10, 10:58 AM

I�m afraid we�ll have to take the possibility that Obama is not merely no friend of Israel, but a downright enemy, seriously now:

That hardly represents the actions of an enemy, just someone that is frustrated with Israel's right wing policies.

786

03-26-10, 11:16 AM

I have supported Israel since I was a child because the Bible told me to. It says the Jews are God's chosen and to fck with them is to fck with God. This is honestly where it all started for me. Israel is our ally. I really do not want to mess with a country favored by God. I want to help and support them. I know this sounds crazy to atheists but it is really where I am.

This is stupid.... Why do you think Israel was captured if it was 'favored by God'- aren't you a Christian? Aren't you supposed to do what Jesus told you to?

So according to Jesus is God- did Jesus favor all this killing?

I'm disgusted Televangelists- they think they have a duty to bring forth Armageddon because that is a prophecy- but guess what- if it is a true prophecy it'll come true regardless of you or not- your duty to 'follow Christ' doesn't change.

I talked to one 'Christian' about how he thought Russia was anti-Christ and he wanted to nuke them. Then I said what about the children? He said it okay, the killing is part of prophecy- I'm like WTF! Your job is not to bring prophecy true- that is God's job- isn't it..... I really hate people like this....

BTW there are CHRISTIANS in Palestine too- aren't they Children of God?

Peace be unto you ;)

spidergoat

03-26-10, 11:20 AM

The only reason Christians like S. support Israel is that it's rebirth (and later destruction) will usher in the Rapture.

sandy

03-26-10, 11:39 AM

This is stupid....all this killing...WTF!... I really hate people like this....
Peace be unto you ;)

:D Sorry. I really did LOL.
.............

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7076431.ece

786

03-26-10, 11:47 AM

:D Sorry. I really did LOL.

This isn't a laughing matter... I've watched those televangelists- and I believe this is a major source of why people feel obligated to support 'Israel'.....

I don't have much to say: I believe this applies to all those who're trying to fulfill prophecy or trying to bring forth Armageddon.

MAT 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Whatever, I guess the Christians dying in the region aren't children of god- only support Israel-

Peace be unto you ;)

spidergoat

03-26-10, 11:48 AM

:D Sorry. I really did LOL.
.............

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7076431.ece

So you are complaining that Obama has some balls?

sandy

03-26-10, 11:51 AM

So you are complaining that Obama has some balls?

It's not about balls, spidey, it's about respect. Obama has none for Netan or Israel.

Cowboy

03-26-10, 11:52 AM

It's not about balls, spidey, it's about respect. Obama has none for Netan or Israel.

What about the blatant lack of respect that Israel has shown for America over the years? As I said before, Netanyahu is one of the people demanding that a spy who compromised America's security be released.

spidergoat

03-26-10, 11:53 AM

Well, they didn't show him any respect when they went ahead with controversial settlements.

sandy

03-26-10, 12:27 PM

Israel is our ally. Nuff said.

spidergoat

03-26-10, 12:36 PM

That doesn't mean they can do anything they want with impunity.

sandy

03-26-10, 01:00 PM

Israel says it will not change its policy of building homes in Jerusalem, keeping the Jewish state at odds with Washington on how to renew stalled peace talks with Palestinians...
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62N1JX20100326
Good for Israel.

spidergoat

03-26-10, 01:01 PM

Good for the borned agin'. I bet you can't wait for the whole thing to go up in flames.

sandy

03-26-10, 01:18 PM

Good for the borned agin'. I bet you can't wait for the whole thing to go up in flames.

No. I don't want people I like left behind.:( I am looking forward to Jesus' return. It will be freakin awesome.
.........

Obama is rude to Netan but still takes his $250 million for 23 planes...

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/me_israel0250_03_26.asp

spidergoat

03-26-10, 01:27 PM

Only a select few of previously deceased Jewish male virgins will not be "left behind", so I'm not sure where you think you fit into that scene.

sandy

03-26-10, 01:35 PM

Only a select few of previously deceased Jewish male virgins will not be "left behind", so I'm not sure where you think you fit into that scene.

:D Not true. Non-believers are the only ones who will be left behind. But this is not the place to discuss that. This is about Obama dissing Netan and making us look weak and stupid. Again.

U.S Informs Abbas Of Obama-Netanyahu Meeting Failure:

http://www.imemc.org/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=58299

sifreak21

03-26-10, 01:36 PM

No. I don't want people I like left behind.:( I am looking forward to Jesus' return. It will be freakin awesome.
.........

Obama is rude to Netan but still takes his $250 million for 23 planes...

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2010/me_israel0250_03_26.asp

just pointing out that you brought jesus into yet another topic that has no relevance for it

sandy

03-26-10, 01:39 PM

just pointing out that you brought jesus into yet another topic that has no realavenc for it

"Realavenc"?:confused:

sifreak21

03-26-10, 01:43 PM

"Realavenc"?:confused:

fixed and u knew exactly what i ment

spidergoat

03-26-10, 01:46 PM

This is about Obama dissing Netan and making us look weak and stupid. Again.

How is it weak to stand up to an ally for being an obstacle to peace talks?

sandy

03-26-10, 01:51 PM

fixed and u knew exactly what i ment

I had no idea what you meant. Most of your posts are painful to read and decipher. "Ment"??? wtf?
........

How is it weak to stand up to an ally for being an obstacle to peace talks?

Netan is not an obstacle to peace talks. If Obama was truly a peacenik he would not have sold those war planes to Netan for $250M.

http://therealbarackobama.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/obama-snob.jpg

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 01:53 PM

spidergoat

03-26-10, 01:57 PM

Netan is not an obstacle to peace talks. If Obama was truly a peacenik he would not have sold those war planes to Netan for $250M.

No one ever said Obama was a pacifist, or that he didn't support Israel, but they doesn't mean you have to be happy with everything they do.

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 02:00 PM

sandy

03-26-10, 02:05 PM

No one ever said Obama was a pacifist, or that he didn't support Israel, but they doesn't mean you have to be happy with everything they do.
He did. He prides himself in being a dove. I never said he had to be happy about everything. I expect him not to be rude/a horse's ass to our allies.

so than you've been working against the interests of your country your entire life?

If you knew what I do for a job you would faint.:D

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 02:12 PM

It's not about balls, spidey, it's about respect. Obama has none for Netan or Israel.

and he shouldn't. if Israel and Netan can't respect basic human decency why should we respect them?

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 02:12 PM

Israel is our ally. Nuff said.

No we are theirs. the reverse is not true.

sandy

03-26-10, 02:15 PM

No we are theirs. the reverse is not true.

:D I give up. Seriously. How old are you?

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 02:16 PM

Netan is not an obstacle to peace talks. So basicly demanding that the palestinians give up their human rights isn't an obstacle for peace
If Obama was truly a peacenik he would not have sold those war planes to Netan for $250M.

http://therealbarackobama.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/obama-snob.jpg

its 3 planes and they are transports/refulers.

C-Moon

03-26-10, 02:16 PM

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 02:17 PM

:D I give up. Seriously. How old are you?

So stating the truth is childish now. they do shit for us an ally helps you ergo they aren't an ally.

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 02:20 PM

If you knew what I do for a job you would faint.:D

I'm scared shitless that people like you exist

Pandaemoni

03-26-10, 02:31 PM

I expect him not to be rude/a horse's ass to our allies.

But I assume you are fine with the near constant disdain people show for France, the ally that made America possible.

The truth is it's hyperbole to call this an "humiliation" of Israel or Netanyahu. Building new settlements is an obstacle to peace, and unless we let Israel know that suck issues really do cause us some consternation, they are likely to continue adding such little challenges to the process as things move forward. At the same time, new settlements are not so big an issue that you want to impose serious consequences (like, say, ceasing arms shipments to Israel or halting the shipment replacement parts for their fighters).

This is a purely diplomatic maneuver, with no practical consequences whatsoever. At the same time it shows America is committed (if in a somewhat ill defined way) to there being a peace process, and that in turn is a very important signal to send to our allies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who are always on a knife's edge over the issue of whether their American ally is too cozy with Israel.

sandy

03-26-10, 02:31 PM

So basicly demanding that the palestinians give up their human rights isn't an obstacle for peace
its 3 planes and they are transports/refulers.

Most Palestinians are thugs/trouble-makers.

CheskiChips

03-26-10, 02:38 PM

And once again my valid comments and discussions get buried under 3 pages of nonsense - rendering the chance of successful completion near 0.

sifreak21

03-26-10, 02:40 PM

Most Palestinians are thugs/trouble-makers.

so are christians... lol im not seeing a difference here

sandy

03-26-10, 02:48 PM

Silence that speaks volumes: blackout as Israel’s leader leaves White House...Two separate meetings between Obama and Netan failed to produce so much as an official photograph as a chill settled over US-Israeli relations and secrecy shrouded any efforts to repair them...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7074832.ece

sandy

03-26-10, 02:52 PM

No, but they'll get it as I stated: [also see last addressment]Whose rhetoric? You really believe the Muslim world not like to see the entire Middle East be once again Islamic republics? They want it as much as the United States wants South America to be democratic. Do the Americans really hate Venezuelans? No. But they do dislike the government Hugo Chavez runs enough to want its dissolution. To America, Europe, Russia, or Iran it is not a far stretch from moderate to have the goal of imposing your governmental system on your neighboring nations.
That in and of its self is not worth the concession of half of Jerusalem, that's the opinion of Israeli's anyways and I tend to agree with it.
I'll address this once and probably not for all...the US Aid to Israel is so conflated that there's no semblance of reality left in it. Review this Congressional Research Review of US Foreign Aid to Israel (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf) specifically page 21.
From 1949 to 1996 they averaged 2.387 billion USD per year. Israeli GDP is currently 199 billion USD...that's 1% of total current income, consequently aid to Israel has been reduced nearly every year since year 2000. Do you really believe that 1% of GDP is what's allowed Israel to have a sustainable society?

You have made some very good points. I'm sorry your post got buried in 3 pages of personal attacks and foolishness.

Pinwheel

03-26-10, 02:54 PM

Need any more proof Obama is the Anti-Christ?

CheskiChips

03-26-10, 02:55 PM

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 03:37 PM

Most Palestinians are thugs/trouble-makers.

?? not really most of them just want to be left alone in their own lands.

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 03:41 PM

And once again my valid comments and discussions get buried under 3 pages of nonsense - rendering the chance of successful completion near 0.

You have added nothing but the same old Israel wants all so it should get all. like the whole undivided. Obama made it an issue because it is an issue. despite what you and just about every single pro Israel mouths their is another party the palestinians. the Israel can't just expect to have their demands accepted as fiat simply because they want.

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 03:52 PM

if we truly want Israel to grow up and act like an adult in the realm of nations and work for peace instead of conquest we are going to have to put boots on the ground and use are military as a threat. they have spit in the face of every chance for peace and have instead gone for more land and more abuses inflicted on palestinians. anyone who thinks that just talking to them is going to reign them in and playing hard ball with them is just being naive.

PieAreSquared

03-26-10, 04:48 PM

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 04:55 PM

U.S.-backed Mideast peace plan. The plan, known as the roadmap, calls on Israel to halt settlement activity in the West Bank, while requiring the Palestinians to dismantle militant groups. Neither side has fully carried out its obligations.

you can expect the palestinians to give up their only real means of defense when they are still being threatened. the road map for the most part is still a heavily pro Israeki document allowing them excesses most countries would never get.

PieAreSquared

03-26-10, 05:01 PM

Bush Predicts Mideast Peace Treaty Before He Leaves White House

Thursday, January 10, 2008

;)

CheskiChips

03-26-10, 05:18 PM

You have added nothing but the same old Israel wants all so it should get all. like the whole undivided. Obama made it an issue because it is an issue. despite what you and just about every single pro Israel mouths their is another party the palestinians. the Israel can't just expect to have their demands accepted as fiat simply because they want.

Which part is wrong...the part with the cited facts printed from the US Government or the part analyzing irrespective of opinion the position of Israeli citizens?

Alien Cockroach

03-26-10, 05:29 PM

I have supported Israel since I was a child because the Bible told me to.Whereas I support Israel because Israel-bred psy-trance is awesome.

I really do not want to mess with a country favored by God. I want to help and support them.You can support Israel by opposing Netanyahu in their next elections! If we play our political cards right, hopefully they'll eject him in their next election.

I know this sounds crazy to atheists but it is really where I am.I will devote my life to creating a pill you can take to alleviate yourself of this mental illness, "religion."

Captain Kremmen

03-26-10, 05:41 PM

The_Journey

03-26-10, 05:43 PM

He did. He prides himself in being a dove. I never said he had to be happy about everything. I expect him not to be rude/a horse's ass to our allies.

First Israel IS NOT OUR ALLY.

Tell me ONE thing that they have done for us.

We have given them BILLIONS of dollars in weapons every year since 1948, and what have they done for us? Tell me, since apparently in your mind Israel is US most important ally in history.

I have supported Israel since I was a child because the Bible told me to. It says the Jews are God's chosen and to fck with them is to fck with God. This is honestly where it all started for me. Israel is our ally. I really do not want to mess with a country favored by God. I want to help and support them. I know this sounds crazy to atheists but it is really where I am.

Your narrow-mindedness is parallel to that of people in history with discriminatory views. This is the same kind of RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM that has caused MILLIONS to die in our human history, such as: the Crusades, the Inquisition, Reformation, colonization, Holocaust (ironically the Israelis are doing the exact same thing), Zionism etc... You don't let a 5000 year-old book WRITTEN BY THE HEBREW SCRIBES to control your life.

Let me ask you, since the Ten Commandments stated that you shalt not kill, why are the Israelis killing innocent women and children?

Blindly supporting a supposed "ally" without caring what they do with the money we sent them just because we should follow a 5000 year-old book WRITTEN BY THEM is just pure stupidity. Israel is USING people like YOU in order to commit more crimes against humanity.

joepistole

03-26-10, 06:20 PM

The_Journey

03-26-10, 06:24 PM

I understand that Israel is a little miffed at the US because we did not provide cover for them in the Dubai assassination affair. I understand that when Israel does this kind of thing we usually intervene on her behalf with governments like Dubai and Brittian to make things go away.

Why should the US support a rouge nation like Israel who's committing crimes like that?

George Bush, his father, and over 90% of Republicans in America are White-Christian Fundamentalists, so it's no wonder Israel has been able to get away with EVERYTHING.

But now it stops with Obama, he actually has the balls to call out Israel when it is obviously contradicting everything it says.

joepistole

03-26-10, 06:31 PM

Why should the US support a rouge nation like Israel who's committing crimes like that?

George Bush, his father, and over 90% of Republicans in America are White-Christian Fundamentalists, so it's no wonder Israel has been able to get away with EVERYTHING.

But now it stops with Obama, he actually has the balls to call out Israel when it is obviously contradicting everything it says.

I agree that when Israel crosses the line as she did in Dubai, the US should not support her. We should not support any nation that crosses the line...period.

Two, you need to check your numbers. Most Americans are not Christian fundamentalists. Americans are quite a diverse group of people.

The_Journey

03-26-10, 06:32 PM

I agree that when Israel crosses the line as she did in Dubai, the US should not support her. We should not support any nation that crosses the line...period.

Two, you need to check your numbers. Most Americans are not Christian fundamentalists. Americans are quite a diverse group of people.

I said Republicans, not Americans.

Alien Cockroach

03-26-10, 06:38 PM

Tell me ONE thing that they have done for us.Some of the kids who come out of Tel Aviv create some of the finest music in the universe to smoke dope to! Take Infected Mushroom, for example! We should keep Israel as our ally just for the dope-smoking music!

Has anybody mentioned that the people in Israel who do not want to take over West Bank hold their political position explicitly to maintain the Jewish majority in Israel?

Blindly supporting a supposed "ally" without caring what they do with the money we sent them just because we should follow a 5000 year-old book WRITTEN BY THEM is just pure stupidity. Israel is USING people like YOU in order to commit more crimes against humanity.And I think it is relevant that West Bank has a significantly higher literacy rate than India in spite of their challenges, and they have modern, industrialized cities there such as Hebron. They are not just a bunch of ignorant nomads there.

In fact, people in both West Bank and in Israel who favor an industrialized, technological society that is driven by modern values should all get together and declare war on the stupid people who inconvenience them, whoever and wherever they may be.

The_Journey

03-26-10, 06:47 PM

Some of the kids who come out of Tel Aviv create some of the finest music in the universe to smoke dope to! Take Infected Mushroom, for example! We should keep Israel as our ally just for the dope-smoking music!

Has anybody mentioned that the people in Israel who do not want to take over West Bank hold their political position explicitly to maintain the Jewish majority in Israel?

And I think it is relevant that West Bank has a significantly higher literacy rate than India in spite of their challenges, and they have modern, industrialized cities there such as Hebron. They are not just a bunch of ignorant nomads there.

In fact, people in both West Bank and in Israel who favor an industrialized, technological society that is driven by modern values should all get together and declare war on the stupid people who inconvenience them, whoever and wherever they may be.

Que senior?

sandy

03-26-10, 07:00 PM

Does this image look photoshopped to anyone? I don't usually call stations out...but this one looks pretty suspicious.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00701/jerusalem_585x350_701024a.jpg
btw it says: "Agent of the PLO in The White House"

It is not photoshopped. It is a real pic. They think Obama is an anti-Semitic Muslim. That's part of why they don't like him.

George Bush, his father, and over 90% of Republicans in America are White-Christian Fundamentalists, so it's no wonder Israel has been able to get away with EVERYTHING.But now it stops with Obama, he actually has the balls to call out Israel when it is obviously contradicting everything it says.

It wouldn't matter if we were purple martians. The Bible says the Jews are God's chosen people. Fck with them and you fck with God. Big mistake. We are to support them.

navigator

03-26-10, 07:03 PM

It is not photoshopped. It is a real pic. They think Obama is an anti-Semitic Muslim. That's part of why they don't like him.

It wouldn't matter if we were purple martians. The Bible says the Jews are God's chosen people. Fck with them and you fck with God. Big mistake. We are to support them.

I wonder how he feels about people that use that type of language to prop him up?

The_Journey

03-26-10, 07:04 PM

It wouldn't matter if we were purple martians. The Bible says the Jews are God's chosen people. Fck with them and you fck with God. Big mistake. We are to support them.

And here comes the real question, have you even considered that the Bible is wrong? Why is God so discriminatory, if Jews are God's chosen people, then what of Buddhists, Muslims, and other people of non-Jewish religion? Are they not God's children too? Or only Jews are God's children and deserve to rule the world unrestricted by law?

Alien Cockroach

03-26-10, 07:05 PM

Que senior?Okay, so they don't come specifically from Tel Aviv. Whatever.

Allow me to put this in terms that you can understand: one of the motives behind the two-state solution is to preserve Israel as a predominantly Jewish state. It's not, for a lot of them, about acknowledgement of Palestinian territorial claims. This issue is a lot more complex than most people in the West know it to be.

And, quite frankly, I think that everyone in the entire region would be a lot better off if their youth started realizing how ridiculous and stupid this vicious territorial warfare really is and started to actively rebel against it in a substantial way, wherever they happen to come from. The more the fanatics go on about their historical claim to this or that, the more they talk about their profoundly wonderful "culture," the more they are going to dick over the rights of people who might produce something one day.

The_Journey

03-26-10, 07:14 PM

Okay, so they come specifically from Tel Aviv. Whatever.

And, quite frankly, I think that everyone in the entire region would be a lot better off if their youth started realizing how ridiculous and stupid this vicious territorial warfare really is and started to actively rebel against it in a substantial way, wherever they happen to come from. The more the fanatics go on about their historical claim to this or that, the more they talk about their profoundly wonderful "culture," the more they are going to dick over the rights of people who might produce something one day.

I agree, this has to start both in Palestine AND Israel. But I don't see this happening if Israel's leader Benjamin Netanyahu is justifying the new settlements in East Jerusalem because, and I quote, "Jewish people have been building in Jerusalem 3000 years ago, and they are doing it now"

On CNN website, can't post links because I have below 20 posts.

sandy

03-26-10, 07:23 PM

And here comes the real question, have you even considered that the Bible is wrong? Why is God so discriminatory, if Jews are God's chosen people, then what of Buddhists, Muslims, and other people of non-Jewish religion? Are they not God's children too? Or only Jews are God's children and deserve to rule the world unrestricted by law?

No. Not ever. But this is not the thread to debate that. This is a thread about Obama dissing Netan. Lots of peeps are talking about it. Only Obama's sheep think it's ok.
.....

Why is Obama happy to bow and scrape to Saudi King Abdullah, to have photo ops with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and would even open his door to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Korean leader Kim Jong Il if only they would deign to sit down for a chat, but he won't even take a pic with Netan? 2012 can�t come soon enough for America. Obama is destroying the country from within and making the rest of the world hate us.

Alien Cockroach

03-26-10, 07:26 PM

I agree, this has to start both in Palestine AND Israel. But I don't see this happening if Israel's leader Benjamin Netanyahu is justifying the new settlements in East Jerusalem because, and I quote, "Jewish people have been building in Jerusalem 3000 years ago, and they are doing it now"Oh, yeah. Just because I worship modern Jewish culture doesn't mean Netanyahu has enough brain to donate to a pigeon.

sandy

03-26-10, 07:29 PM

PieAreSquared

03-26-10, 07:32 PM

sandy

03-26-10, 07:37 PM

spidergoat

03-26-10, 07:41 PM

Don't believe the hype, Sandy. You are being brainwashed.

The_Journey

03-26-10, 07:42 PM

I wonder if Obama gave Netan a sleeve of Dollar Store DVD's to commemorate his visit to America. Obama has done a great job of distancing us from our traditional allies and making us look like wimps to the rest of the world.

You still have not answered my question, what has Israel done for the US besides spying on us CONSTANTLY, giving out our military secrets, provoking extremist and radical Muslims?

Our past presidents have been too weak to call out Israel when it has done wrong, only Obama so far has the courage to call out Israel after Israel had promised to make progress toward peace, but then turned its back on us and decided to build new settlements in East Jerusalem.

PieAreSquared

03-26-10, 07:45 PM

hey they gave the US a nice repair job

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Alien Cockroach

03-26-10, 07:47 PM

Sandy, our ties with Israel are making us a target. What part of this do you not understand? Besides, Israel is a productive nation, and they can very well take care of themselves. If they come under attack, it will be because of Netanyahu's incompetence and nothing else. As PM, it is Netahyahu's job to see about safeguarding Israel's security. In deliberately antagonizing the Pals, just for the sake of territorial pissing, he's fucking up at that mission.

sandy

03-26-10, 07:56 PM

The_Journey

03-26-10, 08:02 PM

Someone said it better than I can:
"We must support Israel over anyone in the Middle East, including their settlement building. It was the Jews who were almost wiped out because we did nothing to help them in WWII. Israel is the best friend we could have. As long as I live I will support their effort to remain a fully free and prosperous country. Why don’t any Arab states provide some of their massive territory for Palestinians to start their own country? Why should Israel give them anything? They won the 6-day war and the land, completely surrounded on land by vehemently hateful Arabs who wanted not just to wage war on Israel, but to complete Hitler’s filthy plan. That sentiment has not changed, nor will it.

Every time that Israel has caved in to US wishes to appease the Arabs, the Arabs want more and the bombings begin again. Then Israel retaliates strongly and the cries begin,”Oh, those poor Palestinians…those terrible, war mongering Israelis.” The greed rests completely on the shoulders of the Arab states.That, coupled with their hate toward anything Jewish should be enough to show the world that they never intend to live side-by-side with Israel in peace. The Arabs may reluctantly say that they recognize the State of Israel to give the appearance that they are “trying” to work with Israel. They, however, will NEVER recognize the Jewish State of Israel, no matter how many concessions that Israel makes to appease them under pressure from a weak-kneed apologist US president and his misguided policies that continue only to weaken our own country .

Obama’s actions are a total disgrace to the US. And getting it down pretty good with experience, which plays right into the hands of the Israel haters.
I’m with Netanyahu on this. All timid apologists can exit lto the left now; it’s your favorite direction anyway." -Pat D.

When will the Holocaust card expire? Yes we know it was a very bad event, but it was not the only Holocaust (Pol Pot, Russia eg.) in our history, and it also does not justify Israel's CURRENT actions.

Why should we support Israel? WHAT HAVE THEY DONE FOR US??? Why are they "the best friends we could have"? You have not answered that question, you merely avoided it.

Israel has never appeased Arabs in anyway, that quote was full of lies and bigotry. Israel has been the initiator in all of its wars except one.

sandy

03-26-10, 08:20 PM

The_Journey

03-26-10, 08:32 PM

U.S. government aid to Israel is one of the most cost-effective investments that Americans make in support of their international interests. The entire annual $1.2 billion economic aid is returned back to the United States in the form of debt repayment. Not only that, $1.325 of the $1.8 billion annual military aid must, by law, be spent in the United States, creating tens of thousands of American jobs....
Israel is the only democratic country in the Middle East, and the most effective ally in the entire world to halt the expansion of radical Islam...
Add to that several missle defense systems and our "Secure Border Initiative". There are hundreds of other technological modifications and improvements in weapons systems that Israel has supplied to American armed forces, including those operating in Iraq...

danielpipes.org/comments/124938

Most importantly, Israel gave us Jesus.

First, that is a blog, anyone can write or make up anything they want. By the way it even says comment in the URL.

Second, have you looked at your source? Here is Daniel Pipes background:

"An outspoken proponent of the notion that "Islamists" pose an existential threat to western civilization"

"Richard Pipes, frequently lambastes Arab politics, urges a broad "war on terror" aimed at challenging Mideast regimes from Syria to Iran, and pushes a Likud Party line on Israeli regional relations"

"He supported efforts by the now-defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC) to pressure the George W. Bush administration to join Israel in waging a broad war on terrorism in the Middle East in the wake of the 9/11 attacks"

"Pipes confirmed for many his Islamophobic tendencies in a January 2010 National Review article in which he lauded the controversial rightwing Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is best known for calling Mohammed a "devil" and demanding that Muslims "tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands"

rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Pipes_Daniel

Bells

03-26-10, 08:34 PM

Someone said it better than I can:
"We must support Israel over anyone in the Middle East, including their settlement building. It was the Jews who were almost wiped out because we did nothing to help them in WWII. Israel is the best friend we could have. As long as I live I will support their effort to remain a fully free and prosperous country. Why don�t any Arab states provide some of their massive territory for Palestinians to start their own country? Why should Israel give them anything? They won the 6-day war and the land, completely surrounded on land by vehemently hateful Arabs who wanted not just to wage war on Israel, but to complete Hitler�s filthy plan. That sentiment has not changed, nor will it.

Every time that Israel has caved in to US wishes to appease the Arabs, the Arabs want more and the bombings begin again. Then Israel retaliates strongly and the cries begin,�Oh, those poor Palestinians�those terrible, war mongering Israelis.� The greed rests completely on the shoulders of the Arab states.That, coupled with their hate toward anything Jewish should be enough to show the world that they never intend to live side-by-side with Israel in peace. The Arabs may reluctantly say that they recognize the State of Israel to give the appearance that they are �trying� to work with Israel. They, however, will NEVER recognize the Jewish State of Israel, no matter how many concessions that Israel makes to appease them under pressure from a weak-kneed apologist US president and his misguided policies that continue only to weaken our own country .

Obama�s actions are a total disgrace to the US. And getting it down pretty good with experience, which plays right into the hands of the Israel haters.
I�m with Netanyahu on this. All timid apologists can exit to the left now; it�s your favorite direction anyway." -Pat D.

Hmmmm...

On the eve of his White House meeting with Obama, Netanyahu chose to follow in the footsteps of his historian father by giving the U.S. administration a modest lesson ("just a five-minute drive from the Knesset"...) in the history and geography of the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.

Far from being a conciliatory effort, Netanyahu's speech was riddled with borderline provocation. The problem here is not Netanyahu's statements on the East Jerusalem neighborhoods - even the senior Palestinian Authority leadership understand that these areas will remain under Israeli sovereignty in the future - but the fact that he did not present a real vision for peace or compromise.

To demand Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state while stating that any future peace accord will include an Israeli military presence along the eastern border is not much of a vision.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1158386.html

But most importantly there is this...

6. In other words, it is time to tone down the rhetoric. It plays into the hands of Netanyahu and encourages violence. American criticism is only helping him in his bid for re-election and bolstering his coalition. Nothing less.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156819.html

Interesting.. no?

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 09:13 PM

Which part is wrong...the part with the cited facts printed from the US Government or the part analyzing irrespective of opinion the position of Israeli citizens?

?? I didn't say wrong I just said it was information already know. and an echoing of Israel spoiled child mantra

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 09:16 PM

You want us to stop giving money to Israel, one of our dearest allies. How about we stop giving to Africa? All they do is squander it anyway. Their politicians steal it all and the people get nothing.

dearest allies don't kill over 100 of our citizens in cold blood. being allies is a 2 way relationship. our relationship with Israel is one way. they get the benefits we get all the costs.

pjdude1219

03-26-10, 09:19 PM

joepistole

03-26-10, 09:29 PM

I know the Israel - Palestine issue has been the source of much frustration. But the bottom line is both sides need to be dealt with a firm hand. Peace in the area is not going to be easy - in part because no on either side wants to take a few lessons from scripture...forgive thy neighbor.

The only way we are going to get peace in the area is if both sides learn to trust and forgive. And you don't build trust when you keep violating your previous agreements. Unfortunately, the US is I think the only nation capable of mediating a peace in the area. And after nearly a century of bloodshed, I hope peace in the middle east can be found sooner rather than later.

CptBork

03-26-10, 09:40 PM

Netanyahu came for a meeting. Obama refused cameras. (Unheard of). Obama treated him like a thug. Today Obama walked out of their meeting to go eat dinner. WTF?

What was Netanyahu doing going over to AIPAC and bragging about how he was going to march over to the White House straight after and take a dump on Obama's head? How do you arrive ostensibly to negotiate with your ally, then announce your intentions to dictate terms before you've even begun the talks, and expect the red carpet treatment as a reward? Talk about WTF indeed, it's really sad and disappointing to see Israel going down this path.

That being said; Israel agrees internally on very few affairs, the unification is at the top of that list right after the mere existence of the state. It's not an issue they will ever waiver on - it's Obama's fault for picking such a stupid issue to establish as a key disagreement.

The guy who pays the bills gets to set the agenda, that's a standard principle. Fine, so you won't waiver on Jerusalem, not even a millimetre. Why should we allow ourselves to be complicit in that? It's not about denying homes for Jews in East Jerusalem, it's about the fact there are hundreds of thousands of people already living there (Arabs) who are entitled to continue living there in peace and security.

There is only one way out for you unless you want to be isolated from 98% of the world. Either you compromise on your land claims, or you accept true unity, which means giving full Israeli citizenship and freedom of movement within Israel to all of East Jerusalem's inhabitants, and spending on them in proportion to their needs no less than the spending allotted to ultra orthodox Jews. America has never questioned your right to peace and security, but it believes the Palestinian right to security is equally beyond negotiation.

In my opinion he's either acting surreptitiously as an obstructionist intentionally, or he's really ignorant of the political climate of Israel.

What is Obama obstructing, exactly? Is he holding Abbas back from negotiating with you? If he was more aware of Israel's political climate, would that make him more likely to encourage what most Americans consider to be unacceptable behaviour? Tell us why your sentimental attachment to East Jerusalem is worth displacing hundreds of thousands of people living there, and why Americans should want to associate with it even if it ruins their relations with the rest of the planet?

Tiassa

03-26-10, 10:46 PM

What point? Leaving for his quarters? That's hardly playing hard ball. Even if they US DID manage to stop giving Israel financial aid they will continue to behave as they do. What is more is that Obama is only president for another 3 years? I don't see Bibi going anywhere anytime soon.

All Obama has done is made a 'show' of discontent. There has been no news of cutting off Israeli financial support. Just saying 'I'm not happy with you' is not playing hard ball.

Hard ball is financial and military arm twisting full stop and Obama shows no sign of playing either cards.

While international diplomacy often has all the refinement of schoolyard politics, I don't think you're so na�ve as to discount the intricacies and exaggerated weight of protocol. All Obama did was remind the Israelis that they are not the center of his Universe. Quite obviously, it had its effect; look to the thread title�

"Obama humiliated Netanyahu at the White House"

�and the histrionic source that came up with it:

I�d like to believe that this isn�t pure vindictiveness at work, that there�s an element of political strategy in it � e.g., weakening Bibi at home in order to create a more centrist coalition government, perhaps � but if I were an Israeli, I�d be so enraged that I�d want to rally behind him.

(AllahPundit (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/25/report-obama-humiliated-netanyahu-at-the-white-house/))

Attending to our topic poster only reinforces that notion:

Netanyahu came for a meeting. Obama refused cameras. (Unheard of). Obama treated him like a thug. Today Obama walked out of their meeting to go eat dinner. WTF?

The rest of your lengthy indictment, which would be denounced by some as terribly anti-American if penned by other hands, is all well and fine, except for the presumption that diplomacy is like haggling for a car. It's a fairly slow process, comparatively. I mean, it's not that I don't agree with the detail of your critique, especially the editorial from the Communist newspaper.

For Obama, the key is to deliver a minor slap in the face and see what happens. For Israel, the question is when to back off. Typically, the process goes that Israel overreaches, the U.S. applies pressure, and where Israel backs off to is something of a "compromise" that leaves them farther along the path of their agenda than before whatever stunt they pulled. It seems that Israel has chosen to test Obama, to push as far as they can in order to see where he stands. Our political situation at home suggests abroad that it is okay to do whatever you can think of to undermine Obama in pursuit of your interests. As one Israeli politician explained:

"Netanyahu decided to spit into Obama's eye, this time from up close," said Eitan Cabel, a legislator from Israel's Labour Party. "He and his pyromaniac ministers insist on setting the Middle East ablaze."

(Blomfield and Harnden (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7514285/Israel-spits-in-Obamas-eye-by-announcing-new-settlements-in-east-Jerusalem.html))

At this point, the gestures aren't grand. One thing even Obama doesn't want to do is overcommit early. Financial and military arm twisting require Congressional participation, and as I would expect the health care debate, or pretty much anything of the last several years of our federal politics might suggest, it doesn't really matter how clear the facts are. Israel could literally start rounding up Muslims and killing them in the showers with no water, and there would still be some on Capitol Hill who would defend the nation's right to "defend" itelf. If Obama wanted to start twisting arms with financial and military leverage, what support do you think he would enjoy, now, today, in Congress? Could Democrats even get a bill to the floor? Would they want to in the first place?

Accordingly, the idea of a President of the United States telling the Israeli Prime Minister and his team, "You know what? Fuck it. I'm going to go have dinner with my wife and kids, and you holler if you come up with anything useful," has stirred much sentiment.

Politically, Israel is lobbing cinderblocks at the administration. There isn't really much, given historical American-Israeli relations, that Obama can do. But refusing to sit by while Netanyahu sputters for more time before making the same old bureaucratically suitable excuses is one of those decisions that is entirely available and has been waiting for a president to take it up.

It may not be big or fast enough for you, but in political and diplomatic circles, the perceived rebuff has shown an interesting ripple effect. Time will tell just how significant those waves really are.
____________________

Notes:

AllahPundit. "Report: Obama humiliated Netanyahu at the White House". Hot Air. March 25, 2010. HotAir.com. March 26, 2010. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/25/report-obama-humiliated-netanyahu-at-the-white-house/

Blomfield, Adrian and Toby Harnden. "Israel 'spits in Obama's eye' by announcing new settlements in east Jerusalem". Daily Telegraph. March 24, 2010. Telegraph.co.uk. March 26, 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7514285/Israel-spits-in-Obamas-eye-by-announcing-new-settlements-in-east-Jerusalem.html

CheskiChips

03-27-10, 12:07 AM

The guy who pays the bills gets to set the agenda, that's a standard principle. Fine, so you won't waiver on Jerusalem, not even a millimetre. Why should we allow ourselves to be complicit in that? It's not about denying homes for Jews in East Jerusalem, it's about the fact there are hundreds of thousands of people already living there (Arabs) who are entitled to continue living there in peace and security.

There is only one way out for you unless you want to be isolated from 98% of the world. Either you compromise on your land claims, or you accept true unity, which means giving full Israeli citizenship and freedom of movement within Israel to all of East Jerusalem's inhabitants, and spending on them in proportion to their needs no less than the spending allotted to ultra orthodox Jews. America has never questioned your right to peace and security, but it believes the Palestinian right to security is equally beyond negotiation.

Are you responding to what I said, or what you think I said? I'm staging the political climate rather than taking a side, I'm painting a picture of why the behavior of the Israeli's is from their vantage point logical. So stop saying "you". And no it's not the "Only way out for Israel"; and I'm not sure exactly what they're coming "out" of. Israel recognizes the Israeli citizens regardless of ethnicity - and the arab living in the West Bank is entitled to property as equally as the Jew. It simply don't appear that way because part of the Palestinian protest was refusal of recognizing Israel as a state and thus denying themselves citizenship. In that respect whos fault is their removal? They don't pay taxes, they don't recognize any if Israeli sovereingty, and they don't recognize the law - simultaneously they don't have a functional government, and they don't have a functional court system. How is any of that the fault of Israel?

What is Obama obstructing, exactly? Is he holding Abbas back from negotiating with you? If he was more aware of Israel's political climate, would that make him more likely to encourage what most Americans consider to be unacceptable behaviour? Tell us why your sentimental attachment to East Jerusalem is worth displacing hundreds of thousands of people living there, and why Americans should want to associate with it even if it ruins their relations with the rest of the planet?
It's basically stated that negotiations won't proceed unless Israel capitulates Jerusalem as a potential capital of Palestine. Since Israel will never ever ever do that, and not doing it is one of the only thing everyone agrees on... then nothing will ever happen.

The_Journey

03-27-10, 12:55 AM

It's basically stated that negotiations won't proceed unless Israel capitulates Jerusalem as a potential capital of Palestine. Since Israel will never ever ever do that, and not doing it is one of the only thing everyone agrees on... then nothing will ever happen.

You could see it both ways. If Israel go on with the settlements, the potential informal peace negotiations will never happen. Then there is no hope of a formal negotiation, and peace in Middle East will never exist and we will be living in constant vigilance and fear.

If Israel does stop with the settlements, it could be a gesture of peace and show that they are willing to compromise with the Palestine state to create peace in the Middle East.

At the end of the day it is Israel and Netanyahu's decision, and it looks like they have chosen violence instead of peace. Future will show Netanyahu as one of the most corrupt and power-hungry leader in history, congruent with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

S.A.M.

03-27-10, 01:53 AM

While international diplomacy often has all the refinement of schoolyard politics, I don't think you're so na�ve as to discount the intricacies and exaggerated weight of protocol.

Seriously Ti?

What if he had stuck a thumb in each ear and waggled his fingers instead?

Do you not see that frowning and scowling are empty gestures in lieu of real, measurable policy changes and sanctions? Stuff like this?

Qatar and Mauritania have suspended economic and political ties with Israel in protest against the war in Gaza, Al Jazeera has learned. (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/2009116151135307776.html)

Venezuela, Bolivia cut ties to Israel over Gaza (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/14/bolivia.israel/index.html)

Compare that to "Hugo Chavez walks out in a huff" :rolleyes:

Obama signed a 30 billion dollar check for military assistance to Israel. There are children in Palestine who will not have a future because of those weapons.

Who will die over the next ten years as these weapons are sent across by speed post. And they will have no defense against their own destruction.

Like the Goldstone report, the US will veto any accountability and continue to arm the predators.

Actions talk, posturing just conveys the impression of action without any actual result.

Israelis are the master of artifice, no one knows better than them how these games are played.

pjdude1219

03-27-10, 02:09 AM

I noticed that the same tired old question was once again asked that why should Israel have to give the Palestinians any land why can't the arabs give them any they have so much more. the answer is simplebecause Israel took the land from them It not anything to do with antisemitism or religion or any of that bullshit. they just want their familial lands back. anyone asking this question is being disingenuous. To demand that arabs give the palestinians lands is essentially demanding others pay for Israel crimes(though quite a few people here that is the golden thing they want) It wasn't Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon that was founded on the forcible conquest and theft of land from the Palestinians it was Israel so they are the ones who should return that which was stolen.

Pandaemoni

03-27-10, 03:53 AM

because Israel took the land from them It not anything to do with antisemitism or religion or any of that bullshit. they just want their familial lands back.

The palestinians never had any real claim on that land, save that they do live there (as do many Jews). The British had authority over the land before the Israelis (not the palestinians), and before them it was the Ottoman Empire (not the palestinians).

It's one thing to claim a right in land based on an ancient historical claim to rule over it, as the Jews do, but the Palestinians do not even have that.

It's "familial" land for both peoples, but the palestinians have never had their own government established on it.

pjdude1219

03-27-10, 04:14 AM

The palestinians never had any real claim on that land, save that they do live there (as do many Jews). so purchasing the land and having your family live and work on it for 100's of years is no real claim?
The British had authority over the land before the Israelis (not the palestinians), and before them it was the Ottoman Empire (not the palestinians). true which is why a little thing called the UN charter granted people's of colonies and the like the right to self determination. In fact the British mandate was a trust. they held for the resident population and were supposed to mantain until turning it over to said population.

It's one thing to claim a right in land based on an ancient historical claim to rule over it, as the Jews do, but the Palestinians do not even have that. Right the palestinian don't have a myth but they do have something better the law.

It's "familial" land for both peoples, but the palestinians have never had their own government established on it.
because of the actions of the jewish people oh that's right you can't call the jews out for the zionists prevented them from doing so.

no matter how you want to slice it the law is actually pretty cut and dry. the land legally belongs to the palestinians. hell I'm not talking about political ownership here. I'm talking about people who were removed from their homes and than forcibly prevented from returning.

Pandaemoni

03-27-10, 04:42 AM

so purchasing the land and having your family live and work on it for 100's of years is no real claim?

Jews have lived there too, and in any event, while that is a claim to continue living on the land, it is not a valid basis for claiming the right to have your own sovereign state there. There are people of Spanish descent who've lived in the southwest longer than the U.S. has existed, but they do not have the right to secede and form their own country, taking that land with them. Even if the U.S. were to give away or sell the surrounding land, much as France did in 1803 to a large swath of land, they would not have a strong claim against the new sovereign for independence, based solely on residency.

true which is why a little thing called the UN charter granted people's of colonies and the like the right to self determination. In fact the British mandate was a trust. they held for the resident population and were supposed to mantain until turning it over to said population.

Oh, you mean the same UN that established Israel in 1948? Their cause was not helped by the fact that while the Jews formed corps under the British military during WWII, the Palestinian leadership (like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) sided with the Nazis, which really set back any notion that they were fit to govern anything but jack and squat.

IN fact the Palestine Mandate that gave the area to the Britiosh said expressly:

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country

Whoops.

The Mandate promised the Palestinians protection from oppression, not sovereignty. The Mandate of the League of Nations gave the Jews a pretty good legal argument to self-determination in that region.

S.A.M.

03-27-10, 05:16 AM

Jews have lived there too, and in any event, while that is a claim to continue living on the land, it is not a valid basis for claiming the right to have your own sovereign state there. There are people of Spanish descent who've lived in the southwest longer than the U.S. has existed, but they do not have the right to secede and form their own country, taking that land with them. Even if the U.S. were to give away or sell the surrounding land, much as France did in 1803 to a large swath of land, they would not have a strong claim against the new sovereign for independence, based solely on residency.

Once upon a time, the British had the same notions about India. Did you know Mumbai was given as dowry to an English monarch?

Ah, the hubris of colonialism. Completely irrelevant to the natives. The fact that people of the Jewish faith have lived in Palestine is no basis for residency for any Jew there, either.

pjdude1219

03-27-10, 05:26 AM

Jews have lived there too, and in any event, while that is a claim to continue living on the land, it is not a valid basis for claiming the right to have your own sovereign state there. actually it kind of did the whole right to self determination thing.

Oh, you mean the same UN that established Israel in 1948? it didn't.
Their cause was not helped by the fact that while the Jews formed corps under the British military during WWII, the Palestinian leadership (like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) sided with the Nazis, which really set back any notion that they were fit to govern anything but jack and squat. first off the palestinians fought with the british. unlike most arabs peoples they were somewhat pro allies. the grand mufti was a britsh position

IN fact the Palestine Mandate that gave the area to the British said expressly:

Whoops. which is superceded by the UN charter

The Mandate promised the Palestinians protection from oppression, not sovereignty.the mandate is irrelevant. the UN charter superceded it.
The Mandate of the League of Nations gave the Jews a pretty good legal argument to self-determination in that region.
IT couldn't have since self determination is defined as the people of a territory choosing their own political status. how is jews fro marround the world choosing palestines political status the people of palestine choosing their own political status?

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 06:36 AM

Once upon a time, the British had the same notions about India. Did you know Mumbai was given as dowry to an English monarch?If it had not been for the British Raj, the literacy rate in your land would be lower than it is already.

Bells

03-27-10, 06:52 AM

If it had not been for the British Raj, the literacy rate in your land would be lower than it is already.

A few million deaths and plundering a nation for the price of literacy. Do you think that's a fair trade?

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 06:55 AM

It's one thing to claim a right in land based on an ancient historical claim to rule over it, as the Jews do, but the Palestinians do not even have that.Nah, the claim the Jews have over it is just as retarded. Personally, I think the Jews should work on strengthening their mayoralties, just in case the Pals all end up with equal votes in the Knesset one day. If the Jews have strong local governments, they are less likely to be effected deleteriously by the the Palestinians deciding, all of a sudden, that they want to live under Sharia law. Therefore, the government of Jerusalem could make their laws, and the government of Tel Aviv could make their own laws, and the government of Hebron could make their laws, and the government of Bethlehem could make their laws, and they could get along.

The Jews would simply be a lot better off if their constitution reflected the fact that Palestine historically belongs to no one culture, and it really is the right of all of the cultures who live there. The bedrock of a united Palestine would be that the laws would not force one way of life or another on any of its parts.

It's "familial" land for both peoples, but the palestinians have never had their own government established on it.So what? The Jews were nothing but a bunch of highway bandits, anyway. The Bedouin are the only people there who practice anything like the lifestyle that the Jews and Palestinians historically had.

CheskiChips

03-27-10, 07:02 AM

Nah, the claim the Jews have over it is just as retarded. Personally, I think the Jews should work on strengthening their mayoralties, just in case the Pals all end up with equal votes in the Knesset one day. If the Jews have strong local governments, they are less likely to be effected deleteriously by the the Palestinians deciding, all of a sudden, that they want to live under Sharia law. Therefore, the government of Jerusalem could make their laws, and the government of Tel Aviv could make their own laws, and the government of Hebron could make their laws, and the government of Bethlehem could make their laws, and they could get along.

??? Do you at all know how Israeli politics work?

The Jews would simply be a lot better off if their constitution reflected the fact that Palestine historically belongs to no one culture, and it really is the right of all of the cultures who live there. The bedrock of a united Palestine would be that the laws would not force one way of life or another on any of its parts.

The Israeli government is so secular it doesn't even offer marriage.

So what? The Jews were nothing but a bunch of highway bandits, anyway. The Bedouin are the only people there who practice anything like the lifestyle that the Jews and Palestines historically had.
I think the emboldened underlined portion might just be hatred of Jews which might amount to racism...the italicized portion is simply untrue. When were they nomadic, unkosher, and thieves?

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 07:24 AM

??? Do you at all know how Israeli politics work?Yes. Very little but probably more than most people bother to find out.

The solution that I have articulated would guarantee the most peaceful outcome. A decentralized state that allows very different cultures to flourish.

The Israeli government is so secular it doesn't even offer marriage.Whereas a lot of the Palestinians would like to govern themselves according to the principles of their religion.

I think the emboldened underlined portion might just be hatred of Jews which might amount to racism...The only interaction I have had with Jews is listening to their music, which I have an admiration for. Furthermore, I am an atheist and come from a family of Methodists; I have no cultural background that would give rise to any such sentiment. Your accusations against me reflect your own ignorance.

the italicized portion is simply untrue. When were they nomadic, unkosher, and thieves?The ancient Semitic tribes only settled because they were pressed into the lifestyle by surrounding cultures who would otherwise have assimilated them as slaves into their "glorious" empires. In fact, the Diaspora is almost the only real liberation that the Jews have ever had from their slavish attachment to land. Land is like gold, and gold is only good for making heavy chains. It eventually grinds the soul into dust. The only real wealth comes from labor and honest trade.

Mrs.Lucysnow

03-27-10, 07:43 AM

Tiassa: I don't think you're so na�ve as to discount the intricacies and exaggerated weight of protocol. All Obama did was remind the Israelis that they are not the center of his Universe.
Quite obviously, it had its effect; look to the thread title�

Oh come now there are threads about everything here but note how little the BBC international or even Al Jazeerra have paid to the little snub after the fact. Why? Because outside of said snub the US has done nothing more of any real significance. I mean really Obama didn't even get in the first snub, Netanyahu did when he announced the building would continue while the vice president was in Israel. The snub doesn't seem to impress the Israeli government as Bibi has this to say in response:

"The Israeli prime minister says his policy on Jerusalem will not change"

"Benjamin Netanyahu's statement came as he was due to brief cabinet colleagues on talks with President Barack Obama. The US says some progress was made."

"The prime minister's position is that there is no change in Israel's policy on Jerusalem that has been pursued by all governments of Israel for the last 42 years," his office said in a statement on Friday.

But a spokesman told Israeli media there had been a "narrowing of the gaps" between Israel and the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8588444.stm

Funny that. Netanyahu says he is going to continue building and the US talks of progress and narrowing gaps. Maybe if he had refused funds or decided to halt military aid I would think the US is playing hard ball but at the moment I don't see any real change in political protocol only political theatrics.

As a matter of fact I would say its the Israeli's that are playing hard ball with the US sitting around pouting and feeling rejected.

S.A.M.

03-27-10, 09:21 AM

A few million deaths and plundering a nation for the price of literacy. Do you think that's a fair trade?

Whats 30 million dead and 200 years of racism when compared to a literacy rate of 12% and a 90% reduction in GDP? Come now, Indians are surely grateful for all the benefits of the British occupation. Can't fathom really why the Palestinians don't appreciate their good fortune. All they have to do is look at other countries, where occupation has been so beneficial to the natives.

Pandaemoni

03-27-10, 09:27 AM

it didn't.

Though 2/3s of the General Assembly did pass a resolution calling foir the establishment of a Jewish state in modern day Israel. The British did technically cede control of the land though.

which is superceded by the UN charter

What leads you to that conclusion? The specific controls over the general is the legal rule of construction. Generalia specialibus non derogant. Later generic treaty provisions only control over earlier, more specific laws if (a) the later one was expressly intended to trump the earlier position (usually evidenced by specific language or a reference to that effect, though) and (b) if the later law does not interfere with anyone's rights (which arguably taking the promised homeland of the Jews away from them would do). In this case we have the General Assembly vote in favor of the establishment of Israel suggests that that clause was NOT intended to overrule the understanding of the Mandate.

The truth of the matter is that I think The claim the Jews have on the land is spurious, but it is at least as strong as that of the "Palestinians"" who have never had any measure of political independence at any point in history. One might as well claim that the American Confederacy had the right to independence, if residency and a desire to leave are enough.

S.A.M.

03-27-10, 09:30 AM

political independence? Don't you mean nationalism? That 19th century animal?

Political independence is not written in stone.

iceaura

03-27-10, 09:48 AM

The palestinians never had any real claim on that land, That's not even faintly reasonable.

People who have farmed and lived and governed themselves on a patch of land for centuries have a claim on that land, or there is no such thing.

The vicissitudes of geopolitical conflict, the passing imposition of this or that distant and foreign power's edicts, have about as much "real" significance as a conquistador planting the Spanish flag on the bank of the Mississippi River. Which is to say you have to take such matters into account, but only for what they are worth.

Pandaemoni

03-27-10, 10:00 AM

That's not even faintly reasonable.

People who have farmed and lived and governed themselves on a patch of land for centuries have a claim on that land, or there is no such thing.

You are sort of right, so I will restate. Private individuals have private property rights over specific tracts of land there (be they Jewish private individuals or Arabs). The Palestinians have no legitimate and current collective right over that land, such as a claim that they are entitles to sovereignty over it.

Personally, I have never felt that what happened "centuries" ago has any bearing on who is entitled to govern what land. If it were 1947, I am sure I'd be opposed to forming Israel there (because claims from millennia ago mean nothing to me), but now, the only time that matters, Israel is 75% Jewish.

Mr.Spock

03-27-10, 10:08 AM

S.A.M.

03-27-10, 10:31 AM

You are sort of right, so I will restate. Private individuals have private property rights over specific tracts of land there (be they Jewish private individuals or Arabs). The Palestinians have no legitimate and current collective right over that land, such as a claim that they are entitles to sovereignty over it.

Personally, I have never felt that what happened "centuries" ago has any bearing on who is entitled to govern what land. If it were 1947, I am sure I'd be opposed to forming Israel there (because claims from millennia ago mean nothing to me), but now, the only time that matters, Israel is 75% Jewish.

Sure if you don't count the 3.5 million Palestinians who have no rights under occupation [apart from the 1.5 million Israeli "arabs" who live as second class citizens]and the other 5 million who are refugees denied the right of return.

Meanwhile, reality check:

Despite row, U.S. and Israel sign massive arms deal

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Washington this week absorbing the full wrath of the Obama administration, the Pentagon and Israel's defense establishment were in the process of sealing a large arms deal.

According to the deal, Israel will purchase three new Hercules C-130J airplanes. The deal for the three aircrafts, designed by Lockheed Martin, is worth roughly a quarter billion dollars. Each aircraft costs $70 million.

The aircrafts were manufactured specifically for Israeli needs, and include a large number of systems produced by Israel's defense industry.

The deal will be covered by American foreign assistance funds. The Pentagon will issue a formal announcement on the matter on Thursday evening.

America and Israel have still not reached an agreement regarding the purchase of the Lockheed F-35 war plane. It is still not clear when that deal, which is estimated to be worth more than $3 billion, will finally be sealed and carried out.

If that deal is signed in the near future, Israel will likely receive its first F-35 in 2014.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159155.html

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 10:53 AM

"אִם אֶשְׁכָּחֵךְ יְרוּשָׁלָםִ - תִּשְׁכַּח יְמִינִי! תִּדְבַּק לְשׁוֹנִי לְחִכִּי אִם לֹא אֶזְכְּרֵכִי, אִם לֹא אַעֲלֶה אֶת יְרוּשָׁלִַם עַל רֹאשׁ שִׂמְחָתִי!"

Jerusalem was is and will continue to be ours, long after obama will be forgatten.Well, I see that as your battle, not ours. The Americans have a vested interest, a legitimate mercantile interest as well as a national security interest, in establishing relatively non-violent relations between your country and your neighbors. Your quarrel with the Palestinians over Jerusalem is not really an American concern, but try to realize that it will occasionally conflict with our own agenda.

America has its own agenda and its own interests. Its own ideals. They will not always clash with yours. They will not always mesh with yours, either. It would be in the interests of your countrymen to realize this rather than trying to demonize our president, kay?

Pandaemoni

03-27-10, 10:54 AM

S.A.M.

03-27-10, 11:17 AM

The "right" of return is conjectural only. There is really no "right" just a hope that it will happen. They might as well demand a right to free health care at the Israelis expense...they'd enjoy it, but there really is no "right" to it whatsoever.

Only if they control the land do they have a right to decide who can emigrate there (or if you prefer, emigrate back).
Isn't there? When Israel is based on it?

Fortunately, as we Indians know, control of land is also a matter of demographics. And persistence.

Whats your opinion of apartheid? And suffrage for all?

Pandaemoni

03-27-10, 11:35 AM

Isn't there? When Israel is based on it?

Fortunately, as we Indians know, control of land is also a matter of demographics. And persistence.

Whats your opinion of apartheid? And suffrage for all?

Israel calls what they offer a "right" and they too are wrong. It's a privilege or a license to return that the state of Israel is allowing, but they could,m if they wanted to, disallow it tomorrow and the world would not view that as a violation of the "rights" of others--it would just be a change in their immigration policy.

I tend to be a legal realist, of course, so I view rights as conditions one can require from others and can enforce against them when violated, and not just things one would really like to have, like the right to return to your grandparent's homeland.

I think the best way to govern is to grant the right of suffrage for all adults who are citizens, and a right to be free of serious forms of state oppression (but that those are good ideas doesn't mean everyone has them, if you live in China, you have what rights Chinese law says you have), but I do not think it makes sense on any level to establish a "right" for (or rather a policy allowing) hostile enemies to emigrate into one's territory, nor is there any objective "right" of that sort floating in the ether oif the universe. If you left Cuba when the communists took over, there is no "right of return." When you immigrate to a new country, it is entirely up to your prior country whether it wants to take you back later, not up to you. It's like quitting a job, there is no "right to rehiring" just because you may wish it so.

Mr.Spock

03-27-10, 12:15 PM

Well, I see that as your battle, not ours. The Americans have a vested interest, a legitimate mercantile interest as well as a national security interest, in establishing relatively non-violent relations between your country and your neighbors. Your quarrel with the Palestinians over Jerusalem is not really an American concern, but try to realize that it will occasionally conflict with our own agenda.

America has its own agenda and its own interests. Its own ideals. They will not always clash with yours. They will not always mesh with yours, either. It would be in the interests of your countrymen to realize this rather than trying to demonize our president, kay?

I would like to see president Obama bow before B. Netanyahu just like he bowed before the saudi king:

http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/obama-bow.jpg

Tiassa

03-27-10, 12:36 PM

Seriously Ti?

What if he had stuck a thumb in each ear and waggled his fingers instead?

Do you not see that frowning and scowling are empty gestures in lieu of real, measurable policy changes and sanctions? Stuff like this?

Yes, I'm serious. For me it comes down to two questions:

� What would we like Obama to do?
� How is he going to do that?

The problem with comparing the United States to other nations like Qatar and Mauritania�or Venezuela and Bolivia�is that Obama has fewer choices.

What ties should Obama cut? As president, all he has is essentially his diplomatic corps. Simply refusing to talk to Israel won't accomplish anything good. A sudden flip-flop in the UN will bring nearly apocalyptic backlash from Congress, and likely voters as well.

The administration cannot create and enforce economic sanctions without Congress. What measures do you recommend, and where in Hell will we find the snowball that has a chance in Congress?

Thus, Obama is using the nature of diplomacy itself. This is, hopefully, the beginning of a long transformation of American policy toward Israel and Palestine.

Consider that the Democrats just finally passed a health care bill. And, in truth, word that we have a New START agreement (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/03/obama_and_medvedev_will_sign_n.html) with the Russians caught me by surprise earlier this week.

What I'm getting at is that American politics are not quick the way we like. I might suggest that you saw what happened the last time we tried to rush into considerations military and diplomatic. And what I would suggest going forward is that we measure this incident with Obama and Netanyahu as a potential starting point. Its value, to me, depends on what comes next. If things remain business as usual, then yes, I will come around to agree with both you and Lucy that this was an empty gesture.

But it turns out that Obama has not spent all of his credit. We're simply not going to see sanctions or, essentially, any functional measures against Israel proposed, much less passed, before November�we have a midterm to fight out, and nobody in that race wants to be pitching sanctions or other action against Israel from the stump. Politically speaking, whatever it is you want Obama to do, he simply cannot according to American politics. Whatever indictment you might find against our political structure is what it is, but that's also all it is. The key to measuring Obama's decision to have dinner instead of listen to Netanyahu explain why the timing of an announcement that never should have been made at all isn't his fault lies in what comes next. Is the tide turning, or was Obama simply not in the mood to put up with a bunch of petulant bullshit that otherwise passes for policy justification?

The news that Obama and Medvedev have an agreement sort of emerged from a vacuum that occurs in the American political discourse. They've been working on it the whole time, but the news sort of comes from nowhere, as we didn't have obsessive, daily reports as we did with health care. Meanwhile, attending the narrative of what is going on, it is not impossible to suggest that the Obama administration is trying to alter the terms by which our consderation of Israel is usually played out:

United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered reassurance on Monday to the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that the Barack Obama administration's "commitment to Israel's security and Israel's future is rock solid", while echoing the words of warning issued by General David Petraeus and Vice President Joe Biden.

Clinton's address at the annual conference of AIPAC - a powerful pro-Israel lobby group - comes as the US and Israel are entering the third week of one of the worst bilateral crises since 1975, as the Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren, reportedly described it on March 13.

Of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Clinton said, "Both sides must confront the reality that the status quo of the last decade has not produced long-term security or served their interests. Nor has it served the interests of the United States."

Clinton's comments reflected the concerns which have aired in recent days by both members of the administration and the military.

Two weeks ago, Biden, irritated with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ill-timed announcement of new building construction in East Jerusalem, reportedly told Netanyahu that Israeli actions which jeopardize the peace process endanger the security of US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The rare suggestion that Israeli actions may hurt US regional security interests was reinforced in a more formal venue last week when Petraeus testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that, "The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the [region]."

Petraeus continued, "Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel."

Clinton's AIPAC address on Monday morning offered some of the same criticisms of Israeli policy while reassuring the crowd of 7,000 that the US would continue to guarantee Israel's security.

"Especially at that venue making clear those commitments was important. Those commitments have been voiced in the past and expressed by the vice president in Israel and it would have been rather eye opening had they not been repeated today," former Israeli peace negotiator, Daniel Levy, told Inter Press Service.

Levy added, "At the same time, Clinton didn't say that everything is okay. She didn't paper everything over. She said the status-quo is not sustainable and that hard choices have to be made."

(Clifton (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LC24Ak02.html))

What we might hope for, then, is that the United States has just put Netanyahu and Israel on notice that the usual bullshit won't fly. And while that might seem small, or ineffective to our immediate observation, I would suggest that most of what happens is going to have that appearance. It is not until the new terms of consideration are set and Israel blatantly transgresses those that we'll start hearing talk of how this should reduce our budget expenditure. Because right now, anything Obama does is going to be countered with the question, "And what are you going to do if they don't?" And, as president, his arsenal falls short. Even if he tells his diplomatic team to endorse a UN resolution against Israel ... well? What happens then?

In the end, how we view this incident should hinge on what comes next. Obama has managed to rattle some cages with a fairly small gesture.

The United States will not abandon Israel entirely. It will not hang them out to be destroyed. So the questions are what can Obama do, and what will Congress do? In the past, our commitment to Israel's existence and defense seems to have involved a certain amount of insensate faith. It may be that Obama has just cracked that opaque veneer. And it may be that he was just feeling testy the other day. Time will tell. But your expectations are better fulfilled or forsaken over the long run; trying to judge the American-Israeli relationship on a day-by-day basis is an exercise in making your head explode and your soul wither to a black stain on the side of a compost barrel.

Obama signed a 30 billion dollar check for military assistance to Israel. There are children in Palestine who will not have a future because of those weapons.

Who will die over the next ten years as these weapons are sent across by speed post. And they will have no defense against their own destruction.

Looking through a lens of American conventional wisdom, the response is, "And?"

We make decisions in this country�for simple rewards like money�that destroy lives, livelihoods, and futures abroad. We make them every day. We still hold Cold War sentiments toward the Arab world that have only been agitated by Osama bin Laden. The idea that people are dying in large numbers in order to accommodate American luxury and security is such a fact of life in this nation that it doesn't have the visceral impact one might think it should. While I don't dispute the validity of your point, I do question its efficacy in the American political theatre.

Like the Goldstone report, the US will veto any accountability and continue to arm the predators.

Actions talk, posturing just conveys the impression of action without any actual result.

Israelis are the master of artifice, no one knows better than them how these games are played.

And by rejecting some of that artifice, Obama has undermined the status quo in Israel as much as it has been for at least fifteen years. It's not much. It's not even definitively a start. But it could be. We must see what comes next. Obama still has a few rabbits left to pull out. This might be one of them.

And a painful, laborious birth that would be.
____________________

Notes:

Memmott, Mark. "Obama And Medvedev Will Sign New Nuclear Arms Treaty On April 8". The Two-Way. March 26, 2010. NPR.org. March 27, 2010. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/03/obama_and_medvedev_will_sign_n.html

Clifton, Eli. "Clinton pushes to confront 'status quo'". Asia Times Online. March 24, 2010. ATimes.com. March 27, 2010. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LC24Ak02.html

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 12:46 PM

I would like to see president Obama bow before B. Netanyahu just like he bowed before the saudi king:No. Unlike the Saudi King, Netanyahu is an arrogant, posturing, humorless jackass.

Look, dude: I am generally pro-Israel, but I am afraid that some of your politicians just rub me the wrong way. It's nothing personal against you or your culture.

Mr.Spock

03-27-10, 12:50 PM

No. Unlike the Saudi King, Netanyahu is an arrogant, posturing, humorless jackass.

And saudi arabia is a democratic, peacfull, human rights model that is lead by a clever man.

Moderator warning: graphic images below that may offend some viewers. Click at your own risk.

http://www.topnews.in/files/saudi-woman.jpg

http://www.zionism-israel.com/beheading.gif

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061121/061121_saudiArabia_hmed_2p.hmedium.jpg

bow Obama! bow!

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 12:54 PM

And saudi arabia is a democratic, peacfull, human rights model that is lead by a clever man.

(more graphic images)

bow Obama! bow!Try putting someone in your government who has a personality, then. I'm with Noam Chomsky on this one, dude.

Mr.Spock

03-27-10, 01:15 PM

Try putting someone in your government who has a personality, then. I'm with Noam Chomsky on this one, dude.

So you think we should put someone like the Saudi king?

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 01:33 PM

So you think we should put someone like the Saudi king?At least he's interesting. Netanyahu wouldn't even be the first PM you had who soiled Israeli-US relations: Yitzhak Shamir was just as arrogant during the administration of President George HW Bush.

Look, I've been at the devil's end of having a douchebag to lead my country, so I am not going to be dick enough to judge all Israelis or all Jews based on his actions. If your country were under attack, I would hope that my country would come to your aid and vice versa, but don't expect me or the leaders of my country to always get along with the people who lead your country. That's just not fair, dude.

Mr.Spock

03-27-10, 01:51 PM

The Saudi king who is responsible for the violation of at least a dozen of human rights who sponsor with his oil money Islamic extremists that wants to kill you is interesting?

dead end.

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 02:14 PM

pjdude1219

03-27-10, 03:45 PM

pjdude1219

03-27-10, 03:49 PM

The "right" of return is conjectural only. ?? how is a legally enshrined right conjecture?
There is really no "right" just a hope that it will happen. No a hope to have the right respected. next you probably going to talk about how Israel's "right" to exist is real.

Only if they control the land do they have a right to decide who can emigrate there (or if you prefer, emigrate back).

Israel has no right to prevent them from returning to their lands. Israel is a illegiatimate state under the provision reaffirmed in the montevideo convention. So they have no legal ability to reject the palestinians and must use force.

Tiassa

03-27-10, 04:03 PM

To consider something of what Obama faces:

As rabid and unhinged as the American Right generally has become of late, the right-wing blogosphere is, as usual, several degrees more twisted. Here is Powerline's Paul Mirengoff, a lawyer, protesting Obama's treatment this week of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and comparing it to how a small African country would -- and should -- be treated:

One Israeli newspaper summarized the encounter this way:

"There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage. Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea."

But Obama would never treat the president of Equatorial Guinea that way.

In other words: Obama subjected Netanyahu to the kind of treatment that should be reserved only for Africans, said the unnamed Israeli newspaper. But, Mirengoff hastened to add, Obama would never treat Africans that way -- only Jews. Citing Mirengoff's post, Glenn Reynolds, a law professor, got the point loud and clear and, in the midst of offering several bizarre conspiracy theories, made it even more explicit:

WHY HAS BARACK OBAMA TREATED NETANYAHU SO RUDELY? "Obama would never treat the president of Equatorial Guinea that way."

Possibly Obama just hates Israel and hates Jews. That�s plausible -- certainly nothing in his actions suggests otherwise, really.

As usual, nothing is more severe and desperate than the right-wing need to turn oneself into a victim of extreme persecution.

(Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/27/israel))

Glenn Greenwald goes on to point out that if Equitorial Guinea had the opportunity to be treated the same as Israel, they would probably take it. Billions in American tax dollars, the expectation of diplomatic shielding before the UN, special loan guarantees, all the weapons they could want, and nearly unanimous support from the American Congress? Tell me President Mbasogo, the megalomaniac in charge of those 28,000 sqare kilometers of former Spanish colony wouldn't enjoy that kind of coddling.

As Daniel Larison recently pointed out: the Israel-as-victim polemicists "cannot point to any decrease in Obama�s actual support for Israel, because there has been no decrease of any kind." Kevin Sullivan added: "President Obama has done nothing to change America's strategic relationship with Israel." Given the endless largesse that country continues to receive, the fact that American devotees of Israel nonetheless try to depict Israel as some sort of grave victim of the Obama administration -- and now even try to claim that Obama harbors hatred for Israel and Jews -- reveals how endless is their sense of entitlement for that foreign country, how vast is their craving for self-victimization, how shameless is their cheap exploitation of anti-semitism accusations, and how complete is their break from reality.

(ibid)

Indeed, there are plenty who disdain Israeli behavior who would make the same point as the right-wing supporters of human atrocity. But this is also what Obama faces. Those who expect some sort of snickety-snick quick action as if Obama was the political world's Wolverine are going to be disappointed. All he did was go to dinner, and this is the sort of outcry he faces from both Israeli and domestic opponents of his administration. Even the Democratic Speaker of the House (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34914.html) stands unflinchingly behind Israel, speak nothing of House Minority Whip Rep. Eric Cantor, who stated that nobody believes Israel should honor the 1967 boundaries.

Thus, I would ask again, what, exactly, is Obama supposed to do, and how should he do it?
____________________

Notes:

Greenwald, Glenn. "The right-wing need for victimization and Israel". Unclaimed Territory. March 27, 2010. Salon.com. March 27, 2010. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/27/israel

Rozen, Laura and Ben Smith. "After meeting, deafening silence". Politico. March 23, 2010. Politico.com. March 27, 2010. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34914.html

Bells

03-27-10, 05:08 PM

The Saudi king who is responsible for the violation of at least a dozen of human rights who sponsor with his oil money Islamic extremists that wants to kill you is interesting?

dead end.

And your country is taking money from the US to commit human rights violations and kill Palestinians. Which makes your country what, exactly? In short, your argument fails and is so short sided that it is not even mildly amusing, because of the subject matter.

I would like to see president Obama bow before B. Netanyahu just like he bowed before the saudi king:
Your political leader is not a royal. In short, he deserves no such address as one would give to a royal.

Whats 30 million dead and 200 years of racism when compared to a literacy rate of 12% and a 90% reduction in GDP? Come now, Indians are surely grateful for all the benefits of the British occupation. Can't fathom really why the Palestinians don't appreciate their good fortune. All they have to do is look at other countries, where occupation has been so beneficial to the natives.
Pfft.. 30 million.. 12% literacy rate was worth it. Can always pop out a few more children. Had they stayed a bit longer, a few more million people could have died but the literacy rate could have gotten up to 15%.

I wonder if the Indians who lost family members during that particular part of your country's history... did they recognise their good fortune? 'Hey.. I've lost all my family to famine but at least I can read about it in the papers.. so it's all worthwhile..'

Meanwhile, reality check:
How rude indeed!

Makes me wish someone would treat me rudely and give me stuff and money..

While he may have chosen to have dinner with his wife and daughters, which is apparently a bad thing that should be admonished in some circles, the relationship between the two countries will remain the same. Israel is still breastfeeding at the US's breast and will continue to do so. So Israel announced their plans for expansion at a bad time (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159300.html)? Israel will simply be pulled off the breast, admonished and then lovingly put back on there again to continue feeding (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1159159.html).

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 05:30 PM

Whats 30 million dead and 200 years of racism when compared to a literacy rate of 12% and a 90% reduction in GDP? Come now, Indians are surely grateful for all the benefits of the British occupation.If the British hadn't been killing you, then you ignorant savages would have been killing each other. Your country is an armpit. The level of social stratification there is almost unprecedented in the entirity of history. I bet you're part of the upper-crust there. Are you even aware that you are living your luxurious lifestyle at the expense of exploited and abused people in your own country? You probably don't. You are sheltered. During that six years you say you spent in the USA, I bet you were getting a faencie American education, thanks to your rich mommy and your rich daddy. The fact that you could could come and live in a Western country at all, though, shows that you're spoiled. My people are the bourgeoisie. We are too fucking busy to go mucking around in other people's countries.

Get this through your head: the only realistic shot the Palestinians have of getting a break is Kadima. It's Kadima, or the IDF can keep dropping bombs on them. Those are your options. If you are living in some fantasy world where all the Jews are being marched into the sea, then pull your head out of your butt and look at the cold, stark reality that is the real world. If the Arabic governments surrounding Israel were to try anything of the sort, then the whole Western world would bomb them to an earlier part of the Stone Age. Do you comprehend?

We are the progressive bourgeoisie. We, the educated middle-class, shall rule the world. I stand up for my people, wherever they may be.

Bells

03-27-10, 05:46 PM

[FONT="Courier New"]If the British hadn't been killing you, then you ignorant savages would have been killing each other. Your country is an armpit.
My my.

"Ignorant savages" eh? Nice. Tell me, are all 'natives' ignorant savages to you?

So you excuse over 30 million deaths by saying they would have done it to each other anyway, when you have absolutely no real proof of that?

I bet you're part of the upper-crust there. Are you even aware that you are living your luxurious, bourgeois lifestyle at the expense of exploited and abused people in your own country? You probably don't. You are sheltered. During that six years you say you spent in the USA, I bet you were getting a faencie American education, thanks to your rich mommy and your rich daddy. The fact that you could could come and live in a Western country at all, though, shows that you're spoiled. My people are the bourgeoisie. We are too fucking busy to go mucking around in other people's countries.
It is astounding how someone, who claims to come from the 'bourgeoisie', could come up with such ignorant and bigotted and jealous claptrap. The 'bourgeoisie' were part of the supposed educated class. And here we have you, a racist and bigotted individual claiming to come from said class, sounding like nothing more than a jealous, racist little boy who is cranky because he never got to go overseas, while someone from a poor country managed to work her way to be able to visit the US and work there for 6 years. Bitter much? I mean how dare she, an Indian, be able to afford the luxuries you obviously missed out on.. How dare she have an education and the means to travel.. When you, the "bourgeoisie" have to sit your arse down at home and whine about it on an internet forum. It must rankle you somewhat that an "ignorant savage" has what you don't have and will most probably never have.

Get this through your head: the only realistic shot the Palestinians have of getting a break is Kadima. It's Kadima, or the IDF can keep dropping bombs on them. Those are your options. If you are living in some fantasy world where all the Jews are being marched into the sea, then pull your head out of your butt and look at the cold, stark reality of the real world. If the Arabic governments surrounding Israel were to try anything of the sort, then the whole Western world would bomb them to an earlier part of the Stone Age. Do you comprehend?
Tell me, how long have you been holding that in?

No one has even mentioned "marching them into the sea". And yet, here you are, claiming that is what she is saying. No one is saying that their neighbours are trying anything. And yet, here you are, the so called 'bourgeoisie' giving said educated class a bad name.

So how's that breastfeeding coming along? Nipples sore yet? At what point will people agree to put Israel onto a sipper cup to fend for itself financially?

We are the progressive bourgeoisie. We, the educated middle-class, shall rule the world. I stand up for my people, wherever they may be.
Then it is time for you to start acting like the 'educated middle-class' instead of acting like a sanctimonious, self-righteous, racist jackarse.

But pray tell, who are "your people"? You stand up for your people who bomb and shoot innocent women and children?

For your information, a true "bourgeoisie" would never sit back and allow laws such as 'Israel's right of return' as being acceptable, nor their right to expand their existing landhold, to the detriment of the people living there. Do you know why? Because true "bourgeoisie" would view it as being empirialistic, the same type of attitudes that aristocrats would have when taking land from the people working on said land and claiming it as their own.

You're not "bourgeoisie". You're just plain middle class, or more to the point, a 'petit bourgeoisie', one who aspires to be bourgeoisie, but is too poor to have the education or the capitalist means to have the bourgeoisie lifestyle.

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 05:55 PM

"Ignorant savages" eh? Nice. Tell me, are all 'natives' ignorant savages to you?I bet that you have already categorized me as something you think you have a right to spit on. What are you? Are you one of those people who believe that, if you call a person a "racist," then you have a right to piss on that person? I know people like you.

When real racists refer to black people as "niggers," they do so because, if they call a black person something other than a person, then they have a right to piss on them. If someone is not a person, then there is no need to realize that you are being cruel toward them.

It is amazing how you can remove my humanity, in your mind, by accusing me of "racism." You are more like a racist than I will ever be because you represent everything that is wrong with racism.

I owe you nothing.

Bells

03-27-10, 06:06 PM

When real racists refer to black people "niggers," they do so because, if they call a black person something other than a person, then they have a right to piss on them. If someone is not a person, then there is no need to realize that you are being cruel toward them.

So when you use the term "ignorant savages", what is that exactly? A term of endearment?

"Ignorant savages" is what led to terms like "nigger" being acceptable in racist societies. Why? Because of the existing and ignorant belief that they were "ignorant savages" and thus, not worthy of consideration or worthy of being treated like human beings.

I call you a racist because you act like a racist when you use such terms and because you have such views.

It is amazing how you can remove my humanity, in your mind, by accusing me of "racism."
I cannot remove what you do not have.

Your comments about their being "ignorant savages" who would only have killed each other anyway, shows you to be not only lacking in basic education and sense, but also completely lacking in humanity.

You are more like a racist than I will ever be because you represent everything that is wrong with racism.
How so?

By pointing out that attitudes such as yours is racist? I'm sorry, I guess your version of what is wrong with racism is that it should never be pointed out or singled out in polite society. Thankfully, this is not polite society.

I owe you nothing.
Don't worry. I wouldn't claim anything from you anyway. I know you could not afford it.:)

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 06:13 PM

I cannot remove what you do not have.Typical of a person like you.

CptBork

03-27-10, 06:13 PM

I regret that this discussion turned into one about India, but I'd like to add something hopefully down the middle between SAM and AC. From everything we understand at present, if you were to go back in time 200 years and change even one tiny detail, none of us would be here today. Never mind cancelling Britain's colonization of India, just take one ordinary person and have them hold a single breath one second longer than they otherwise would have, and that's more than enough. Then the mathematics takes over; small changes in the past lead to bigger changes shortly thereafter, those changes lead to even bigger changes, and so on...

The question that should be raised is not who owes whom for India's past colonization. No one in Britain today had any control over that regardless of how they might truly feel about it. The relevant question to ask is to what extent does India suffer today from its colonial past, and to what extent do today's Britoners benefit.

Mr.Spock

03-27-10, 06:20 PM

And your country is taking money from the US to commit human rights violations and kill Palestinians. Which makes your country what, exactly? In short, your argument fails and is so short sided that it is not even mildly amusing, because of the subject matter.

You compare Saudi Arabia to Israel?
I just gotta ask this twice:

You compare Saudi Arabia to Israel?

ask any Arab in Israel, they wont give the good life and live in an Arab country, any Arab country.

he, comparing Israel to an Arab country.

What a lame argument.

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 06:26 PM

Bork: I only pointed out the problems with SAM's culture because she is absolutely convinced that living geographically closer to the Palestinians makes her some kind of expert on them. She makes an incredibly rude habit of looking down her nose at anyone who comes from a Western country. Anyone. She thinks we're all a bunch of sheltered, flag-waving ditto-heads over here. She doesn't even know how offensive she is.

By the way, Bells: I could have afforded to go to a private university. State was better, kay? Tax dollars well spent.

I wonder if anyone is going to address my point that there is a difference between the political stances of Likud and Kadima, which nobody except me seems to be interested in acknowledging. Unlike most people, I try to follow events that are occuring in other parts of the world. I followed the Israeli elections last February. I knew what was going on. Name two people you know who were even aware that they were having an election last year.

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 06:41 PM

I am tired of being called a "racist" by people who are complete philistines who have no interest at all in trying to enlighten themselves in any substantial way whatsoever. It is amazing, flabbergasting to me that I am here being called a "Jew-hater" in response to posts where I am basically supportive of Israel's right to exist. Just because my views are not exactly the same as yours doesn't make me something that you have a right to piss on.

You guys wonder why I am so angry and temperamental? It's because of that kind of jackassery. It is the most repugnant sort of display of human ignorance I encounter in my daily life. It is an attitude that I would love to annihilate.

It is the same kind of attitude that motivated racism: white people in the unreconstructed South would be ever so tolerant with black people when they had black people who agreed with them and supported their agenda. When a black person happened to have a different point of view or different interests or a different agenda, though, he became a "nigger." Suddenly he was this "other." But it was okay because the white people doing it would always say something like, "I'm not racist because I have friends who are black."

You know, when you label a person in some other way, such as by labeling them an "antisemite" because they don't like the Israeli PM, then you are doing the same thing! It is every bit as despicable and intolerably ignorant!

The_Journey

03-27-10, 06:48 PM

If the British hadn't been killing you, then you ignorant savages would have been killing each other. Your country is an armpit. The level of social stratification there is almost unprecedented in the entirity of history. I bet you're part of the upper-crust there. Are you even aware that you are living your luxurious lifestyle at the expense of exploited and abused people in your own country? You probably don't. You are sheltered. During that six years you say you spent in the USA, I bet you were getting a faencie American education, thanks to your rich mommy and your rich daddy. The fact that you could could come and live in a Western country at all, though, shows that you're spoiled. My people are the bourgeoisie. We are too fucking busy to go mucking around in other people's countries.

Get this through your head: the only realistic shot the Palestinians have of getting a break is Kadima. It's Kadima, or the IDF can keep dropping bombs on them. Those are your options. If you are living in some fantasy world where all the Jews are being marched into the sea, then pull your head out of your butt and look at the cold, stark reality that is the real world. If the Arabic governments surrounding Israel were to try anything of the sort, then the whole Western world would bomb them to an earlier part of the Stone Age. Do you comprehend?

We are the progressive bourgeoisie. We, the educated middle-class, shall rule the world. I stand up for my people, wherever they may be.

First, bourgeoisie mean you HAVE the free time to do w/e you want because you are upper-middle class.

Why in the world would the people in India be killing themselves? Why are they savages? Their culture was more advanced than the British, calculus was known there for more than 300 years before it was known in England. Art and literature existed there for thousands of years before the Renaissance. Unfortunately the British destroyed and halted any further advancements.

And do you realize the things you said about India could be applied to Britain? There WAS NO Renaissance in Britain in 13th-16th century, even though it happened to Italy, France, and Germany. And while there was a short English Renaissance in the 17th with Shakespeare, it only applied to the ELITES OF THE ELITES, aka 0.001% of the population.

Are you even aware how the British treated their "fellow men" of Ireland? Do you realize the Potato Famine was CAUSED by the British because the British government abused their citizens (the Irish) so much that they only have potatoes to eat and have to flee to America.

And the British WERE killing themselves with Henry VIII with his Church of England, in which he killed a lot of Catholics, Protestants, and Anabaptists, MANY died in the English Civil War in the 17th century with Oliver Cromwell. Not to mention the Glorious Revolution that happened 20 YEARS after the Civil War. And also the Inclosure Acts from 1750-1840 caused A LOT of British to starve to death because the government took over their lands.

The literacy rates in Britain were well below 40%, only rising slowly with the Industrial Revolution.

So yes, if you say that about India, you are only being a hypocrite.

And for Palestine, I wouldn't underestimate the Middle-Eastern people like George Bush did. Bush promised the war will be short, and what happened? No end in sight. Not to mention that The Arab League of Nations will not stand around doing nothing if Palestine is compromised.

Edit:
If the Arabic governments surrounding Israel were to try anything of the sort, then the whole Western world would bomb them to an earlier part of the Stone Age. Do you comprehend?

Do you realize that UNITED NATIONS condemned Israel's new settlements? Do you realize that the only Western country that supports Israel is the US? And even that relationship is on the breaking point.

Comprendo?

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 07:25 PM

First, bourgeoisie mean you HAVE the free time to do w/e you want because you are upper-middle class.Nah. As defined by Karl Marx, people who used their wealth to go off dicking around would probably fall into the lumpenproletariat category.

So yes, if you say that about India, you are only being a hypocrite.Probably, yeah. But now S.A.M. will know that she is not the only person in the world who can piss on and dismiss other people's points of view by putting down their culture. She still has not acknowledged that this is wrong.

And for Palestine, I wouldn't underestimate the Middle-Eastern people like George Bush did.Occupations are invariably difficult, violent and continuous. The Spanish learned this in Cuba.

Bells

03-27-10, 07:28 PM

You compare Saudi Arabia to Israel?
I just gotta ask this twice:

You compare Saudi Arabia to Israel?

ask any Arab in Israel, they wont give the good life and live in an Arab country, any Arab country.

he, comparing Israel to an Arab country.

What a lame argument.
I can't compare Saudi Arabia to Israel. Saudi Arabia is fully self funded in their gross human rights violations. Israel, on the other hand, is funded by another country. So no, can't really compare, can we?

In short, Israel would be financially up shit creek without a paddle if the US withdrew all of its funding of your questionable activities.

You need the US more than it needs you. The reason for this latest supposed bruhaha is simply because Israel, yet again, misstimed an announcement for more land grabs, endangering the interests of the US in the region. But don't worry, mummy will make it all better and you'll still be allowed to suck on that breast for infinity.

Bork: I only pointed out the problems with SAM's culture because she is absolutely convinced that living geographically closer to the Palestinians makes her some kind of expert on them. She makes an incredibly rude habit of looking down her nose at anyone who comes from a Western country. Anyone. She thinks we're all a bunch of sheltered, flag-waving ditto-heads over here. She doesn't even know how offensive she is.
So your response is to call a people, from her country, "ignorant savages"?

She thinks you are a bunch of flag waving ditto heads because you act like it.

By the way, Bells: I could have afforded to go to a private university. State was better, kay? Tax dollars well spent.
Dude, you don't even know what "bourgeoisie" even means.

You accuse her of being of the bourgeois class, as though she is somehow a criminal for it, while happily crowing about how you are of that particular class, and then whining because you never got to go overseas. Yes, that's right, I saw your original post about how your parents could not afford to send you overseas, before you edited it.

I makes me concerned that State Education in your country, could result in attitudes and beliefs such as yours. Tax dollars not well spent at all.

I wonder if anyone is going to address my point that there is a difference between the political stances of Likud and Kadima, which nobody except me seems to be interested in acknowledging. Unlike most people, I try to follow events that are occuring in other parts of the world. I followed the Israeli elections last February. I knew what was going on. Name two people you know who were even aware that they were having an election last year.
And unlike most people, you lack the ability to understand the subtleties of what is truly "going on".

I am tired of being called a "racist" by people who are complete philistines who have no interest at all in trying to enlighten themselves in any substantial way whatsoever. It is amazing, flabbergasting to me that I am here being called a "Jew-hater" in response to posts where I am basically supportive of Israel's right to exist. Just because my views are not exactly the same as yours doesn't make me something that you have a right to piss on.
Who called you a "Jew-hater"? Do you have a link oh educated bourgeoisie one?

If enlightening myself means that I refer to Indians as being "ignorant savages", then I think I'll pass.

You guys wonder why I am so angry and temperamental? It's because of that kind of jackassery. It is the most repugnant sort of display of human ignorance I encounter in my daily life. It is an attitude that I would love to annihilate.

So it is human ignorance to recognise the plight of the Palestinians? You speak of ignorance when you dismiss the deaths of over 30 million people by referring to them as "ignorant savages" who would have killed each other anway? And you wonder why people respond to you as they do?

It is the same kind of attitude that motivated racism: white people in the unreconstructed South would be ever so tolerant with black people when they had black people who agreed with them and supported their agenda. When a black person happened to have a different point of view or different interests or a different agenda, though, he became a "nigger." Suddenly he was this "other." But it was okay because the white people doing it would always say something like, "I'm not racist because I have friends who are black."
I would strongly suggest you go back and study the history of slavery in the US and what led to terms such as "nigger" to be common place in some societies. It was not because blacks may have had a different view. It is because blacks, or "niggers", were deemed to be subhuman and thus, not worthy of any form of right or opinion. Yes, that is correct, blacks were not allowed to voice their opinion. Whites tolerated blacks because they needed the blacks to tend to their fields as their slaves. They were tolerated as slaves.

You know, when you label a person in some other way, such as by labeling them an "antisemite" because they don't like the Israeli PM, then you are doing the same thing! It is every bit as despicable and intolerably ignorant!
Just as your own comments have been.

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 07:33 PM

Do you realize that UNITED NATIONS condemned Israel's new settlements?Yes. I agree with them. The fact that you have not realized this is evidence that you have not been paying attention.

Do you realize that the only Western country that supports Israel is the US?Depends on what level, on which issue.

And even that relationship is on the breaking point.I think Netanyahu is just a jerk. I think the explanation is just as simple as that.

Again, I'm going with Noam Chomsky on this one. By the way, Chomsky, who is very much anti-Israel compared to me, also acknowledges that the two-state solution is the only realistic approach to the matter.

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 07:52 PM

So your response is to call a people, from her country, "ignorant savages"?I don't see why not. She doesn't hold any fire when she's lambasting my culture.

You accuse her of being of the bourgeois class,I suggest she is part of the lumpenproletariat, so hopefully she'll come to grips with the fact that her culture isn't some saintly center of moral holiness, where she has some birthright to dismiss and slander anyone from MY culture.

S.A.M., do you even realize how many liberal MPs, in Britain, sacrificed their reputations in defense of your country's right to independence and self-government? Have you even thought about thanking people, living here in the "stupid" West, who stood up for the rights of your people, even though they had no vested interest in it at all? They were the same kind of people who fought to abolish the slave trade. Hello, but there are people over here, in the "stupid" West, who have brains.

And you wonder why people respond to you as they do?You are reacting to me as you are because you are intolerant of any point of view that does not reflect your narrow-minded beliefs. I've had occasion when someone was justified in calling me out for being loud, paranoid or arrogant, which is my usual list of faults, but I'm skeptical of those particular explanations when I am dealing with a person who is as determined as you are to justify pissing on someone who sees the world from a different point of view from yourself. You are more like a racist than I will ever be.

Ghost_007

03-27-10, 07:53 PM

Alien Cockroach

03-27-10, 08:07 PM

Bells, you don't even know what my point of view is, even though I have been very clear on the fact that I generally support the agenda of the Israeli center-left, although I disagree with Livni on how to handle Tehran. I wish that she would consider dealing with Tehran on more rational terms. I think there is hope for Iran becoming a successful, industrialized country. I see them as being fairly inclined in that direction.

Now, if Mr. Spock were to hit me with an intelligent, articulate defense of Likud and explain to me why I have the wrong idea about Kadima, I would be willing to reconsider. I profess being only partially knowledgable on the complex politics of his country, and I consider him to be an authority. That doesn't necessarily mean that I would agree with him, but I am sure that he could educate me on the subject.

CheskiChips

03-27-10, 10:10 PM

Well since the argument is about settlement in the West Bank, you're really not making many good points in supporting Kedima. Kedima is against surrendering any of Jerusalem or the West Bank settlement projects as much as Likud. People don't like Kedima as much because of their scandalous behavior... both Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert were extremely shady. More to critize has been their prisoner exchange programs...where they basically gave up hundreds of terrorists for a few (to one) citizen(s) both incentivizing capture and allowing murderers to walk freely unrepentent. They were also weak when it came to standing up to America; Condilza walked around like she was prime minister in her visists...she behaved as if she owned the place. Likud is more nationalistic and believes in increased Israeli sovereignty.

Then again; does it matter to explain these things to someone who has more respect for the murderous Saudi Arabian leader than Netanyahu? Probably not. And shame on you.

Pandaemoni

03-27-10, 11:23 PM

So we just through out are frame work for dealing with such things international law because you don't like it? the simple honest fact of the matter is the law disagrees with you.

No it does not. I respect that in your opinion it does, but opinion varies. In this case you assert that international law is what you want it to be, but you have offered no evidence save citing the U.N. Charter, which is irrelevant here.

International law in this case is a combination of treaty law and customary international law. The former includes the mandate, which as I indicated trumps the UN Charter under the rule of generalia specialibus non derogant. This is especially obvious in this case given the 1947 vote of the General Assembly in favor of establishing Israel...which is pretty clear evidence that the UN Charter was not intended to derogate from the provisions set forth in the Mandate on the establishment of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

International law also includes customary international law, which would include the law allowing for self-determination by the Palestinians, EXCEPT, that customary international law is only binding on nations that do not object to it at the time the relevant custom was established. Those objections can be general or specific. In this case, at the time the otherwise standard rule of colonial self-determination was being established, the clear intent of Britain, the U.S. and 2/3rds of the General Assembly who voted to establish Israel clearly were establishing a different rule with respect to Israel than was being applied elsewhere (as reflected in the UN Charter, as you note).

So, though self-determination is in the UN Charter, that is not relevant. Even if the principle has expanded into customary international law, however, it is still irrelevant, because the nations of the world did not accept it in regard to Israel.

That is, by far, the stronger analysis of the law. Add to that, that it is completely impractical to "derecognize" Israel at this stage. If you turned government over to the Palestinians, they would likely slaughter or (if we are lucky) expelled Jews by the millions (and probably take all their property as they expelled them). Even more practically, if you tried to do that, the Israeli military (and likely the U.S. military if it were needed) would likely intervene, and I doubt your personal army is better than theirs.

Given that there is a decent legal argument for recognizing them, and that the alternative is a fairy tale that could never work, I think it is safe to say that your preferred reading of international law (while there is a theoretically plausible basis for it), is nothing but a dead letter.

The only way your position can win would be if you traveled back in time to 1947 and stopped the formation at the source. At this point, you are trying to uncook a meal prepared long ago.

nirakar

03-27-10, 11:55 PM

"אִם אֶשְׁכָּחֵךְ יְרוּשָׁלָםִ - תִּשְׁכַּח יְמִינִי! תִּדְבַּק לְשׁוֹנִי לְחִכִּי אִם לֹא אֶזְכְּרֵכִי, אִם לֹא אַעֲלֶה אֶת יְרוּשָׁלִַם עַל רֹאשׁ שִׂמְחָתִי!"

Jerusalem was is and will continue to be ours, long after obama will be forgatten.

Fine, just please stop using my tax money and please stop making my nations foreign policy stupider than it would have been if Israel never existed (It would have been stupid anyway).

Also, if you ever speak of justice I will call you a hypocrite for not caring about Justice for Palestinians.

I have supported Israel since I was a child because the Bible told me to. It says the Jews are God's chosen and to fck with them is to fck with God. This is honestly where it all started for me. Israel is our ally. I really do not want to mess with a country favored by God. I want to help and support them. I know this sounds crazy to atheists but it is really where I am.

Also Sandy, Spock Zionists, and Christian Zionists, if DNA eventually shows that the Palestinians are more genetically Jewish than Jews are. How would that fit into your cult beliefs? But since DNA does not fit with a 4000 year old Earth maybe DNA does not matter.

These Israeli's are not the Bibles Israeli's. The teachings of Jesus are not compatible with some of the old testament and not compatible with right wing Christianity and are not compatible with the politics of Netanyahu or the politics of Sandy.

I will stay on Jesus's side because the people who oppose the teachings of Jesus and turn Jesus into an Idol can only make hell on Earth while the teachings of Jesus are the very teachings that must be embraced if we are to make Earth into heaven.

The God of my delusions would like us to make heaven on earth while the god of your delusions wants ............?

pjdude1219

03-27-10, 11:56 PM

No it does not. I respect that in your opinion it does, but opinion varies. In this case you assert that international law is what you want it to be, but you have offered no evidence save citing the U.N. Charter, which is irrelevant here. you have yet to show it is irrelevant.

International law in this case is a combination of treaty law. That includes the mandate, which as I indicated trumps the UN Charter under the rule of generalia specialibus non derogant. This is especially obvious in this case given the 1947 vote of the General Assembly in favor of establishing Israel...which is pretty clear evidence that the UN Charter was not intended to derogate from the provisions set forth in the Mandate on the establishment of Israel as a Jewish homeland. you mean the same vote that basically used mafia tactics to ensure its passing? also you'll note my mentioning the montevideo contvention of 1933 which reaffirms the principles on which which to recognize a countrey(more on this later) the relevant parts being it is against international law to recognize any territurial gains through warfare and to flatly refuse to recoginze a state that gained sovriegnty due to force.

International law also includes customary international law, which would include the law allowing for self-determination by the Palestinians, EXCEPT, that customary international law is only binding on nations that do not object to it at the time the relevant custom was established. Those objections can be general or specific. In this case, at the time the otherwise standard rule of colonial self-determination was being established, the clear intent of Britain, the U.S. and 2/3rds of the General Assembly who voted to establish Israel clearly were establishing a different rule with respect to Israel than was being applies elsewhere (as reflected in the UN Charter, as you note). firstly it wasn't an act of creation it was a mere suggestion on the peoples involved. secondly if we accept it creating ISrael than we must hold Israel accountable for the taken of lands not designated to it during the resulting conflict.

So, though self-determination is in the UN Charter, that is not relevant. Even if the principle has expanded into customary international law, however, it is still irrelevant, because the nations of the world did not accept it in regard to Israel. and now to ruin your nice little argument. No it isn't. You would only, and only, have a point if the UN actually created Israel in setting up the lands and than handing the reigns to the jewish people that's not what happened as we noted. there was a bloody war that involved the destruction of arab towns and the grabbing of land. If your premise was true we would have seen the british turn over power directly to the jews of palestine we didn't. they just left and let them duke it out.

That is, by far, the stronger analysis of the law.Only if we accept your false starting assumption that the UN created Israel.
Add to that, that it is completely impractical to "derecognize" Israel at this stage. 2 things I am not calling for that and its illegal(remember me getting back to montevideo here it is) montevideo proclaim recognizition to be irevocable.
If you turned government over to the Palestinians, they would likely slaughter or (if we are lucky) expelled Jews by the millions (and probably take all their property as they expelled them). not if we do it the way I want. and taking the land of jews expelled you mean giving it back to those the jews stole it from?
Even more practically, if you tried to do that, the Israeli military (and likely the U.S. military if it were needed) would likely intervene, and I doubt your personal army is better than theirs. Do you even understand what I want. firstly one of my goals is to split the Us from the chains Israel has it in. so it wouldn't be defending them but with those dealing with them. secondly I don't want a violent fixing I would much rather fix the problem politically.

Given that there is a decent legal argument for recognizing them, only if we accept your false premise
and that the alternative is a fairy tale that could never work, I think it is safe to say that your preferred reading of international law (while there is a theoretically plausible basis for it), is nothing but a dead letter. The alternative can work. it just requires a level of commitment and work that you do not wish to put in. Just because the right thing is hard doesn't meant we shouldn't do it.

The only way your position can win would be if you traveled back in time to 1947 and stopped the formation at the source. At this point, you are trying to uncook a meal prepared long ago.

Wrong. My position will wins when we get the Israel to want peace more than the destruction of the palestinians. I'm sorry you feel the need to excuse Israel's crimes and the crimes involved in its creation and the support thereof but we shouldn't just bury them because the lead to ideas we don't like. if we follow my ideas we would end up with one state with jews and arabs living in harmony. we wouldn't see this state in my life time nor the life time of my grandchildren but that of my great grandchildren. You need to quit thinking so short term.anything that will be truly successful is going to take decades of hard work to come to fulfillment. Your dealing with mentalities that were formed and reinforced over hundreds, thousands of years your not going to get the changes needed in a few short years.

nirakar

03-28-10, 12:13 AM

This is especially obvious in this case given the 1947 vote of the General Assembly in favor of establishing Israel...which is pretty clear evidence that the UN Charter was not intended to derogate from the provisions set forth in the Mandate on the establishment of Israel as a Jewish homeland.

The Turks, the British, the League of Nations, the USA, the 1948 Arab states, Israel, and the United Nations are all irrelevant when it comes to moral authority.

When the mafia bosses get together to divide up organized crime territories they have no moral authority, just the authority that comes with controlling networks of thugs. The UN is the same as an assembly of representatives from the world's organized crime networks. Collectively the nations may value peace more than they do individually but all the national governments whether democratic or dictatorship are corrupt and violent and are not moral authorities.

We know right from wrong or at least we should be able to know right from wrong if we don't blind ourselves. Maybe there needs to be some elaboration of what "thou shalt not steal means" because we have new modern ways to steal. Maybe It should be explained for the dim witted what the purpose of the "Ten Commandments" was.

What was done to the Palestinians by the UN was wrong and what was done to the Palestinians by the Israelis for the last 60 years was also wrong. Israel has not been as wrong to the Palestinians as my ancestors were to the native Americans or as the Turks were to the Armenians but that in no way changes right from wrong for what was done to the Palestinians.

CheskiChips

03-28-10, 12:54 AM

Fine, just please stop using my tax money and please stop making my nations foreign policy stupider than it would have been if Israel never existed (It would have been stupid anyway).

Also, if you ever speak of justice I will call you a hypocrite for not caring about Justice for Palestinians.

You make things up.

Also Sandy, Spock Zionists, and Christian Zionists, if DNA eventually shows that the Palestinians are more genetically Jewish than Jews are. How would that fit into your cult beliefs? But since DNA does not fit with a 4000 year old Earth maybe DNA does not matter.

These Israeli's are not the Bibles Israeli's. The teachings of Jesus are not compatible with some of the old testament and not compatible with right wing Christianity and are not compatible with the politics of Netanyahu or the politics of Sandy.

I will stay on Jesus's side because the people who oppose the teachings of Jesus and turn Jesus into an Idol can only make hell on Earth while the teachings of Jesus are the very teachings that must be embraced if we are to make Earth into heaven.

The God of my delusions would like us to make heaven on earth while the god of your delusions wants ............?
Go ahead, spread your theology as fact.

Giambattista

03-28-10, 02:24 AM

Israel really isn't much of a friend or ally. They've committed an act of war against us (the attack on the USS Liberty), they've sold our technology to communist China, they've spied on us and bartered the stolen secrets to the USSR.

I have heard of that, but don't know specifics. Could you post a link? Or I will just search... I know that Mossad has plenty of strings to pull (and lines to tap!) in the US.

Our alliance with Israel has given us nothing but what CIA-types would refer to as "blowback". If they're "God's chosen people", they don't need our help or taxpayer money, do they?

:D No sh*t! Of course, some people (not me) often call Jews "parasites" or "bloodsuckers". Yes, those are unsavory white supremacist types in general, but it seems like you could say that about the state of Israel. I don't know any hard numbers off the top of my head, but as far as I'm aware, Israel's military would be nothing without welfare from the US.

CheskiChips

03-28-10, 02:41 AM

:D No sh*t! Of course, some people (not me) often call Jews "parasites" or "bloodsuckers". Yes, those are unsavory white supremacist types in general, but it seems like you could say that about the state of Israel. I don't know any hard numbers off the top of my head, but as far as I'm aware, Israel's military would be nothing without welfare from the US.

sigh...

I posted that information:

I'll address this once and probably not for all...the US Aid to Israel is so conflated that there's no semblance of reality left in it. Review this Congressional Research Review of US Foreign Aid to Israel (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf) specifically page 21.
From 1949 to 1996 they averaged 2.387 billion USD per year. Israeli GDP is currently 199 billion USD...that's 1% of total current income, consequently aid to Israel has been reduced nearly every year since year 2000. Do you really believe that 1% of GDP is what's allowed Israel to have a sustainable society?

So your presumptions are incorrect, Israel's military would only be 1% weaker.

Giambattista

03-28-10, 02:50 AM

I don't understand the "Israel first" mentality amongst many conservative Christians. Jews are NOT Christians! Jews can convert to Christianity. Some retain some of the observations and rituals, but accept Christ as the Messiah. And sometimes Christians revert to a Judaic Christianity, where things like unclean foods are observed, at least in some sense. But practicing Jews are not Christians. And you can call yourself a Jew, and yet be atheist.
Jewish is the only label I can think of that is truly regarded as both a religion and a race.

So why do conservative Christians treat the entire nation like some sacred cow? They aren't "saved" in any fundamental Christian sense of the word, and actually alot of self-described fundamentalists as far as I know would totally disagree with treating Israel like a family member. A Jew who denies Christ is, in my understanding, of little more value than an out and out Satanic High Priest.

Far as I can tell, what it boils down to, despite any good intentions, is the role Israel plays in Armageddon. Other than that, pumping money and trust into that country has no use in the conservative Christian world.

I would like to differentiate between Conservative Christianity and Fundamental Christianity. Both encompass many differing beliefs, but I associate "Conservative" Christianity with alot of mainstream evangelical churches and the political movements that often accompany them (Pat Robertson). Churches that I would identify as fundamentalist are often opposed to these more mainline churches, sometimes **vehemently**, to the point that you have to wonder... is ANYONE going to get to HEAVEN?!?!

But yeah. World Net Daily sometimes runs this ad about Oil for Israel or whatnot. It always kind of bugged me. I think it's a longtime advertiser there, but I only visit occasionally, so I'm not sure.

Giambattista

03-28-10, 03:08 AM

sigh...

I posted that information:

So your presumptions are incorrect, Israel's military would only be 1% weaker.

Well, I didn't claim to be an expert. It was only what I've heard, so I try not to state as fact what I don't know as fact. I guess I either heard wrong, or misinterpreted?

Thank you for your correction.

Captain Kremmen

03-28-10, 06:15 AM

A Jew who denies Christ is, in my understanding, of little more value than an out and out Satanic High Priest.

Value to whom?

S.A.M.

03-28-10, 06:16 AM

Well, I didn't claim to be an expert. It was only what I've heard, so I try not to state as fact what I don't know as fact. I guess I either heard wrong, or misinterpreted?

Thank you for your correction.

I recommend two good reads:

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724)

The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Industry-Reflections-Exploitation-Suffering/dp/1859843239)

Put together, these two books supply a phemomenol amount of information on how the Israel Lobby works.

If you want more, this is supposed to be a good read, but I haven't got around to it yet

Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (http://www.amazon.com/Zionism-Militarism-Decline-US-Power/dp/0932863604/ref=pd_sim_b_25)

CheskiChips

03-28-10, 06:29 AM

I recommend two good reads:

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Policy/dp/0374177724)

The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Industry-Reflections-Exploitation-Suffering/dp/1859843239)

Put together, these two books supply a phemomenol amount of information on how the Israel Lobby works.

If you want more, this is supposed to be a good read, but I haven't got around to it yet

Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (http://www.amazon.com/Zionism-Militarism-Decline-US-Power/dp/0932863604/ref=pd_sim_b_25)

more sighs, more lies...

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 07:33 AM

Well since the argument is about settlement in the West Bank, you're really not making many good points in supporting Kedima. Kedima is against surrendering any of Jerusalem or the West Bank settlement projects as much as Likud.I doubt they would have had the audacity to proceed with building during peace negotiations, though. In fact, I think that Kadima has gone even to extremes in trying to court better relations with the Palestinians.

People don't like Kedima as much because of their scandalous behavior... both Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert were extremely shady.Such accusations are common during political elections. Besides, Livni is not the same person as either Olmert or Sharon.

More to critize has been their prisoner exchange programs...where they basically gave up hundreds of terrorists for a few (to one) citizen(s) both incentivizing capture and allowing murderers to walk freely unrepentent.Yes. However, although I disagree with these prisoner exchanges, I think that a strictly hardline stance doesn't work either. I realize that Olmert's policies went a bit beyond just "compromising" at times, but all that coming down too hard on Hamas would accomplish would be to generate sympathy for them in the Arabic and Muslim world.

They were also weak when it came to standing up to America; Condilza walked around like she was prime minister in her visists...she behaved as if she owned the place. Likud is more nationalistic and believes in increased Israeli sovereignty.With the hysterics and demonization I have heard over President Obama trying to establish good relations with Israel's Arabic neighbors, I think that Israel is more reliant on the US than Netanyahu's government is ready to admit, don't you think?

Besides, I think Barack Obama probably did more for Israel's security by bowing to the Saudi King than Bush did during his entire administration. In all seriousness, the incident was blown far out of proportion, and I think that the huge fuss over it was entirely politically motivated. I consider this to be completely shameful and beneath the dignity of any nation, developed or not.

Then again; does it matter to explain these things to someone who has more respect for the murderous Saudi Arabian leader than Netanyahu? Probably not.Because I am fairly open-minded when being addressed as a rational, intelligent human being instead of dealing with someone who is just trying to put down my point-of-view and me with it.

For example, I deal with people here on a regular basis who piss on any view that I posit in a discussion based on the fact that I live in the US. I don't think my reaction to that is disproportionate. I am completely tractable when I am being addressed as a human being and it is assumed that I have a right to form my own conclusions based on my own conscience. If you have experiences with me as arrogant or stubborn it is because I have a need to assert myself when I am confronted with certain kinds of bullshit, and I am not going to pull any punches with someone who wouldn't afford me the same courtesy. A person who is completely unrestrained in lambasting MY culture will get the same from me. I don't really care how much butt-hurt there is in that culture's history. When I am attacked, I am going to fight back, and I am very venomous and persistent. I carry grudges for years. However, that does not negate the fact that I am quite capable of being extremely rational when I am confronted with someone who is armed with more facts than rhetoric and is willing to accord me the respect of an intellectual equal.

There is the use in it, kay?

If it helps matters, I apologize for comparing Netanyahu to the Saudi King. I don't know enough about either of them to make any such comparisons, anyway.

CheskiChips

03-28-10, 07:52 AM

I doubt they would have had the audacity to proceed with building during peace negotiations, though. In fact, I think that Kadima has gone even to extremes in trying to court better relations with the Palestinians.

Such accusations are common during political elections. Besides, Livni is not the same person as either Olmert or Sharon.

Yes. However, although I disagree with these prisoner exchanges, I think that a strictly hardline stance doesn't work either. I realize that Olmert's policies went a bit beyond just "compromising" at times, but all that coming down too hard on Hamas would accomplish would be to generate sympathy for them in the Arabic and Muslim world.

With the hysterics and demonization I have heard over President Obama trying to establish good relations with Israel's Arabic neighbors, I think that Israel is more reliant on the US than Netanyahu's government is ready to admit, don't you think?

Besides, I think Barack Obama probably did more for Israel's security by bowing to the Saudi King than Bush did during his entire administration. In all seriousness, the incident was blown far out of proportion, and I think that the huge fuss over it was entirely politically motivated. I consider this to be completely shameful and beneath the dignity of any nation, developed or not.

Because I am fairly open-minded when being addressed as a rational, intelligent human being instead of dealing with someone who is just trying to put down my point-of-view and me with it.

For example, I deal with people here on a regular basis who piss on any view that I posit in a discussion based on the fact that I live in the US. I don't think my reaction to that is disproportionate. I am completely tractable when I am being addressed as a human being and it is assumed that I have a right to form my own conclusions based on my own conscience. If you have experiences with me as arrogant or stubborn it is because I have a need to assert myself when I am confronted with certain kinds of bullshit. And I am not going to pull any punches with someone else who wouldn't afford me the same courtesy. A person who is completely unrestrained in lambasting MY culture will get the same from me. I don't really care how much butt-hurt there is in that culture's history. Criticizing me for having more weapons and a greater ability to use them is like saying Israel is this horrible murderer culture because Hamas is completely incompetent. When I am attacked, I am going to fight back, and I am very venomous and persistent. I carry grudges for years. However, that does not negate the fact that I am quite capable of being extremely rational when I am confronted with someone who is armed with more facts than rhetoric and is willing to accord me the respect of an intellectual equal.

There is the use in it, kay?

If it helps matters, I apologize for comparing Netanyahu to the Saudi King. I don't know enough about either of them to make any such comparisons, anyway.

I live there around 3 or 4 months out of the year...so I don't really need to read much into your views to know you're wrong.

sandy

03-28-10, 07:55 AM

What was Netanyahu doing going over to AIPAC and bragging about how he was going to march over to the White House straight after and take a dump on Obama's head? How do you arrive ostensibly to negotiate with your ally, then announce your intentions to dictate terms before you've even begun the talks, and expect the red carpet treatment as a reward? Talk about WTF indeed, it's really sad and disappointing to see Israel going down this path....

That is not what happened/how it happened. Netan is a gentleman. Obama is a pompous, arrogant moron who does not understand the value of Israel.

I would like to see president Obama bow before B. Netanyahu just like he bowed before the saudi king..

And saudi arabia is a democratic, peacfull, human rights model that is lead by a clever man.

The Saudi king who is responsible for the violation of at least a dozen of human rights who sponsor with his oil money Islamic extremists that wants to kill you is interesting? dead end.

Most excellent points. You really do get it.

Where was God during the holocaust?What do your preachers say about that?
God gave man free will. We have been fcking up ever since.

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 07:56 AM

I live there around 3 or 4 months out of the year...so I don't really need to read much into your views to know you're wrong.Okay, then what is really going on? Come on, get out of this world where AC is trying to somehow convince or persuade you, and work with the reality that AC is working with a limited knowledge base to try to understand a political system that is probably divided along dramatically different lines from his own culture. I am confident that you are trying to be truthful, although you are like me in being weighed down by your own prejudices, entrenched beliefs and so on. I don't judge you for that, and I am really interested in trying to grasp this subject.

CheskiChips

03-28-10, 07:58 AM

Okay, then what is really going on?

Read what I said for the past x-pages, read what Spock said for the past x-pages. That's the vantage point from Israel.

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 08:04 AM

Read what I said for the past x-pages, read what Spock said for the past x-pages. That's the vantage point from Israel.

I was having trouble understanding Spock's POV between his hysterics over that bowing incident in Saudi Arabia.

CheskiChips

03-28-10, 08:23 AM

I was having trouble understanding Spock's POV between his hysterics over that bowing incident in Saudi Arabia.

Here's the jist of it:
- Palestinians have refused to become citizens.
- Israel therefore doesn't know who exists and who doesn't.
- Israel in almost all political parties (Including both Kedima and Likud) strongly believe in a unified Jerusalem with no conditions attached.
- The United States thinks because they give 2.4 billion (GDP of Israel is 199 bil) a year they can tell Israel to segregate Jerusalem.
- Kedima used to capitulate to the US' needs.
- Likud says America can suck an egg and keep it's money if it comes down to it...for a few reasons...
-- The money isn't spent at the discretion of Israel, it's spent at the discretion of American politicians.
-- They've infringed sovereingty.
-- Israel does more than 2.4 billion in military purchase with the US, meaning a net loss to the US.
-- Israeli Mossad is the primary source of intelligence for the US in the Middle East, and it's freely shared right now despite costing Israel hundreds of millions.

- Israel said "Iranian president threatened us"
- US said "No he didn't"
- Israel said "They're building nuclear enrichment plants"
- US said "No they aren't"
- Israel said "they're enriching uranium"
- US said "No they aren't"
- Israel said "They now have enriched uranium"
- US said "no they don't"
... You see pattern here?

Everything the US says to Israel is false because the US government sucks and it changes drastically every 2 to 6 years.

The UN puts a new law against Israel every day it seems; they drive their trucks around Jerusalem inciting violence...the UN representatives incite the violence! They don't follow laws, they do nothing good, they only print bad things (which are often fabrications) that lead to the UN imposing more laws...and the US makes Israel have them. According to the UN's action history, Israel is responsible for around 92% of all world problems. Yet they say this is how there will be peace :confused:

So...all the while Palestine shoots hundreds of thousands of rockets at Israel, and Israel waits about 7 years to retaliate. And then the world says "But they're not powerful enough to hurt you Israel - it isn't equal." So what? If they did have the right tools they would be killing hundreds of thousands of peoples. And if the middle-east had it their way, (with exception to some places such as UAE), they would be providing Hamas with the right tools. It's only because Israel has strict policies to limit traffic in and out of gaza that they never make it there. Which are then termed "embargos to starve Palestine to death" while the US says it's "unjust" and blames Israel. :bugeye: All the while Palestine has lower death rates than 95% of Africa, Asia, and South America! Yet the whole world says it's not anti-semitism.

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 08:33 AM

Here's the jist of it:
- Palestinians have refused to become citizens.
- Israel therefore doesn't know who exists and who doesn't.To my understanding, a fairly large proportion of your present voting population is Arabic. Well, what is the normal justification behind the holdouts?

sandy

03-28-10, 08:33 AM

Here's the jist of it:
- Palestinians have refused to become citizens.
- Israel therefore doesn't know who exists and who doesn't.
- Israel in almost all political parties (Including both Kedima and Likud) strongly believe in a unified Jerusalem with no conditions attached.
- The United States thinks because they give 2.4 billion (GDP of Israel is 199 bil) a year they can tell Israel to segregate Jerusalem.
- Kedima used to capitulate to the US' needs.
- Likud says America can suck an egg and keep it's money if it comes down to it...for a few reasons...
-- The money isn't spent at the discretion of Israel, it's spent at the discretion of American politicians.
-- They've infringed sovereingty.
-- Israel does more than 2.4 billion in military purchase with the US, meaning a net loss to the US.
-- Israeli Mossad is the primary source of intelligence for the US in the Middle East, and it's freely shared right now despite costing Israel hundreds of millions.

- Israel said "Iranian president threatened us"
- US said "No he didn't"
- Israel said "They're building nuclear enrichment plants"
- US said "No they aren't"
- Israel said "they're enriching uranium"
- US said "No they aren't"
- Israel said "They now have enriched uranium"
- US said "no they don't"
... You see pattern here?

Everything the US says to Israel is false because the US government sucks and it changes drastically every 2 to 6 years.

The UN puts a new law against Israel every day it seems; they drive their trucks around Jerusalem inciting violence...the UN representatives incite the violence! They don't follow laws, they do nothing good, they only print bad things (which are often fabrications) that lead to the UN imposing more laws...and the US makes Israel have them. According to the UN's action history, Israel is responsible for around 92% of all world problems. Yet they say this is how there will be peace :confused:

So...all the while Palestine shoots hundreds of thousands of rockets at Israel, and Israel waits about 7 years to retaliate. And then the world says "But they're not powerful enough to hurt you Israel - it isn't equal." So what? If they did have the right tools they would be killing hundreds of thousands of peoples. And if the middle-east had it their way, (with exception to some places such as UAE), they would be providing Hamas with the right tools. It's only because Israel has strict policies to limit traffic in and out of gaza that they never make it there. Which are then termed "embargos to starve Palestine to death" while the US says it's "unjust" and blames Israel. :bugeye: All the while Palestine has lower death rates than 95% of Africa, Asia, and South America! Yet the whole world says it's not anti-semitism.

That was interesting. It is our new president who has the trouble with Israel. Bush was awesome. Many experts say the main problem is Netan thinks Obama is a Muslim. This may have clouded his usual excellent behavior. The US must always be an ally/friend to Israel. It is in our best interest.

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 09:16 AM

- Israel said "Iranian president threatened us"
- US said "No he didn't"
- Israel said "They're building nuclear enrichment plants"
- US said "No they aren't"
- Israel said "they're enriching uranium"
- US said "No they aren't"
- Israel said "They now have enriched uranium"
- US said "no they don't"
... You see pattern here?If the US does not court Tehran as a friendly, they will attack Israel and cause all sorts of other problems. It is a very sensitive diplomatic situation in which a lot of people could die at once if the US were to make the wrong move. Try to understand, the government that presently holds power in Tehran is not strictly speaking evil and not exactly totalitarian, but they are not exactly rational either. President Obama is trying to establish dialogue with the country, so hopefully they won't think the only way they can win is to murder you.

Everything the US says to Israel is false because the US government sucks and it changes drastically every 2 to 6 years.I am sorry that you don't like the way we do our government. I will take your criticism into account, partly because it supports my view that we should appoint cabinet positions based on the same terms as a regular day job, not according to whatever political party happens to be winning lately. This would make the executive branch of our government much more stable, which would improve our relations with foreign partners among other benefits.

The UN puts a new law against Israel every day it seems; they drive their trucks around Jerusalem inciting violence...the UN representatives incite the violence! They don't follow laws, they do nothing good, they only print bad things (which are often fabrications) that lead to the UN imposing more laws...and the US makes Israel have them. According to the UN's action history, Israel is responsible for around 92% of all world problems. Yet they say this is how there will be peace :confused:And Likud thinks that Israel is better off without the friendship of an influential member of the UN and member of the Security Council, namely the USA. With the UN just about ready to start taking steps against Israel including the Goldstone Report, which I remind you the US rejected at great personal expense, I think that Israel needs the USA.

It's only because Israel has strict policies to limit traffic in and out of gaza that they never make it there. Which are then termed "embargos to starve Palestine to death" while the US says it's "unjust" and blames Israel. :bugeye: All the while Palestine has lower death rates than 95% of Africa, Asia, and South America! Yet the whole world says it's not anti-semitism.Okay, so the real dilemma is that Israel's efforts to maintain its national security is also limiting Gaza's ability to transport important goods across their borders, and there is very little that your government can do to reconcile this problem unless Hamas and other groups simply desist altogether in their attacks against Israel. I see why this would be frustrating.

How does Likud intend to deal with Tehran?

iceaura

03-28-10, 01:08 PM

Here's the jist of it:
- Palestinians have refused to become citizens.
- Israel therefore doesn't know who exists and who doesn't.
- Israel in almost all political parties (Including both Kedima and Likud) strongly believe in a unified Jerusalem with no conditions attached.
- The United States thinks because they give 2.4 billion (GDP of Israel is 199 bil) a year they can tell Israel to segregate Jerusalem.
- Kedima used to capitulate to the US' needs.
- Likud says America can suck an egg and keep it's money if it comes down to it...for a few reasons...
-- The money isn't spent at the discretion of Israel, it's spent at the discretion of American politicians.
-- They've infringed sovereingty.
-- Israel does more than 2.4 billion in military purchase with the US, meaning a net loss to the US.
-- Israeli Mossad is the primary source of intelligence for the US in the Middle East, and it's freely shared right now despite costing Israel hundreds of millions.

- Israel said "Iranian president threatened us"
- US said "No he didn't"
- Israel said "They're building nuclear enrichment plants"
- US said "No they aren't"
- Israel said "they're enriching uranium"
- US said "No they aren't"
- Israel said "They now have enriched uranium"
- US said "no they don't"
... You see pattern here? I do see a pattern. The divergence of the hardcore Zionist assertions from physical reality is extreme enough to warrant questioning the sanity of anyone subscribing to them. Spock, in particular, has retailed enough utter nonsense in the service of vicious bigotry to warrant pigeonholing anyone who even casually subscribes to his world view without immediate apology.

The "US" said the Iranian Pres did not threaten Israel? Good lord.

But this one might be worth highlighting:
-- Israeli Mossad is the primary source of intelligence for the US in the Middle East, and it's freely shared right now despite costing Israel hundreds of millions. Apart from the odd viewpoint of intelligence as a market commodity, valued by its monetary investment, we have the obvious consideration that the US intelligence in the Middle East has royally sucked. Allegedly we are still trying to figure out, if our officials can be even somewhat believed, how and why all our intelligence in Iraq and Iran proved so absurdly wrong. Are you sure you want to claim the credit of that for Israel? Other people have made that suggestion, but with much different motives.

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 02:00 PM

I do see a pattern. The divergence of the hardcore Zionist assertions from physical reality is extreme enough to warrant questioning the sanity of anyone subscribing to them. Spock, in particular, has retailed enough utter nonsense in the service of vicious bigotry to warrant pigeonholing anyone who even casually subscribes to his world view without immediate apology.In my experience, people who have a hardline stance against Israel tend to be just as vicious and uncompromising.

However, I see the crux of the disagreement and a lot of misunderstandings as the refusal by any faction in Israel's politics to give up on Jerusalem. Although this is a highly unfortunate inconvenience to our peace-making efforts, we are going to have to work with the cold, hard reality that Tel Aviv will not give up any part of Jersusalem unless the US and the UN together were to take an extremely hardline stance to force them into giving it up. Even if we could manage to press Israel into compromising on Jerusalem, it would damage our ability to work effectively with Tel Aviv. On the other hand, if we don't put any pressure on them at all, it will damage our relations elsewhere. It is not a pleasant reality, but that seems to be what we have been dealt.

Considering this, the US and the UN will have to come to terms with the fact that it might or might not be worth the trouble to try to persuade the Jewish-dominated state of Israel to cede any part of Jerusalem. They are obviously willing and able to put up a fight for it, and it is not automatically in everyone's interests for them to not get their way. As far as the US and the UN are concerned, the center of our concerns is to try to slow down the violence in the region if at all possible. Dividing up Jerusalem, remember, was supposed to be an instrument to that end.

Now, what I think is that, once we are being clear with each other on this point, that no amount of semantics or wordplay will put it in Ameica's interests or the UN's interests to give Tel Aviv leave to do whatever they want in Jerusalem but also that the Israelis are not going to let it go easily, then our discussions on this issue will make a great deal more sense. What I am talking about here is transparency.

pjdude1219

03-28-10, 02:09 PM

In my experience, people who have a hardline stance against Israel tend to be just as vicious and uncompromising.

However, I see the crux of the disagreement and a lot of misunderstandings as the refusal by any faction in Israel's politics to give up on Jerusalem. Although this is a highly unfortunate inconvenience to our peace-making efforts, we are going to have to work with the cold, hard reality that Tel Aviv will not give up any part of Jersusalem unless the US and the UN together were to take an extremely hardline stance to force them into giving it up. Even if we could manage to press Israel into compromising on Jerusalem, it would damage our ability to work effectively with Tel Aviv. On the other hand, if we don't put any pressure on them at all, it will damage our relations elsewhere. It is not a pleasant reality, but that seems to be what we have been dealt.

Considering this, the US and the UN will have to come to terms with the fact that it might or might not be worth the trouble to try to persuade the Jewish-dominated state of Israel to cede any part of Jerusalem. They are obviously willing and able to put up a fight for it, and it is not automatically in everyone's interests for them to not get their way. As far as the US and the UN are concerned, the center of our concerns is to try to slow down the violence in the region if at all possible. Dividing up Jerusalem, remember, was supposed to be an instrument to that end.

Now, what I think is that, once we are being clear with each other on this point, that no amount of semantics or wordplay will put it in Ameica's interests or the UN's interests to give Tel Aviv leave to do whatever they want in Jerusalem but also that the Israelis are not going to let it go easily, then our discussions on this issue will make a great deal more sense.
so because its hard we shouldn't do the right thing?

Pinwheel

03-28-10, 02:12 PM

Alien Cockroach is right. Israel want it all, they are going to fight to take it all, so we might as well simply accept it, and find some other poor underdog to support.

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 02:14 PM

so because its hard we shouldn't do the right thing?I disagree with the concept that "right thing" is necessarily defined as forcing Israel to agree to dividing up Jerusalem. It might be serviceable as a means to an end, but our real end is to try to reduce the violence in that particular region in a permanent and substantial way. If we can just get to that simple goal, it would open up our diplomatic inroads with the Islamic world substantially.

pjdude1219

03-28-10, 02:21 PM

Alien Cockroach is right. Israel want it all, they are going to fight to take it all, so we might as well simply accept it, and find some other poor underdog to support.

why should we just accept and cater to people who are willing to flaunt human decency.

pjdude1219

03-28-10, 02:22 PM

I disagree with the concept that "right thing" is necessarily defined as forcing Israel to agree to dividing up Jerusalem. It might be serviceable as a means to an end, but our real end is to try to reduce the violence in that particular region in a permanent and substantial way. If we can just get to that simple goal, it would open up our diplomatic inroads with the Islamic world substantially.

So you think having the palestinian forced to give up yet more to a country that has made no bones about wanting all of palestine is going to get peace? your just being naive.

Pinwheel

03-28-10, 02:23 PM

Because in the end, God will sort us all out. And if he doesnt exist, then we might as well grab all we can get while we are alive cos after that we're just worm food.

pjdude1219

03-28-10, 02:25 PM

Because in the end, God will sort us all out. And if he doesnt exist, then we might as well grab all we can get while we are alive cos after that we're just worm food.

so we should let evil and injustice win simply because it won't give up? should we have rolled over for the nazis because they would have given up?

Pinwheel

03-28-10, 02:26 PM

No because that was our fight. This one however...

pjdude1219

03-28-10, 02:29 PM

No because that was our fight. This one however...

we broke it we fix it

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 02:30 PM

So you think having the palestinian forced to give up yet more to a country that has made no bones about wanting all of palestine is going to get peace?Actually, the Kadima party in Israel, which I have vocally supported for much of this thread, is an outspoken advocate of the two-state solution. They take a much less hardline stance on the matter than any other force in Israel's politics. Without Kadima, the only means we have of getting concessions out of Israel is to lay sanctions against them, and sanctions don't work.

your just being naive.Dude, I'm used to being flamed for my views. You're not special. I have found that whether or not I am being flamed for what I think has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not my views are based on an accurate, fair reflection of reality. Either address me respectfully, or find someone else to flame for their opinions, kay?

Pinwheel

03-28-10, 02:30 PM

Well we're not fixing it, we're making things worse.

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 02:38 PM

Well we're not fixing it, we're making things worse.Well, as you should know by now, I am open to reasonable suggestions.

Pandaemoni

03-28-10, 02:47 PM

you have yet to show it is irrelevant.

I have shown why, the legal rule of the specific trumping the general. The rule is not "the later trumps the earlier" unless the later passed law is equally specific (and in effect an overturning of the prior law) or unless the later law is general but there is clear indication that it was intended (specifically) to trump the earlier law.

you mean the same vote that basically used mafia tactics to ensure its passing?

The details of the passing are relevant only if they voif the enactment, which they don't. It's rather like claiming there is not 14th amendment because the southern states ratified it under duress (which is certainly true, but the 14th amendment is valid nevertheless).

and now to ruin your nice little argument. No it isn't. You would only, and only, have a point if the UN actually created Israel in setting up the lands and than handing the reigns to the jewish people that's not what happened as we noted. there was a bloody war that involved the destruction of arab towns and the grabbing of land. If your premise was true we would have seen the british turn over power directly to the jews of palestine we didn't. they just left and let them duke it out.

That doesn't ruin anything. The intent of the British was clear, and it is irrelevant that there was violence involved at the time...because of course there were people who were unhappy that they were being left out of the power struggle, and it was also clear that the establishment of the Jewish state was going to require some strong arming by the Jews. It's perfectly understandable that the British, while supporting that process, didn't want to dirty their hands implementing it.

Only if we accept your false starting assumption that the UN created Israel.

That is not really my starting assumption. The Mandate was the start of the process of the creation, and it left the next stages of the creation to the British. The UN vote was merely important beceuase it signaled the intent that Israel was not intended to be subject to the rules on self-determination of other colonial holdings.

and taking the land of jews expelled you mean giving it back to those the jews stole it from?

No, I mean turning it over not to the original owners but to some "Palestinian government".

Do you even understand what I want. firstly one of my goals is to split the Us from the chains Israel has it in. so it wouldn't be defending them but with those dealing with them. secondly I don't want a violent fixing I would much rather fix the problem politically.

Declaring the very existence of Israel to be contrary to law is not conducive to finding a political solution. In fact, if anyone listened to what you thought, it would suggest that the Palestinians should fight on until this illegal, illegitimate rogue state is wiped from the face of the planet. I don't see any political solution that includes declaring Israel's establishment illegal save a solution that involves a Second Holocaust.

The alternative can work. it just requires a level of commitment and work that you do not wish to put in. Just because the right thing is hard doesn't meant we shouldn't do it.

Well, I am glad you want Israel to be allowed to continue to exist, though I don't understand why if you think they are an illegal state.

Wrong. My position will wins when we get the Israel to want peace more than the destruction of the palestinians. I'm sorry you feel the need to excuse Israel's crimes and the crimes involved in its creation and the support thereof but we shouldn't just bury them because the lead to ideas we don't like. if we follow my ideas we would end up with one state with jews and arabs living in harmony. we wouldn't see this state in my life time nor the life time of my grandchildren but that of my great grandchildren. You need to quit thinking so short term.anything that will be truly successful is going to take decades of hard work to come to fulfillment. Your dealing with mentalities that were formed and reinforced over hundreds, thousands of years your not going to get the changes needed in a few short years.

Wrong again. Your whole argument leads to nothing but a sense that Isael must be destroyed amongst everyone but you. Look at the people who argue for the illegality of Israel and you won't see many advocating a two state solution of the sort both you and I prefer.

Also, the attitudes that are the problem developed in just one century, not several and not thousands of years. Jews and Arabs lived side by side in relative peace for a long time compared to current animosities. In fact Jews and Arabs still do...in Israel.

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 03:34 PM

pjdude, please try to articulate a rational, syllogistically sound argument for taking a harder line toward Israel if that is indeed what you are advocating.

iceaura

03-28-10, 04:55 PM

In my experience, people who have a hardline stance against Israel tend to be just as vicious and uncompromising. So? Israel is the aggressor here.

However, I see the crux of the disagreement and a lot of misunderstandings as the refusal by any faction in Israel's politics to give up on Jerusalem. Although this is a highly unfortunate inconvenience to our peace-making efforts, we are going to have to work with the cold, hard reality that Tel Aviv will not give up any part of Jersusalem unless the US and the UN together were to take an extremely hardline stance to force them into giving it up. Even if we could manage to press Israel into compromising on Jerusalem, it would damage our ability to work effectively with Tel Aviv. Tell me again about the advantages of "working effectively" with Tel Aviv. Because I'm not seeing too many, in all this negotiating with ourselves about what we can and can't insist on from Israel. Israel is pushing this situation to the brink of something pretty horrible, and there isn't much excuse for abetting that.

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 05:29 PM

So? Israel is the aggressor here.I have been hearing a different story from those who either live in Israel full-time or spend part of their time in Israel.

Tell me again about the advantages of "working effectively" with Tel Aviv.It entails fewer people, in the long-run, being blown into a million little pieces.

Israel is pushing this situation to the brink of something pretty horrible, and there isn't much excuse for abetting that.The Israelis have been making similar accusations against Hamas, Hezbollah and Tehran. If you are talking about their expansionist projects, I would agree that they are problematical and inflammatory. I see it as senseless territorial pissing, and I will have you know that I have taken a great deal of heat for this point of view. However, their settlements and building projects in West Bank and elsewhere are getting in the way of international efforts and efforts by the US to initiate a peace process there.

I refuse to adopt the same hardline stance on it that you do, and I have been called a racist for that. Frankly, I resent it.

pjdude1219

03-28-10, 07:20 PM

I have shown why, the legal rule of the specific trumping the general. The rule is not "the later trumps the earlier" unless the later passed law is equally specific (and in effect an overturning of the prior law) or unless the later law is general but there is clear indication that it was intended (specifically) to trump the earlier law. The UN charter is the guidelines of what the UN can and can't do. Where a resolution and the charter disagree the UN charter must take precedence for the same reason when a US law and the constitution disagree the constitution must take precedence. their is a hierarchy to laws. The principle you are talking about only comes into effect when the things in question are on the same level they not. the UN charter is higher than a general assembly resolution. A general law higher than a specific one takes precedence. Your still trying to argue that the UN created Israel it did nothing of the such.

The details of the passing are relevant only if they void the enactment, which they don't. It's rather like claiming there is not 14th amendment because the southern states ratified it under duress (which is certainly true, but the 14th amendment is valid nevertheless).Bad analogy. the southern state were under the auspices of the constitution the fact they didn't ratify them at the time didn't mean they were void. Here your saying that even though the UN charter had specific instructions on how a countries were to be formed a resolution in opposition of that is legit. and passed through duress.

That doesn't ruin anything. maybe in lala land but in reality it does. [/QUOTE]The intent of the British was clear,[/QUOTE] their intent was irrelevant. they hadn't the right to prevent or allow the prevention of self determination in palestine
and it is irrelevant that there was violence involved at the time...because of course there were people who were unhappy that they were being left out of the power struggle, and it was also clear that the establishment of the Jewish state was going to require some strong arming by the Jews. It's perfectly understandable that the British, while supporting that process, didn't want to dirty their hands implementing it. So it was irrelevant that the people of the territory were being stripped of their right to determine their own political status?

That is not really my starting assumption. than why are you hanging everything on it.
The Mandate was the start of the process of the creation, and it left the next stages of the creation to the British. Balfour. IT has negating clauses. the british basically said a jewish state was only valid if the right of others were protected. they weren't ergo the jewish state(ISrael) isn't valid.
The UN vote was merely important becuase it signaled the intent that Israel was not intended to be subject to the rules on self-determination of other colonial holdings. pretty little Idea but since it violates the UN's own governing rules it is void. secondly the resolution didn't create Israel. IF you can get over that myth you should leave the debate.

No, I mean turning it over not to the original owners but to some "Palestinian government". the former will gain the latter.

Declaring the very existence of Israel to be contrary to law is not conducive to finding a political solution. the truth and reality must be the basis and not myth.
In fact, if anyone listened to what you thought, it would suggest that the Palestinians should fight on until this illegal, illegitimate rogue state is wiped from the face of the planet. that is sole dependent on if Israel continue to treat them as less than animals or as human beings. remove the threats Israel poses the need to fight goes away.
I don't see any political solution that includes declaring Israel's establishment illegal save a solution that involves a Second Holocaust. the only second holocaust that is going to be happen is the one the Israelis commit against the palestinians if they aren't reigned in from their violence and bigotry.

Well, I am glad you want Israel to be allowed to continue to exist, I don't want it too. it would create to many problems too.
though I don't understand why if you think they are an illegal state. Go back and reread my posts.

Wrong again. I'm sorry how long have to been psychic. Who the fuck are you to tell my what I want and what my beliefs are.
Your whole argument leads to nothing but a sense that Israel must be destroyed amongst everyone but you.Than your not getting my argument. and please quit telling me what my own fucking ideas are. just because your smarter than most of those who do it doesn't mean its any less insulting
Look at the people who argue for the illegality of Israel and you won't see many advocating a two state solution of the sort both you and I prefer. I don't prefer a 2 state solution. I see it merely as something akin to a trust building exercise as a precursor to a one state solution.

Also, the attitudes that are the problem developed in just one century, not several and not thousands of years. so the jews have only been persecuted for a 100 years rather than 2000 I'm sure they will be glad to find that out.
Jews and Arabs lived side by side in relative peace for a long time compared to current animosities. In fact Jews and Arabs still do...in Israel. with arabs as second class citizens with less rights. they can live in peace again only if they have some form of equality..

sandy

03-28-10, 08:02 PM

I don't hate Obama or love Netan. I just think Obama should treat our allies with some respect. He bows to/kisses the Saudi King but disses Netan.:(

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 08:03 PM

Who the fuck are you to tell my what I want and what my beliefs are.He is someone who has a vested interest in undermining your credibility by ascribing views to you that make you look either uneducated or unethical.

pjdude1219

03-28-10, 08:03 PM

I don't hate Obama or love Netan. I just think Obama should treat our allies with some respect. He bows to/kisses the Saudi King but disses Netan.:(

did it ever occur to you because the house of saud respected us and our relationship but netan didn't?

sandy

03-28-10, 08:06 PM

did it ever occur to you because the house of saud respected us and our relationship but netan didn't?

No, that's not true. Netan does. It's Obama that can't stand Netan. It's personal and I already stated the reason more than once.

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 08:06 PM

did it ever occur to you because the house of saud respected us and our relationship but netan didn't?Oh, but he gave a deep bow from the waist! That's a sign of subservience! :p

pjdude1219

03-28-10, 08:10 PM

No, that's not true. prove it.
Netan does. No he doesn't. he had previous to the meeting basically told people he wasd going to tell him to go fuck himself.
It's Obama that can't stand Netan. It's personal and I already stated the reason more than once.That couldn't be further from the truth. Obama doesn't really care about Netan either way and has no reasons too.

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 08:21 PM

he had previous to the meeting basically told people he wasd going to tell him to go fuck himself.I suspected as much. I would like to read the story for myself, please.

Obama doesn't really care about Netan either way and has no reasons too.Tel Aviv is not going to have everything their way all the time, just because the US acknowledges Israel having a right to exist.

pjdude1219

03-28-10, 08:54 PM

Tel Aviv is not going to have everything their way all the time, just because the US acknowledges Israel having a right to exist.

i'm confused where your going with this. i never made any claims to that effect.

Alien Cockroach

03-28-10, 09:12 PM

i'm confused where your going with this. i never made any claims to that effect.

Jerusalem say, "We have a right to exist and be acknowledged!"

Obama say, "I agree, you have a right to exist and be acknowledged."

Jerusalem say, "We have a right to defend ourselves from people who try to kill us!"

Obama say, "I agree, you have a right to defend yourselves from people who try to kill you. The UN now hates me."

Jerusalem say, "We want to build new settlements in West Bank and have Jerusalem all for Jews! Yay!"

Obama say, "What the fuck?" and he go :eek:

The US is Israel's supporter to the end. We do not support the building of new settlements. It is illegal, and it is disruptive.

Pandaemoni

03-28-10, 10:09 PM

The UN charter is the guidelines of what the UN can and can't do. Where a resolution and the charter disagree the UN charter must take precedence for the same reason when a US law and the constitution disagree the constitution must take precedence. their is a hierarchy to laws. The principle you are talking about only comes into effect when the things in question are on the same level they not. the UN charter is higher than a general assembly resolution. A general law higher than a specific one takes precedence. Your still trying to argue that the UN created Israel it did nothing of the such.

That is true but all treaties are "at the same level," and the Mandate and the UN Charter are merely treaties (i.e. international agreements). The principle of specific trumping the general in this case comes in when figuring out whether the Mandate was overruled by the UN Charter, and it was not.

Again the UN Resolution is only important because it is evidence that the UN Charter was not intended to trump the Mandate. Without that evidence, it might be argued that there was an desire that the Mandate be overruled. There would be no evidence of that, but the argument could be raised. If there were such an intent, then the legal rule of the specific treaty provision trumping a general provision of a later treaty would not apply. In this case, though, the vote of the general assembly came only shortly after the UN Charter was ratified, and so is good evidence that the Charter was not intended to apply in the case of Israel.

Otherwise, a resolution is not a law, and so would have no weight or bearing on this question. This is a rather rare case of a resolution having a meaning, but it is limited to to the question of the correct resolution of the arguable conflict between the Mandate and the Charter. Mandate wins.

Bad analogy. the southern state were under the auspices of the constitution the fact they didn't ratify them at the time didn't mean they were void.

Actually the northern imposed governments in place to govern the southern states did ratify the amendments. The North decided that white southerners with ties to or sympathies for the confederacy could not vote in elections, the legislatures that resulted were disproportionately pro-Union (and a large number of the legislators were black), and those are the legislatures that ratified the amendment. The north clearly "stacked the deck" then held the vote,m and the south was thereby bound.

Here your saying that even though the UN charter had specific instructions on how a countries were to be formed a resolution in opposition of that is legit. and passed through duress.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that the Mandate talked about the establishment of a Jewish homeland there, and gave the job of administering the land to Britain. The specific provisions of the UN Charter failed to trump the earlier Mandate, because the specifics of the Mandate were not repealed by the general terms of the Charter.

How do we know that they did not intend to supersede the Mandate when the Charter was ratified? Well, there are a few indications, but one is that they also passed a Resolution sanctioning the establishment of Israel.

maybe in lala land but in reality it does. The intent of the British was clear,[/QUOTE] their intent was irrelevant. they hadn't the right to prevent or allow the prevention of self determination in palestine[/quote]

Only under your minority viewpoint on how the law should be interpreted. The UN Charter provision on self-determination was not applicable here because the question was governed by the Mandate

So it was irrelevant that the people of the territory were being stripped of their right to determine their own political status?

As a matter of international law, the Mandate contemplated the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, The Palestinians right of self-determination was established later in a the Charter but that provision is subordinate to the Mandate. To the extent a right of self-determination is relevant, it only applied to regions under the Mandate that were outside of the Jewish Homeland (the borders of which the Mandate did not set). Within the Jewish homeland, there was no legal right to self-determination under international law, save in the minority view of things.

than why are you hanging everything on it.

I am not, you just insist on mischaracterizing my actual position.

Balfour. IT has negating clauses. the british basically said a jewish state was only valid if the right of others were protected.

That did not include a right of self-determination, that included the rights of general western style freedoms, which proved to be a problem when the many of the Arabs greeted the establishment of a Jewish Homeland with violence, which the new government had to address. Once the rebellion was quelled, those freedoms were granted to the Arabs who remained.

they weren't ergo the jewish state(ISrael) isn't valid.

They were, but there is no right to open rebellion against the state, newly forming or otherwise. When you openly rebel, you can expect the authorities will respond. That is not itself invidious oppression unless the government is viewed as a priori invalid. As the Arabs in the area the homeland was being established had no right of self determination, under the UN Charter or otherwise, the denial of that right is not a good basis for arguing the invalidity of the Jewish state. Of course, those in rebellion thought the state was invalid, but as a matter of law rather than emotion, those arguments fail.

pretty little Idea but since it violates the UN's own governing rules it is void.

The vote violated nothing. It was a statement in favor of the establishment of Israel that, in effect, clarified what most already knew: that the plan was to establish a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. It just so happens that you are hung up on the notion that self-determination applied, and this is clear evidence that UN did not agree with you even back when the ink on the Charter was still fresh.

secondly the resolution didn't create Israel. IF you can get over that myth you should leave the debate.

That is true, to a point. The League of Nations created the British Mandate, and that, and the work and decisions that ensued in the decades that followed created Israel. The resolution was just the topper, and in this case it happens to show the weakness in your "but what about self-determination" position.

As for my leaving the debate, I would, but I get the sense you are misguided, so I am hoping to educate you, or at least prevent you from leading anyone over to your heterodox interpretation of the law.

the former will gain the latter.

No, they won't. The Palestinians who had property interests in the land are mostly long dead. Any Palestinian government that forms now cannot be presumed to be their inherent "heirs." If the direct lineal descendants of anyone who owned land seized come forward, Israel should in my opinion consider giving them fair compensation for the lost property, but that would be a gift. Governments are not automatically required to compensate anyone for taking property. It is a good idea to do so (and enshrined in many constitutions as a result). That said, nations have for years asserted the right to take land without compensation, and in Israel's formative years they were as well.

the truth and reality must be the basis and not myth.

Thank you, so I assume you are dropping your assertions that Israel is invalid? No? :D Well at least you should admit this truth: that only a minority of international law specialists would assert that the establishment of Israel was legally invalid. Whatever you may personally prefer to believe, that is no myth.

that is sole dependent on if Israel continue to treat them as less than animals or as human beings. remove the threats Israel poses the need to fight goes away.

That is dangerously naive. The Palestinians may well fight, IN PART, because they dislike their treatment under the Israelis. The other, much larger part is about who gets what land, with too many Palestinians arguing that the Israelis can have the part that is six feet below it, and not one other square inch. Many Israelis feel the same way about the Palestinians, but the point here is that treating the Palestinians better is not going to stop the violence. Someone will try to kill them and drive them out even after that.

The Israelis have, on many occasions, agreed to ceasefires and tried to limit violence, and that almost always ends in the headline "rocket attack on Israel."

Also, the notion that Israel views them as subhumans and even "less than animals" is good rhetoric, but if your argument is going to devolve into mere caricature, then maybe you should leave the thread, rather than me.

the only second holocaust that is going to be happen is the one the Israelis commit against the palestinians if they aren't reigned in from their violence and bigotry.

There is bigotry on both sides, I'm afraid, and violence as well. In general I do look to Israel to be the side with more restraint (and they generally are) because they are less prone to having terrorist wackos in their midst, or at least better able to control them.

I think it is pretty clear that if the Palestinians acceded to every Israeli demand, that there would be peace, and even prosperity for the Palestinians in the long run. Again, Israel has Arabs living freely in it, and they do not live as subhuman less-than-animals. They even have representation in the Knesset (and there are stories stories of issues with that, but the Israeli political system is such that abuses are redressed i n that regard, as with the Israeli Supreme Court ruling in favor of Ta'al last January).

In stark contrast, if the Israelis acceded to every Palestinian demand, it would only be a matter of time before terrorist elements on the Palestinian side started slaughtering or exiling them.

I don't want it too. it would create to many problems too. Go back and reread my posts.

I apologize. I am sorry you were so unclear. I thought you wanted a two-state solution, which would mean Israel would continue to exist, but I guess not. How do you expect there to be a one state solution that is peaceful absent the death or exile of the vast majority of Jews? Because the Palestinians cannot be trusted to establish such a state. The majority of Palestinians would be fine, of course, but even the majority would happily turn a blind eye to the slaughter the minority of them would inevitably begin.

If you want a single state solution ruled by Palestinians in which the Jews live as an unoppressed minority in peace, then you are living in lala land.

I'm sorry how long have to been psychic. Who the fuck are you to tell my what I want and what my beliefs are.

I can only go on the basis of what you wrote. If you were not clear, then I accept your apology.

In any event, I wrote "Wrong again" in reaponse to yoiuyr absurd claim that destroying Israel will lead to a peaceful middle east. I'm sure it's possible you might be stupid enough to believe you are right, and I would not dispute that you may believe it, but you are WRONG, in that that is not a realistic possibility. Hence "wrong again," is a statement indicating that I believe you are wrong on the facts, and not me telling you what you believe, but rather what you should believe if you are not naive about human nature.

Also, stop cursing.

Than your not getting my argument. and please quit telling me what my own fucking ideas are. just because your smarter than most of those who do it doesn't mean its any less insulting I don't prefer a 2 state solution.

You can see my confusion. You were talking about peace in the region, and a one state solution is UTTERLY INCOMPATIBLE with a one state solution, so naturally I assumed you meant a two-state solution. My mistake.

What you are now confirming in rejecting a two state solution is that your position is incredibly stupid, and not a credible path to peace at all, save the peace of the grave for one or both of the sides.

I see it merely as something akin to a trust building exercise as a precursor to a one state solution.

A trust building exercise? Do you mean to say that you see the dismantling of Israel and handing power over to people, a sizable and powerful minority of whom want them dead or gone from the land (and a majority of whom wouldn't care if that minority took steps to implement that Final Solution) is a "trust-building exercise"??

I hope I am misreading you again, or if I am not I am glad that your position will never actually be implemented in the real world, because that would be a prelude to genocide.

so the jews have only been persecuted for a 100 years rather than 2000 I'm sure they will be glad to find that out.

First, I am dubious of the story of the Exodus. The archaeological and DNA evidence is entirely consistent with the notion that the Jews are a cultural offshoot of the Canaanites, and not a separate people that came to land after slavery in Eqypt.

Second, arabs in the middle east went a very long time with a degree of toleration for Jews as "people of the book." The Ottoman Empire had a long standing history of excepting Jewish refugees fleeing Christian oppression. The Hatti-Humayun, a proclamation issued in 1856, went a long way to making all Ottoman citizens, Muslim and non-Muslim, equal in the eyes of the law.

with arabs as second class citizens with less rights. they can live in peace again only if they have some form of equality..

I agree, and Israeli Arabs have it legally. If the Palestinians were less violent, both they and Israeli Arabs would have it increasingly in practice, but living in a state of fear breeds ill will. Israel dissolving is what would lead to abuse, as I'd personally rather have a political disadvantage against the majority population rather than wait for the day that some imam issues the fatwa that I must die and his followers then carrying that out with impunity--an inevitability if the Palestinians establish a state with political and military dominance over the Jews. It's especially inevitable so long as idiots try to convince them that all Israelis are criminals who live in violation of international law and think of Palestinians as less than animals.

I think (though I could be wrong...and based on what you say about the Jews I am certainly not sure I am right) that you do not want the Jews to be murdered, and yet your positions seem to me to be almost calculated to lead to just that.

James R

03-29-10, 02:47 AM

Obama is a pompous, arrogant moron who does not understand the value of Israel.

I don't understand the value of Israel either. Please explain.

Alien Cockroach

03-29-10, 03:22 AM

I don't understand the value of Israel either. Please explain.Well, they are America's 51st State, don't you know!

James R

03-29-10, 03:39 AM

Well, they are America's 51st State, don't you know!

Granted, it seems to be a good place to which to ship out some of the most extreme American religious nuts.

Alien Cockroach

03-29-10, 03:56 AM

Granted, it seems to be a good place to which to ship out some of the most extreme American religious nuts.How could you do such a thing!? That would be just plain mean!

Tiassa

03-29-10, 11:02 AM

Funny that. Netanyahu says he is going to continue building and the US talks of progress and narrowing gaps. Maybe if he had refused funds or decided to halt military aid I would think the US is playing hard ball but at the moment I don't see any real change in political protocol only political theatrics.

As a matter of fact I would say its the Israeli's that are playing hard ball with the US sitting around pouting and feeling rejected.

I think I disagree with your assessment according to the article you posted.

Point of contention:

"Netanyahu says he is going to continue building and the US talks of progress and narrowing gaps."

According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8588444.stm) article you provided and quoted:

Israeli media reports say Mr Netanyahu told the US president he needed to consult with his cabinet, which includes far-right wingers who are strongly opposed to the division of Jerusalem, before reaching agreement.

"The prime minister's position is that there is no change in Israel's policy on Jerusalem that has been pursued by all governments of Israel for the last 42 years," his office said in a statement on Friday.

But a spokesman told Israeli media there had been a "narrowing of the gaps" between Israel and the US.

On Thursday, as Mr Netanyahu returned to Israel, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "We are making progress on important issues."

(Boldface accent added)

As near as I can tell, reading the above paragraphs according to what they say, it is Israel who speaks of closing gaps. Robert Gibbs suggested progress, but that could be on any number of issues. Stephen C. Webster (http://rawstory.com/2010/03/netanyahu-returns-israel-diplomatic-hazing-obama/), writing for The Raw Story, the comment about narrowing gaps came from Nir Hefetz:

Netanyahu did not pose for any photographs and made no statement on arrival in Israel, but government spokesman Nir Hefetz insisted Israel and its closest ally had edged closer to an understanding.

"There was progress; there is a narrowing of the gaps between the positions of Israel and the positions of the United States on this issue," he told Israel's Channel Two TV.

Other Israeli media saw things differently.

"One Israeli newspaper called the meeting 'a hazing in stages', poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House phone line," the Times Online reported. "Another said that the Prime Minister had received 'the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea'.

"Left to talk among themselves, Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He later spent a further half-hour with Mr Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks aimed at restarting peace negotiations, but left last night with no official statement from either side. He returns to Israel dangerously isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame.

(Boldface accent added)

Beyond that, we're still dealing with the basic questions:

� What would we like Obama to do?
� How is he going to do that?
____________________

Notes:

British Broadcasting Corporation. "Israeli PM says Jerusalem policy will not change". BBC News Online. March 26, 2010. News.BBC.co.uk. March 27, 2010. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8588444.stm

Webster, Stephen C. "Netanyahu returns to Israel after diplomatic �hazing� by Obama". The Raw Story. March 25, 2010. RawStory.com. March 29, 2010. http://rawstory.com/2010/03/netanyahu-returns-israel-diplomatic-hazing-obama/