Israel 'To Review' Top Appointment After Facebook Controversy (bbc.com)

HughPickens.com writes: BBC reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will "review" the appointment of his new communications director, Ran Baratz, over comments Baratz made on Facebook accusing President Obama of anti-Semitism and describing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as having a "mental age" of no more than 12. U.S. state department spokesman John Kirby said Mr. Baratz's Facebook posts were "troubling and offensive." "Insults, certainly, aimed at individuals doesn't do anything to help advance and deepen the relationship. We learn in kindergarten about name-calling, and it's simply not a polite thing to do," Kirby said. The Facebook posts emerged shortly after Netanyahu announced the appointment of philosophy lecturer Mr. Baratz as his chief spokesman. In March, Baratz described President Obama's criticism of Netanyahu's opposition to the Iran nuclear deal as "the modern face of anti-Semitism in Western and liberal countries."

Netanyahu quickly distanced himself from the comments but indicated the appointment remained valid. "I have just read Dr Ran Baratz's posts on the internet, including those relating to the president of the state of Israel, the president of the United States and other public figures in Israel and the United States," Netanyahu said in a statement. "Those posts are totally unacceptable and in no way reflect my positions or the policies of the government of Israel. Dr. Baratz has apologized and has asked to meet me to clarify the matter following my return to Israel." Baratz, in a Facebook post Thursday night, apologized for "the hurtful remarks" and for not informing the prime minister of them. Baratz said the posts "were written frivolously and sometimes humorously, in a tone suited to the social networks and a private individual." Baratz added, "It is very clear to me that in an official post one has to behave and express oneself differently."

Comments

Yeah

[Njorthbiatr]

We're not giving them enough of someone else's land.

Re:Yeah

[aevan]

Apparently as long as you wait 30 years before asking the question, and as long as they succeeded? Yes.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

Tell me does that apply to Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and other countries founded around the same time as well? Or just the jewish state?

Well no it doesn't apply to "Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and other countries founded around the same time as well" because those aren't examples of "giving them enough of someone else's land."

The issue with Israel is Jews had virtually no claim to that land, they had been a small minority for centuries but hadn't been a majority or rulers for a very very long time.

The creation is Israel was colonialism, not much different from the bizarre concept of settling them in Uganda except for the fact that Israel had added religious significance.

If you want to understand why the Palestinians are so angry then consider the fact Arabs were promised self-rule for revolting against the Ottomans in WWI. Instead the west promised some of their holiest territory (Israel) to as a Jewish homeland, didn't prevent mass Jewish immigration, then imposed a partition that gave the new Jewish population a huge portion of the territory.

I don't blame the Jewish immigrants since any minority would love their own country, but as a westerner with no skin in the game I find myself outraged by how in the 20th century western powers decided they could simply give away a bunch of Arab land to a foreign population. Considering how freaked out Americans get over a few illegal Mexicans it shouldn't be hard to understand why the Palestinian population has gotten so inflamed.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

Your arguments are stupid, which is probably a result of your own innate stupidity.

The Jews took control of the land and created a country in the time-honored tradition of fighting a war and coming out on top. Thousands of nation states have come into existence that exact same way, including virtually every single Arab-dominated country in the world. Just because the Jews did it relatively recently does not mean their method was illegitimate.

The source of the Israeli-Arab conflict is rooted in the fact that Arabs can't stand losing to Jews. If the Kurds carved out a State in northern Iraq, the world would applaud it, and no one would consider it for another second. Only when Jews are involved do we need 2 UN organizations involved to keep the Arabs as perpetual "refugees".

Fine then you've just lost all moral grounds to complain about Palestinian terrorism, because if you think that Israel is justified in taking land through war (which BTW isn't allowed under international law for obvious reasons) then the Palestinians are justified in fighting back.

You can't argue that the Israel is allowed to conquer another people's land while simultaneously claiming the other people aren't allowed to fight back.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

??? I think you don't know the history here. This is land that was basically considered impossible to develop and Israel created methods to develop it and did so. After this is when all the sudden the "Palestinians" wanted it. Before and during the development it was a somewhat different story altogether.

> If it's not your land, it's not your land. You're talking about land that was allotted to and developed by Israel that only later was partitioned off and artificial borders and autonomous governments put in place. Saying "If it's not your land, it's not your land." is an argument against a two-state solution.

I don't really care what Israel did with it. Palestine was partitioned and the land they took was not part of their allotment. I don't really care whether Israel is God's chosen people or whether they used to live there 2000 years ago, that was 2000 years ago and they have no right to disenfranchise the people living in Palestine now.

Re:Yeah

[smooth wombat]

You can't argue that the Israel is allowed to conquer another people's land while simultaneously claiming the other people aren't allowed to fight back.

Sure they can. It's done all the time. It's called hypocrisy.

Israel will trot out how horribly the Jews have suffered over time (which obviously they have). Then, once they are the majority, they turn around and do the exact same thing which was done to them claiming some kind of moral high ground or religious justification.

Then, when you call them out for throwing people off their land and stealing the land for Jewish settlers, when they sit back and let Jews destroy Palestinian property, when mother and child are burned alive by Jews, when Israel refuses to grant building permits to Palestinians living in Israel, when Israel controls another country's borders and decides when and if to give them collected taxes, the first words out of their mouths are, "Anti-semite!"

When the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto fought back against the Nazi repression, they're heroes. When the Palestinians fight back against Israeli repression and occupation, they're terrorists.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[ShanghaiBill]

I fail to see how this is different from many of the comments made by US Republicans about the Obama administration.

It isn't different. That is the whole point. Israel has long enjoyed bipartisan support in America. But the Netanyahu administration is putting that all at risk by closely aligning with only the right wing of the Republican Party. This will benefit Israel in the short run, since the Republicans control congress. It also benefits the Republican Party, as Jewish votes increasingly shift from Democrat to Republican. But it will hurt Israel in the long run, as young voters are alienated, and the American electorate becomes more Hispanic and Asian (people that have little sympathy for Israel).

Whats the issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds spot on. Obama has consistently sided with people who want to destroy Israel and Kerry IS a moron.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[phantomfive]

This seems extremely petty, though.

It is.

All the same, you'd kind of hope that a communications director would have a little sense of what he should post on the internet.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[amiga3D]

I can't help but wonder how y'all manage to keep electing him then.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[im_thatoneguy]

Obama is befuddled like Sarat, they both erroneously believed that Israel wants peace.