Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Sergeant Bob on March 26, 2010, 12:27:43 PM
-
Reports: Netanyahu 'Humiliated' by Obama Snub
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. Yet that is how Benjamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.
After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Obama walked out of his meeting with Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a U.S. congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.
“It was awful,” the congressman said. 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 telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.
Left to talk among themselves Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He spent a further half-hour with Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks to try to restart peace negotiations. However, he left last night with no official statement from either side. He returned to Israel yesterday isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame.
Sources said that Netanyahu failed to impress Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed the visit to Israel by Joe Biden, the Vice-President, this month and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled.
<snip>
I have to ask, "WTF is wrong with this man-child?"
He's willing to bow to foreign Emperors and Despots, have an "open, no pre-conditions dialogue" with the "democratically elected [barf]" governments of Iran and Venezuela, but he walks out on our only democratically elected leader in the Middle East.
For some reason, I don't think he really has an interest in democracy at all. =| :mad:
Edited to correct the link, however, upon further review, I sorta thought having a full page link was kinda cool. :cool:
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/president-allegedly-dumps-israeli-prime-minister-dinner/)
-
I gotta wonder if under different circumstances, what he did would not be considered bad or impolite. In these circumstances, I guess it is considered slap.
-
Wasn't it the libs who said that obama would fix America's reputation around the world? Oh, that's right, only with communist countries.
-
I guess "Etiquette towards Jews" is one lesson he still remembers from the madrassa.
-
The Israeli papers love this.
-
The heart knows.
Obama doesn't like "colonialists." Israelis, Europeans, Americans. He was, is, and will be the President of "the wretched of the earth."
-
It's an American paradox for conservatives here as to just how anti-Israel the Democrats/Liberals here have to be before it starts impacting the Jewish vote. ???
My conservative/libertarian Jewish friends don't really understand the attitude either.
It's probably a whole mix of knee-jerk associations and attitudes: Jews = urban, urban = Democrat, Liberals = tolerance tolerance = no holocaust... or whatever. =|
-
I happen not to be outraged by Obama's behavior in this at all.
-
It's probably a whole mix of knee-jerk associations and attitudes: Jews = urban, urban = Democrat, Liberals = tolerance tolerance = no holocaust... or whatever. =|
Well, there's your own knee-jerk association: Jews = zionist, pro-Israel
Of my two closest Jewish friends, one is staunchly anti-Israel, and very liberal. The other is moderately pro-Israel, and very liberal. She is foaming at the mouth about this.
My parents however, are moderately pro-Israel--and staunchly conservative. So are many Orthodox. My mother's boss is an outspoken RKBA advocate, as well as a leader in the Orthodox community.
Many non-religious or non-Orthodox Jews are conservative because of their ideas about wealth, which are mostly that they earned it and would like to keep it. Many non-religious Jews are neutral on Israel, as an issue that does not affect them.
Israel, like abortion, is a small issue of policy that has been turned into an issue for manipulating political power. I won't vote based on Israel policy any more than I will vote based on abortion policy. Both may be indicators of political ideals, and both are so over-used and over-manipulated by campaigns and the media that anything said on them is somewhere between rote pandering and outright hysteria.
-
Ah. Gotcha.
Although I guess you could say that for me pro-Israel ≠ Zionism. I'm not saying it doesn't, just that it does not for me.
I don't want to throw you and Micro into a group "just because" but you're the sample I have to work with in this forum. Do you think it's fair that some Jews perhaps see the "drive the Jews into the sea" sentiments in the rest of the Middle East as being hyperbole and take that with a grain of salt, while conservative non-Jewish Americans take it as gospel it would be done if the surrounding countries were able to do it?
I won't speak for him obviously, but I've read Micro make many statements that seem dismissive towards this at least. Pointing out things Israel has done to inflame things on it's side. Settlements etc. That the rest of the M.E. is hardly unified on this, and much of the "Kill all the Jews rhetoric is empty and pro-forma at times.
I think that for the non Jews who "care" we see a genuine desire on the parts of the "88's" here in the States, Europe, and Russia, and amongst the Conservative/Radical Muslims of the Middle East and Asia that the Jewish people/faith be exterminated. [tinfoil] And it colors our perceptions about how ubiquitous concern or support for Israel ought to be in the face of it.
-
It seems to me that American conservatives often take views about Israel and its foreign policy that are often more radical than what is seen as acceptable within Israel. I am fairly moderate, I think, in my views – moderate enough that I voted for the current Prime Minister.
Perhaps I can give a brief insight as to how this is being seen from here.
The media here (who are mostly leftist, as befitting) believe that the whole thing is a horrible screw-up by Bibi. According to this school of thought, Bibi and his crew either ineptly failed to issue the right orders to halt all construction in East Jerusalem, or deliberately encourage it to try and 'set the facts on the ground' before negotiations begin anew with the Palestinians. Either way (again according to the media) Bibi is being irresponsible by provoking our main ally, and refusing to accede to Obama's demands on the main point.
The right – and quite a few common people – are buying Bibi's line, though. Which is that Bibi is being the brave, mature man, standing up to Big, Liberal America. He stands to score points with many people by maintaining this image.
I think that by allowing the announcements on the construction to be made at te timing they were made – the first during Biden's visit here and the second during Bibi's visit to the White House – Bibi has, perhaps unintentionally (a single man can't possibly follow the movements of the Israeli construction permit bureaucracy), insulted the President of the United States. Even if you believe – some people do – that construction should proceed full-steam, the timing of the announcements is suspect.
-
What I had heard was that he had no idea the announcement was planned.
I tend to agree with you that what Obama specifically did doesn't seem insulting. I don't know what the traditions are for that stuff though.
-
That's entirely possible. Bibi is probably no more aware of specific construction permits in Jerusalem than Obama is of construction permits on a specific project in D.C.
But I also see why the US President and his staff feel that Israel is trying to steal a march on them.
-
Wasn't it the libs who said that obama would fix America's reputation around the world? Oh, that's right, only with communist countries.
Zzzzz-iiii-nnnnnn-gggggg !
:cool:
-
Although I guess you could say that for me pro-Israel ≠ Zionism. I'm not saying it doesn't, just that it does not for me.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it did. I should have said "zionist or pro-Israel." Sorry 'bout that.
-
This is about "settlements?" You kidding? Obama will force Israel to compromise its safety and future to get a "peace accord" that will end in mass slaughter--though perhaps not the slaughter Obama envisions. Obama's vanity, petulance, and sense of unchallengeable rectitude are the issue here. We cannot afford a petty President, especially now.
I'm sure Obama will be equally miffed when Americans refuse to cede big chunks of their nation to the hard-working folk of Aztlan with their persuasive historical claims.
-
Longeyes: What are you talking about?
-
The "settlements" (many of which are built on the premise that private property is meaningless) are only possible because of American support. It's absurd to pretend that the US shouldn't have any say about them, when it's US backing that makes the entire project feasible in the first place.
Netanyahu has always been a bumbling, irresponsible, and dangerous politician. This is par for the course. Sending a few dozen people to kill a single man in Dubai, and then having them all outed by the relatively incompetent Dubai authorities was like a flashback to his almost-war over Khalid Meshaal.
Now he's antagonizing the only economic power in the world that provides Israel with any meaningful support. Right on Bibi.
-
Given how America's aid is vastly harmful to ISrael, I'd rather have Bibi just turn it down.
-
Given how America's aid is vastly harmful to ISrael, I'd rather have Bibi just turn it down.
I agree, but he'll never do that, because without aid and support the settlements are not possible.
If it wasn't for dependence on the US, you all would not be in the position you're in now, because the folks who wanted colonial expansion would've had no means to act.
-
I agree, but he'll never do that, because without aid and support the settlements are not possible.
The settlements predate US aid. Nor is US aid that big, compared to the IDF's own admitted waste.
But frankly I suspect you will not like my solution to the conflict.
-
The settlements predate US aid. Nor is US aid that big, compared to the IDF's own admitted waste.
But frankly I suspect you will not like my solution to the conflict.
Yes, they do, and in one sense the entire country is a settlement. But the post-67 expansion, on this scale, would not have been sustainable without US support. That's what I was referring to. Israel would have been forced to accept something like the two-state solution along the 1967 line a long time ago if it were without the protection of the United States.
That probably would've been a whole lot better for Israelis and Palestinians as a whole. Personally, I'm now drawn to the one state solution: there ought to be a government that protects everyone's rights equally, and everyone ought to participate in it there. I don't accept the notion that states should be racial or cultural expressions of identity; they should exist only to perform limited functions in service to individuals.
I'm not sure what your solution to the conflict is, but I would agree that whatever solution there is should be up to you and the people around you (irrespective of religion, race, etc), and not left to private meetings in Washington or Tel Aviv.
-
That probably would've been a whole lot better for Israelis and Palestinians as a whole. Personally, I'm now drawn to the one state solution: there ought to be a government that protects everyone's rights equally, and everyone ought to participate in it there. I don't accept the notion that states should be racial or cultural expressions of identity; they should exist only to perform limited functions in service to individuals.
In my view, this is fantasy.
Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis want to have a one-state solution.
Under every known document and form of international law, peoples have a right of self-determination. The Palestinians and the Israelis. Both the Jews and the Palestinians have a right to national sovereignty. You may not like this form of organization, but it is legitimate. The Spanish have a right to a Spanish state, the Poruguese have a right to a Portuguese state, and the Jews have a right to a Jewish state. We may argue about the precise nature of this state, its laws or the specific borders of it until the cows come home. But we have an equal right to self-determination with any other peoples.
On the other hand, I don't think the 1967 line is relevant to anything, and I think even many Palestinians will agree with me. What we should do is evacuate the settlements, aside from those, like Ariel, that cannot be evacuated due to their size. In these cases, a negotiation should be held with the Palestinians' representatives, and an agreement should be made for a form of compensation. The new border should be decided based on mutual agreement with the sides.
-
I don't accept the premise that "self determination" as a people can only occur in the context of sovereignty in the hands of some particular race or another. A people have a right to self determination as a people, but they do not have a right to declare spaces they occupy alongside other peoples to be exclusively for themselves. That is why national sovereignty should not be grounded in a race or culture. It is possible, and it has happened, that a state can be founded which allows for people to associate however they wish, while providing a reasonable framework for governance.
The state should be organized to allow spanish people to choose what it means for them to spanish; it should not be an expression of their "spanishness", as giving the state that personal character inevitably leads to the state becoming both racially exclusive and the object of the idolatry that we call statism here. The state should have no identity; its sole legitimate purpose is to perform functions that the individuals subject to its authority would agree need to be performed by the sovereign.
I don't see anything objectionable about your solution, but obviously building more settlements is fatal to any chance of it happening. At the current rate, the only possible outcome is that eventually the military balances will change, and the hostile neighbors of Israel will destroy it. Maybe a hundred years, maybe two, but permanent displacement of Palestinians beyond what's already happened can only have that outcome.
-
I don't care if the Jews are 'humiliated.' They've taken enough of our foreign aid money to deal with it. The point is, that is their homeland and they're entitled to it. I would support whatever military action they choose to take. They have put up with suicide (homicide) bombers, rockets and scuds and other bullshit from 7th century followers of MO-(hamed) is that his name? If Truman were President, Afghanistan and Pakistan would be glass parking lots by now, thousands of American young people would still be alive, and the muslim world would respect (and fear) us.
But that's just me.
And by the way, there's no such thing as 'Palestians'. There has never been a nation of 'Palestine' nor a culture of 'Palestinians', it's an artificial construct of the Arab world to attack the Jews.
-
The "settlements" (many of which are built on the premise that private property is meaningless) are only possible because of American support.
I agree, but he'll never do that, because without aid and support the settlements are not possible.
If it wasn't for dependence on the US, you all would not be in the position you're in now, because the folks who wanted colonial expansion would've had no means to act.
These are a complete misreading of US aid and its effects on the Izzies.
To put it simply, if there was no US aid, there would have been more settlements built by the Izzies. The US aid is part of what buys the US influence in Israeli politics. It is the USA anteing up to show we have skin in the game. And, since our material interests in the ME rise & set on petroleum, in has been in our interests to rein the Izzies in and specifically, to act as a brake/moderator on Izzie settlement activity.
As MB points out, US aid (or its lack) is not large enough for a developed country to materially effect their ability to doze & build. Remember, that aid is for military goods and is only to be spent on military goods made in the USA. Some of what they buy could be had for a fraction elsewhere.
There are many folk who think we ought to cut the aid and let the Izzies repopulate the West Bank / Judea & Samaria as best and as fast as they can.
At the current rate, the only possible outcome is that eventually the military balances will change, and the hostile neighbors of Israel will destroy it. Maybe a hundred years, maybe two, but permanent displacement of Palestinians beyond what's already happened can only have that outcome.
I agree with part of this. I fully expect Israel to eat a nuke or ten after the tech gets pedestrian enough that Arab Muslims in an Arab Muslim country can manage to produce them on their own, without outside help. That would spell the end of Israel, I expect. But, the Palestinians will have squat to do with it, either implementation-wise or via the issue of Pali displacement.
First, it will be the ruling class of the country that produces them, not displaced Pali squatters. Second, the Pali displacement is an a convenient throw-away issue used by these sorts of country to keep their rabble distracted (AKA, "Arab Street."). The "Arab Street" is dangerous mainly only to subjugated minorities within Arab countries, but pose a moderate threat to their own despots (the ones using the Pali displacement as a distraction). The "Arab Street" is zero threat to anyone outside their particular country. They don;t have the reach or wits to brutalize any outside fist & AK range. The vast majority of Palis rate as "Arab Street," dangerous most of all to fellow Palis and second to Israelis, with whom they live cheek by jowl.
It is the well-educated Muslim with means that is a threat outside the borders of ME dungholes, if past performance is to be examined.
That is why national sovereignty should not be grounded in a race or culture.
I get your argument (or at least at what you are trying to get at), but you'll need to draft different vocabulary, as "nation" is bound up in race, tribe, culture, family, etc. "Nation" implies common birth and ancestors. Blood ties. If you don't believe me, ask a lexicographer or student of Latin. Put simply, if national sovereignty is not grounded in race or culture, it is not national sovereignty.
Oh, and your described of multicultural state has been successful largely under only despotic imperial rule. Liberal and consensual gov't requires the kind of trust provided by, at minimum, a common culture. The more cultures and diversity of any type found in a polity, the lower the level of trust, the higher the level of friction, and the less liberty, as the gov't steps in and claims space formerly occupied and negotiated over between the citizenry.
-
And by the way, there's no such thing as 'Palestians'.
Then who are those people that live in Paleste? :P
-
They're rejects from the rest of the Arab world, Josh, who have the money and resources to take them in and stop their 'suffering'. It's a scam and a sham designed to discredit Israel and the U.S. Don't buy it.
-
They're rejects from the rest of the Arab world, Josh, who have the money and resources to take them in and stop their 'suffering'. It's a scam and a sham designed to discredit Israel and the U.S. Don't buy it.
haha, so how was this "scam" invented? Why did the early zionists call Israel "Palestine" if there were no palestinians in it???
-
As to why BHO treated BN like a red-headed stepchild, I think BHO just plain does not like Jews & therefore really doesn't like a country comprised mostly of Jews. The building/settlement announcement is an excuse to treat BN like a POS and not having to pretend.
Antisemitism has been ingrained in every well-educated Muslim of ME or Asian decent I have had the opportunity to get to know, save only a few Turks. BHO was raised by such folk when he was a child in Asia and, no doubt, learned antisemitism along with other cultural tidbits that could be celebrated as "diversity(1)" in non-white folks.
Then, ol' Barry Obama joins Wright's church, where some old-fashioned black antisemitism & conspiracy theory is preached from the pulpit, with nary a peep from BHO, who is going along to get along. Besides, he needs to burnish his Black American bona fides, having zero blood or cultural roots in the black American community.
In sum, BHO is a non-stereotypical black antisemite, having hoovered up two different flavors (Muslim & Black) (2).
(1) For white people to hold such views, is not "diversity," but racsim & antisemitism.
(2) The stereotypical black antisemite being Jeremiah Wright.
-
To me it's not so much an issue of Pro-, Ant-, and anything else Israel. The specific issue doesn't matter to me.
What annoys me is the snub and manor in which Obama treated the PM of a nation America is supposed to be allied with. If he can bow before other foreign leaders that wouldn't blink an eye over our destruction, except for maybe the loss of a huge market, he can at least show basic courtesy, respect, and protocol to Israel.
Right or wrong the PM of a friendly nation deserves at least that much, IMO.
-
haha, so how was this "scam" invented? Why did the early zionists call Israel "Palestine" if there were no palestinians in it???
The term Palestine descends from the term "Philistine", folks who occupied the coast thereabouts in ancient times and colonized other places (Carthage being most notable).
After the Philistines declined & were absorbed into the local cultures, the term went out of use until the Romans had a Jew problem of their own. The pesky Jews, always vomiting forth a messiah here and ragtag war leader there to stir up trouble, were to be disassociated from the territory as best possible. Hence, the resurrection of the term "Palestine," despite there being no Philistines on which to apply it...or more likely locations to take such a name (Carthage & environs).
After Rome went into the dustbin of history, the term once again went into disuse for a good, long, while. For instance, the territory of Israel & the West Bank were part of other provinces in the Ottoman Empire, namely Syria & Egypt. Jerusalem had a mucky-muck, but the rest of "Palestine" was considered merely part of other Arab provinces. (I haven't searched out use of the term in Muslim caliphates previous to the Ottomans, perhaps someone else would like to pick up that task?)
The next major appearance is when the Brits & Frogs dismember the Ottoman Empire. The Brits assign the term to what we know as the entirety of Jordan & Israel. I find more references to Jews in that area referring to themselves as "Palestinians" than Arabs, but that may be a function of Arab illiteracy and unfamiliarity with European languages & publications. (There is some use of the terms Palestine & Palestinian in the late 19th century, but it is used to refer to all inhabitants of the general area, not just Arabs.)
After Israel is birthed, there seems to be less use of the term until Arafat resurrects it as a club against the Jews again, Roman-style, for the PLO. In my readings about the birth of modern Israel, I see the Arabs referred to as "Arabs" and not Palestinians, which is more likely applied to Jews at the time. This includes Nasser's book.
Of course, any data to fill in holes in my readings would be appreciated, especially post the Roman/Byzantine times.
-
As to why BHO treated BN like a red-headed stepchild, I think BHO just plain does not like Jews & therefore really doesn't like a country comprised mostly of Jews
Or... maybe he's just a Leftist?
-
Or... maybe he's just a Leftist?
imposable, after all obama says he isn't a leftist. :angel:
-
I think it's just inexperience and incompetence on the part of Barry. He doesn't know how to be a head of state.
Barry has made similarly bad gaffs towards European leaders.
-
Obama's a snubber, unless he's bowing to some potentate. Israel is a nettle in the Great Caliphate, in his mind, and the Europeans did great mischief in Africa, so they're bad too. Yes, it's "simplistic" to read the doings of an elevated, sophisticated mind (I'm just going by his rep in lib circles, not my own view) like Obama's in raw enmity toward Jews and "colonialists," but sometimes what's simple is also what's true. Israel, warts and all,l is not what's wrong with the Middle East, and if and when Obama finally gets Israel to vanish the Middle East isn't going to turn into a paradise any more than Obama's America is.
-
Did Obama at least give him a DVD Collector's Set? :lol:
-
To me it's not so much an issue of Pro-, Ant-, and anything else Israel. The specific issue doesn't matter to me.
What annoys me is the snub and manor in which Obama treated the PM of a nation America is supposed to be allied with. If he can bow before other foreign leaders that wouldn't blink an eye over our destruction, except for maybe the loss of a huge market, he can at least show basic courtesy, respect, and protocol to Israel.
Right or wrong the PM of a friendly nation deserves at least that much, IMO.
No offence, but the treatment afforded Bibi was far better than he deserved (given that he had just made Biden's visit utterly pointless, as well as making him look even more ridiculous than he makes himself look), and far more support was given to Israel anyway than we - who after all are your allies who actually fight alongside you - got over the recent Falklands spat.
After Rome went into the dustbin of history, the term once again went into disuse for a good, long, while. For instance, the territory of Israel & the West Bank were part of other provinces in the Ottoman Empire, namely Syria & Egypt. Jerusalem had a mucky-muck, but the rest of "Palestine" was considered merely part of other Arab provinces. (I haven't searched out use of the term in Muslim caliphates previous to the Ottomans, perhaps someone else would like to pick up that task?)
Yes - it was called the Jund of Filastin, up until the chaos caused by and following the Crusades. The name "Palestine", or related terms, is of considerable antiquity and it is nonsensical to pretend that it doesnt really exist, just because it is currently politically convienient to do so.
-
They're rejects from the rest of the Arab world, Josh,
I didn't know we were on a first-name basis. =)
-
I love this - someone deliberately undoes American policy in the region, and now we're speculating that it's just Obama's amateurism that led to that person being snubbed at the white house?
Maybe Bibi got the treatment because he celebrated defiance of an American plan. That seems to be the obvious answer.
-
Correct. As a leftist, Obama is allowed to have American policies that our allies should go along with. When Bush was in office, America's plans were all hegemonic plots that our allies should be brave enough to stand up to. =)
-
I didn't know we were on a first-name basis. =)
For
The
Win!
-
Wasn't it the libs who said that obama would fix America's reputation around the world? Oh, that's right, only with communist countries.
ah... Would it be epic bad taste to point out that Israel has a very strong communist community? And I don't mean that in a "insulting" way, I mean, members of the Communist Party.
This is about "settlements?" You kidding? Obama will force Israel to compromise its safety and future to get a "peace accord" that will end in mass slaughter--though perhaps not the slaughter Obama envisions. Obama's vanity, petulance, and sense of unchallengeable rectitude are the issue here. We cannot afford a petty President, especially now.
I'm sure Obama will be equally miffed when Americans refuse to cede big chunks of their nation to the hard-working folk of Aztlan with their persuasive historical claims.
Settlements have absolutely no direct tie to Israeli national security. That is like arguing your sock is directly tied to modern space travel. Most settlements are a handful of crazies that decided God told them to set up a ghetto looking trailer park on someone else's land. Some are exactly that. Trailer parks with trash everywhere. Others have actually grown into full cities and drove the majority of the crazies out.
The "settlements" (many of which are built on the premise that private property is meaningless) are only possible because of American support. It's absurd to pretend that the US shouldn't have any say about them, when it's US backing that makes the entire project feasible in the first place.
Now he's antagonizing the only economic power in the world that provides Israel with any meaningful support. Right on Bibi.
Yes, they do, and in one sense the entire country is a settlement. But the post-67 expansion, on this scale, would not have been sustainable without US support. That's what I was referring to. Israel would have been forced to accept something like the two-state solution along the 1967 line a long time ago if it were without the protection of the United States.
That probably would've been a whole lot better for Israelis and Palestinians as a whole. Personally, I'm now drawn to the one state solution: there ought to be a government that protects everyone's rights equally, and everyone ought to participate in it there. I don't accept the notion that states should be racial or cultural expressions of identity; they should exist only to perform limited functions in service to individuals.
I suspect you adjust what you perceive to be the reality of the situation on the ground to your ideology, instead of the other way around. To answer pretty much every single statement you have made... Uhm. No. No American support has not created the settlements. Hell not even Israeli government support as done so. As for your "let's be one big happy family, because folks shouldn't be allowed to have their own government" idea, that would cause significantly more issues than currently experienced. Not everyone wants to play nice, SS.
I agree with part of this. I fully expect Israel to eat a nuke or ten after the tech gets pedestrian enough that Arab Muslims in an Arab Muslim country can manage to produce them on their own, without outside help. That would spell the end of Israel, I expect. But, the Palestinians will have squat to do with it, either implementation-wise or via the issue of Pali displacement.
I doubt it. Israel has between 100-200 nukes and has unofficially put out word it will swap nukes should anyone start lobbing them.
Anyone else notice a strikingly high percentage of "da Jooz" (as opposed to the more specific and accurate "Israelis") and "Obama is a secret Muslim" comments in this thread? Look, I'm hardly a fan of a lot of the Isreali govt activities and insanity (I don't have anything against Israelis or Jews, which are not anywhere near the same thing) and I'm certainly not a fan of Obama. There are plenty of reasons to dislike both entities without starting to wander into territory that is more significantly appropriate to Stormfront than APS.
-
Whatever Bibi might have done to p!ss off the "O", or what you might think of the PM, it is still degrading to the office to use childish snubs against our allies while being chummy with, or bowing and scraping to tinpot dicktators.
Obama is an embarrassment to this country and the principles it was founded on.