Barack Obama: "Enemy of the Jews"

[Cynic]

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.

You're forgiven. But consider my favorite definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Ultimately, that's the reason behind the "no ko fights" rule of go, sometimes taken to the point of declaring that no two states of the same game may resemble each other. The United State's role is as arbiter and moderator. It can't afford to pick sides and play they Ally game any more because it hasn't worked before. The process has no credibility, otherwise. No one would tolerate a situation in which the supposed arbiter was acting in an obviously skewed in favor of their opponent. In the court system, mistrials are forced over that kind of crap. Why do it here? And the reality is, if a similar demand was made of the Palestinians instead, no one would flinch -- because that's what everyone is used to seeing.

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.

Would you accept that argument for why the US shouldn't have nuclear technology? It doesn't matter why we don't want them to have one because, again, if we expect them to surrender some measure of their autonomy (which is exactly what we're asking them to do), we have to give them a reason. Related to the problem above, a good start might be to convince them that they aren't going to be treated with the same arrogant attitude that Palestine generally is.

Both of these issues have historically failed the reasonable person test, which is where you ask a reasonable person if they'd put up with that kind of treatment from another person. If the answer is no, it might not be the best way to treat a nation either. No doubt many people consider that politically niave, but chances are, the other side isn't thinking about it that way.

 

[Thunder]

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.

totally. If Israel got a little tough love 20 years ago, there would be an independent Palestine as we speak, and Israelis would be free of this burden.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Another thread dedicated to fantasies.

Would agree with Carter if his interests were genuine, but his funding from the Saudis make him highly questionable in his motivations.

 

[Dr Adequate]

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".

* drums fingers lightly on desk *

Were you unable to answer my post on this subject --- or did you just prefer not to do so?

In either case, I think it ridiculous and contemptible for you to go on reciting the same gibberish as though you had not been answered.

 

[Dr Adequate]

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 think I'll just post the same thing again.

Well, let us know when Obama asks Israel to give up its nukes, or calls for international sanctions against Israel, or describes Iran as "our strongest ally in the region", or describes the Israeli government as "a threat to us all", or starts giving Iran three billion dollars a year in military aid.

Sheesh.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Well, let us know when Obama asks Israel to give up its nukes, or calls for international sanctions against Israel, or describes Iran as "our strongest ally in the region", or describes the Israeli government as "a threat to us all", or starts giving Iran three billion dollars a year in military aid.

Why should the US demand Israel give up its alleged nuclear arsenal? Is Israel part of NPT? Nope. Is Iran? Yes.

Do you somehow equate an unstable theocracy such as Iran with a history of non-conventional weapons proliferation (which are in turn used against Israel via its many proxy terrorist groups, ie PLO, Hamas, PFLP, Hezbollah, etc) to that of a stable democratic nation such as Israel? I see that you do. How else would you omit the UK, Russia, France, and China among others when demanding nuclear disarmament? Or do you somehow think that Israel's alleged nuclear deterrent is not justified?

What does military grants and loans have to do with this thread? No a whole lot. Or are you somehow assuming that the $2.1-2.5 bil per year through US Foreign Military Financing is somehow 'free money' that burdens US tax payers? (As is often the propaganda ploy with anti-Israel detractors) There's a reason its called a loan and 'bilateral military aid'. How's this different compared to Egypt's $1.2-1.5 bil per year?

Go to this website to see the exact numbers: U.S. Overseas Loans and Grants

There are reasons why Iran is not seen as US's strongest ally and reasons why Israel is. Do you want to go into this and other matters or are you simply bringing this up as a means to deflect?

 

[Thunder]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131926.html

EU to recognize Jerusalem as a shared capital for two states, Israel and Palestine. I hope the USA can also soon show such courage.

 

[bigjelmapro]

Sweden-sponsored draft document it should be noted. Taking an official stance on one of the most central final-status point:

A draft document authored by the current holder of the rotating EU presidency, Sweden, and implying that the EU would recognize a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood, has been obtained by Haaretz.

On top of a unilateral declaration. I do fully agree with this statement as a result of this statement by Sweden:

"The process being led by Sweden harms the European Union's ability to take part as a significant mediator in the political process between Israel and the Palestinians," said a statement by Israel's Foreign Ministry.

If the EU would support this document, which its members as a whole definitely do not, they would officially exclude themselves as the role of mediators.

Couldn't think of a worse position by the EU as a means to kill any peace negotiations before they even re-start.

Sheer short-sightedness.

 

[funk de fino]

If Israel was a person it would be an arrogant dickhead that cries a lot.

 

[Skeptic]

There is something to what you say, funk, alas. Still, a partial explanation could be seen in Israel Zangwil's answer to a British peer who asked him why Jews are so paranoid and clannish. His answer: "2000 years of Christian love".

 

[Cynic]

There is something to what you say, funk, alas. Still, a partial explanation could be seen in Israel Zangwil's answer to a British peer who asked him why Jews are so paranoid and clannish. His answer: "2000 years of Christian love".

Heh!

 

[funk de fino]

There is something to what you say, funk, alas. Still, a partial explanation could be seen in Israel Zangwil's answer to a British peer who asked him why Jews are so paranoid and clannish. His answer: "2000 years of Christian love".

Paranoid and clannish does not excuse illegal settlements IMO. Its about time someone like Obama or the EU ruffled their feathers. Stop the settlements, act like grown ups and show the world it is really the Palestinians who are unreasonable. It should be a doozy for Israel to come out of this with heads held high and smelling of roses but they are flunking it big time.

At the moment a lot of the rest of the world see Israel like I used to see my golden child younger brother. The favoured one who has the gall to blub like an idiot when finally admonished for being a hideously spoiled little brat.

 

[Thunder]

If Israel was a person it would be an arrogant dickhead that cries a lot.

"i have been the victim of racism and persecution in the past, therefore I cannot be a perpetrator of racism or criminal activity now"

its a common theme...amongst the persecuted.

remember when African-Americans used to say "we can't be racist"?

 

[Skeptic]

Paranoid and clannish does not excuse illegal settlements IMO. Its about time someone like Obama or the EU ruffled their feathers. Stop the settlements, act like grown ups and show the world it is really the Palestinians who are unreasonable. It should be a doozy for Israel to come out of this with heads held high and smelling of roses but they are flunking it big time.

I edited my post slightly, but doobiedoright quoted me before I finished, so see the original reply quoted in his post below...

 

[doobiedoright]

Hamas claims the holocaust never happened. Its goal is a Jihad until every Jew is killed. The PLO's central committee had, only a few months ago, declared that its goal remains unchanged: fighting zionism until Israel is eliminated. Somehow this didn't cause the world to think the Palestinians are unreasonable. The world still blames "the occupation" and "the zionists".

Indeed, ever since the so-called "peace process" started in Oslo, the more the Arabs demand, the more the Jews give, the greater the number of terrorist attacks, the more the Jews are blamed by the world for not giving even more.

Why?

Because nothing makes you more angry than someone who reminds you that you are a bastard. The EU (in particular) had, foolishly, believed Arafat's and the Palestinian leadership's lies about their desire for "peace". They had, as a result, given billions of dollars to a bunch of corrupt terrorists whose real, and oft-expressed, goal is a second holocaust -- literally.

To admit this, to admit that Israel was in the right, is intolerable. To admit the "right wing extremist warmongers" with their "simplistic view of the conflict" were right, while the "peace loving moderates" with their "sophisticated" view were totally wrong -- as amply proven by what happened after Oslo -- is embarrassing. Nobody wants to admit they gave billions to terrorists who pulled a rather crude one over them.

So they hang on to the fiction that if only Israel gave a little more to the terrorists who want to destroy it, peace would have arrived somehow anyway. Every time Israel does give a little more and that, too, naturally, does not help, they once more blame Israel.

So, no, no. Stopping the settlements would not make the world realize the Palestinians are the ones in the wrong. It will just lead to growing Palestinians demands -- say, for no more building in Jerusalem -- and the world will blame Israel once more, saying that if only Israel did that, then peace will surely arrive. Just like every other Israeli concession was simply taken on and more was demanded, while the blame continued to lay squarely, in the EU's view in any case, with the "extremist" Israelies.

This isn't antisemitism, by the way. It is the basic human tendency to not admit the king has no clothes. It is just as prevalent among the Israeli left as among the European left -- Ha'aretz editorial pages print, practically every day, one article claiming Israel should be "smart" (give in to the latest Arab demand) and another claiming Israel is "ruining its chances for peace" (blaming Israel for the fact that giving in to the previous Arab demand, like they themselves recommended, did not produce peace.)

That the child in this case is Jewish is not too relevant -- they crowd of experts, demanding that if the child only looked a little harder surely he would find out the king does have clothes -- probably world have blamed the child anyway.

I am not saying this means everything Israel does is right. I am saying that what Israel does is more or less irrelevant to who the world will blame, since the world, having cast its lot with a bunch of genocidal terrorists and called them "peacemakers", will blame Israel for lack of peace no matter what it does or doesn't do.

They already did just that when these terrorists launched a terror war on Israel after being offered a state (the so-called "second Intifada"). If that didn't make them see who is the murderous aggressor here, why would freezing the settlements even register, let alone change their minds?

Head of nail meet hammer..........Bravo!!!!!!!!!!

 

[doobiedoright]

"i have been the victim of racism and persecution in the past, therefore I cannot be a perpetrator of racism or criminal activity now"

its a common theme...amongst the persecuted.

remember when African-Americans used to say "we can't be racist"?

Used to say?

 

[Skeptic]

I can see funk's point. If Israel stopped the settlements as a gesture, people of common sense and good will, would realize that no reciprocity from the Palestinians is evidence they are to blame.

Fair enough -- but, unfortunately, Israel cannot base its foreign policy on the support of 0.2% of the world's population...

 

[Skeptic]

There is an old Israeli joke that every time Israel sends singers to the Eurovision contest, then, according to some opinion writers in the newspapers, one of the three occurs:

1). Israeli singers win. Israel had DEFEATED THE ANTISEMITES.

2). Israeli singers get some middle place. Israel WOULD have won, if it wasn't for the ANTISEMITES that denied it first place.

3). Israeli singers come in last. CLEAR PROOF THE WORLD IS ANTISEMITIC.

A more serious reply to funk is that, yes, he is correct: many Israelies know quite well that sometimes Israel tends to be too paranoid and see suggestions made in good faith as part of an antisemitic conspiracy against it.

I don't think Obama's suggestions are exactly in good faith, frankly, in the sense that I don't think he cares about Israel's well being too much and more about other issues, and that his suggestion is due to his weak character more than to anything else.

But that, as I noted, doesn't make it an antisemitic conspiracy.

Still, fun... can you blame us?

 

[Thunder]

Used to say?

NYC is 23% black, and I have not heard such a statement in at least 15 years.

 

[Sporanox]

You're forgiven. But consider my favorite definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Ultimately, that's the reason behind the "no ko fights" rule of go, sometimes taken to the point of declaring that no two states of the same game may resemble each other. The United State's role is as arbiter and moderator. It can't afford to pick sides and play they Ally game any more because it hasn't worked before. The process has no credibility, otherwise. No one would tolerate a situation in which the supposed arbiter was acting in an obviously skewed in favor of their opponent. In the court system, mistrials are forced over that kind of crap. Why do it here? And the reality is, if a similar demand was made of the Palestinians instead, no one would flinch -- because that's what everyone is used to seeing.





Would you accept that argument for why the US shouldn't have nuclear technology? It doesn't matter why we don't want them to have one because, again, if we expect them to surrender some measure of their autonomy (which is exactly what we're asking them to do), we have to give them a reason. Related to the problem above, a good start might be to convince them that they aren't going to be treated with the same arrogant attitude that Palestine generally is.

Both of these issues have historically failed the reasonable person test, which is where you ask a reasonable person if they'd put up with that kind of treatment from another person. If the answer is no, it might not be the best way to treat a nation either. No doubt many people consider that politically niave, but chances are, the other side isn't thinking about it that way.

1) Nobody said Obama had to go about this the way Bush did. I don't think it's too much to ask, though, that he not go about it so ham-fistedly. Perhaps his approach will be validated, so there is a chance you are right - though it is small.

2) You make two assumptions: we have to give Iran a reason to stop development of nukes other than the ones we have already, and the government of Iran is composed of reasonable people. Both are incorrect.