Barack Obama: "Enemy of the Jews"

[ponderingturtle]

Bacon.

Hmm, how do we weaponize bacon...

 

[Cynic]

Hmm, how do we weaponize bacon...

Given the long-term effects of bacon abuse, for the patient, weaponizing bacon would be redundant.

 

[Drudgewire]

Hmm, how do we weaponize bacon...

Not sure, but the self-defense classes to protect against them would be delicious.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Hmm, how do we weaponize bacon...

Dip your bullets in the drippings, of course, as Black Jack Pershing (allegedly) did in the Philippines.

@ Cynic: thanks for getting the joke/ref.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

There is something odd about a president who is deeply concerned if a Jew builds a house, but not if an Iranian mullah builds an A-bomb.

Hmmm.

 

[Cynic]

Obama made a blanket demand to an ally while preferring a softer outreach to an enemy. It's not the best thing to do.

I dunno. We expect better of those who know better. With the rest we do what we can to encourage them to wisen up. It's probably a little patronizing (by definition!) but I think the best diplomacy mimics parenting. Show that you care, encourage development, but don't be afraid to correct where necessary.

 

[Skeptic]

"Wife-beater"? How is he like a wife-beater?

In the sense that he bullies those who are his allies and friends.

 

[Cynic]

In the sense that he bullies those who are his allies and friends.

The word "bully" probably isn't accurate here. Regardless, I think that sends the message that bad behavior shouldn't be tolerated. This is better, I think, than the message we traditionally send out, which is that if you're in the Allies Club, anything you do it OK, but if you're not, anything you do will be interpreted in the worst possible light and possibly punished.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Parky, if Barack Obama is the enemy of the Jews, then why did 70-80% of the Jewish vote go to Obama in the 2008 US election? Are the vast bulk of Jews practicing self-haters, who vote for their enemy? I mean, parky, come on, Hussein is his middle name. You don't need to be Einstein to figure this one out.

It is tiring using that much sarcasm.

DR

 

[Thunder]

Parky, if Barack Obama is the enemy of the Jews, then why did 70-80% of the Jewish vote go to Obama in the 2008 US election? Are the vast bulk of Jews practicing self-haters, who vote for their enemy ?

according to the Likudnicks? you betcha!!

 

[Thunder]

Parky,
I think you're desperately seeking to argue with the meshuge segment of the right wing, which is uncommon in Israel and less likely to appear on JREF. Might I suggest a different forum?

do you know how many times I have been called a self-hating Jew, for exposing racism of right-wing Israeli rabbis and politicians?

do you know how many times I have been accused of falsifying my Jewish identity, because of standing up for the 2-state solution and being opposed to the settlements?

you are a new member, so you're lack of experience at JREF is understood.

 

[Vorticity]

Barack Obama: "Enemy of the Jews"

Enemy of the Jews? C'mon, what's the big deal? I mean, seriously, who isn't?

 

[Sporanox]

How is it softer?

The call for an immediate freeze of all settlement was a precondition to negotiations, IIRC. In the context of the negotiations in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, this was a stronger demand than any in recent memory and, as such, not something the Israelis would necessarily agree to. (Understatement.)

Now, in the context of the Iranian/American standoff, what are Obama's preconditions to negotiation?

 

[Cynic]

The call for an immediate freeze of all settlement was a precondition to negotiations, IIRC. In the context of the negotiations in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, this was a stronger demand than any in recent memory and, as such, not something the Israelis would necessarily agree to. (Understatement.)

Now, in the context of the Iranian/American standoff, what are Obama's preconditions to negotiation?

These are different things, really. Between the Israelies and the Palistinians, it's important that both sides be taken seriously, which also means that both sides need to be treated equally. We normally treat Israel as special and beyond repproach. Besides being a refreshing change of pace, this is also correct.

With regard to Iran, this is different in that it's between us (and I suppose the world) and Iran, but it's over an issue that doesn't involve Iran's neighbors. While it's completely understandable that we don't want Iran to possess nuclear capability, it's also irrefutable that no one has any damned business telling them they can't have it. If we're to encourage them to stop, we need to ask as if we recognize that basic fact.

ETA: BTW, Sporanox, where did you get that avatar? I really like it.

 

[Sporanox]

These are different things, really. Between the Israelies and the Palistinians, it's important that both sides be taken seriously, which also means that both sides need to be treated equally. We normally treat Israel as special and beyond repproach. Besides being a refreshing change of pace, this is also correct.

There are reasons to be partial to Israel, but never mind them. The trendy thing these days is to desire pragmatism. Obama's approach stalled the negotiations. Therefore, according to a pragmatic viewpoint, this is incorrect.

With regard to Iran, this is different in that it's between us (and I suppose the world) and Iran, but it's over an issue that doesn't involve Iran's neighbors. While it's completely understandable that we don't want Iran to possess nuclear capability, it's also irrefutable that no one has any damned business telling them they can't have it. If we're to encourage them to stop, we need to ask as if we recognize that basic fact.

You think nuclear capability doesn't involve Iran's neighbors? That's hilarious. Never mind that their president has called for the annihilation of Israel; Iran is a Shi'ite regime, a minority in Islam. A number of its neighbors in the ME are Sunni. Iran possessing a nuclear bomb would set off a chain reaction of untold consequences.

A basic fact, indeed.

 

[Skeptic]

The word "bully" probably isn't accurate here. Regardless, I think that sends the message that bad behavior shouldn't be tolerated.

Funny. He seems to send the exact opposite message to Iran: for example, he totally ignored the Iranian protesters; and he rushed to Iran with yet another proposal for "negotiations" about whether it will be really nice and stop its nuclear program, despite the fact that Iran completely ignored all previous such negotiations and broke all previous agreements.

It is only "bad behavior" (building a house for Jews where he doesn't like it) by allies and friends that is dealt with harshly and is "not tolerated". Bad behavior by totalitarian thugs -- like building an A-bomb to wipe out said Jews -- gets Obama groveling, all in the name of "realistic power politics" and "pragmatism".

 

[Cynic]

There are reasons to be partial to Israel, but never mind them. The trendy thing these days is to desire pragmatism. Obama's approach stalled the negotiations. Therefore, according to a pragmatic viewpoint, this is incorrect.

The proper application of pragmatism requires the proper application of perspective. In the game of go, there is a circumstance called atari in which the placement of a stone results in taking territory, but your opponent's next placement will reverse it to the initial conditions. Following a more myopic pragmatism results in an endless cycle of tit-for-tat and the larger goal of the game is lost. So to preserve a larger sense of pragmatism, the rules stipulate that such situations are avoided. Feeding into the same cycle of letting Israel do whatever they want and treating Palistine like a red-headed step child, however "pragmatic", has proven to be an atari-style stituation for years.

You think nuclear capability doesn't involve Iran's neighbors? That's hilarious. Never mind that their president has called for the annihilation of Israel; Iran is a Shi'ite regime, a minority in Islam. A number of its neighbors in the ME are Sunni. Iran possessing a nuclear bomb would set off a chain reaction of untold consequences.

A basic fact, indeed.

Slippery slope (even if you're right). Regardless of the consequences, Iran has no real obligation to listen to us just because we said so. Their autonomy is their right, and if we want them to willingly give up one of their rights, we need to give them a reason to. Demanding that they concede the argument as a condition of having the discussion not only isn't pragmatic, it's childish.

ETA: in the above discussion involving go, I'm basically refering to prevention of "ko fights". I'm not sure about the terminology, but I hope you get my drift.

 

[Cynic]

Funny. He seems to send the exact opposite message to Iran: for example, he totally ignored the Iranian protesters; and he rushed to Iran with yet another proposal for "negotiations" about whether it will be really nice and stop its nuclear program, despite the fact that Iran completely ignored all previous such negotiations and broke all previous agreements.

It is only "bad behavior" (building a house for Jews where he doesn't like it) by allies and friends that is dealt with harshly and is "not tolerated". Bad behavior by totalitarian thugs -- like building an A-bomb to wipe out said Jews -- gets Obama groveling, all in the name of "realistic power politics" and "pragmatism".

I'm not sure how your philosophy leads to anything that isn't war, Skeptic. Are you suggesting your proposed tactics would work on the US? Why or why not? And if they wouldn't work on the US, why would you expect them to work anywhere else? Can you elaborate?

 

[FireGarden]

I think Israel needs more "enemies" like Obama and Carter (remember that anti-Semitic peace maker?) and fewer "friends" like Bush.

(Real) Friends don't let friends drive drunk.

 

[Sporanox]

The proper application of pragmatism requires the proper application of perspective. In the game of go, there is a circumstance called atari in which the placement of a stone results in taking territory, but your opponent's next placement will reverse it to the initial conditions. Following a more myopic pragmatism results in an endless cycle of tit-for-tat and the larger goal of the game is lost. So to preserve a larger sense of pragmatism, the rules stipulate that such situations are avoided. Feeding into the same cycle of letting Israel do whatever they want and treating Palistine like a red-headed step child, however "pragmatic", has proven to be an atari-style stituation for years.

Forgive me for not believing that a move widely recognized (even by the NYT) to be the diplomatic equivalent of slipping on a banana peel is a brilliant tactical adjustment in a long-running go game.

Slippery slope (even if you're right). Regardless of the consequences, Iran has no real obligation to listen to us just because we said so. Their autonomy is their right, and if we want them to willingly give up one of their rights, we need to give them a reason to. Demanding that they concede the argument as a condition of having the discussion not only isn't pragmatic, it's childish.

Who said that the precondition had to be "you will never produce a nuclear bomb?" That would indeed be a childish maneuver, because Iran denies trying to produce a bomb in the first place.

Besides that, a nation like Iran really has no inherent right to atomic weaponry. If the regime has consistently been provocatively and idiotically dangerous ever since they came to power, there's no reason to let them have the nuclear button. Because we have one? Give me a break.

ETA: in the above discussion involving go, I'm basically refering to prevention of "ko fights". I'm not sure about the terminology, but I hope you get my drift.

I think so. You mean we want to avoid a stalemate, yes?