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

What this statement says:

[fustakrakich]

"It is very clear to me that in an official post one has to behave and express oneself differently."

Officials are urged to take acting lessons.

Yeah

[Njorthbiatr]

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

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN gave them the land. Of course, if you go back far enough, it was theirs to begin with. And before them, someone else. And before them, someone else. So what's your point?

Do you think that Native Americans would be justified in using terrorism to get back some of the land the US took from them?

Re:Yeah

[aevan]

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

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

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

Re:Yeah

[NicBenjamin]

This is America, not some Arab country that doesn't recognize Israel at all. He's probably talking about the West Bank, which the Israeli government has never officially claimed, but does insist it has the right to fill up with Jews. Particular the bits nearest Jerusalem.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

In the Middle East, everyone wants everyone else's land. Some of the issues can be traced back to imperialism, British colonization, and the British mandates. Anti-semitism drove Jews out of Europe and they settled in Palestine before Israel was created. The Pogroms and the Holocaust were big factors in this.

Some of the issues absolutely revolve around religion. There are disputes between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. There are also disputes within religions such as the dislike between Shiites and Sunnis. It's a mess when you try to make these groups get along with each other, especially within the confines of a single country.

Many of the issues are also ethnic in nature. Judaism is an ethnicity and a religion, with maternal lineages. Anyone with a Jewish mother is considered a Jew. There are plenty of Kurds in the region who aren't exactly welcome. They've been gassed, deported en masse, and subject to much persecution. There are Arabs and Persians in the region.

There are too many people in the Middle East who want to drive everyone who's not like them far away, if not kill them. It's wrong regardless of who's doing it and whom it's done to. It's not right when Palestinians are driven from their land. It was terribly wrong when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds and drove them out. We tend to look the other way about how Turkey treats the Kurds living in their country. There are some extremely old Christian communities in the Middle East, some of which date back nearly 2,000 years. The PLO attacked Maronite Christians in Lebanon, in things like the Damour Massacre. Roughly 10% of the population in Syria is Christians, and another approximately 10% are Kurds. They have both come into the line of fire from ISIL in the ongoing civil war. Of course, there's the carpet bombing of southern Lebanon by Israel in the conflict with Hezbollah, causing large civilian casualties and leaving the area with many unexploded munitions to this day.

This is a message that needs to be generalized and not simply pointed at Israel. It's wrong to take someone's land and a greater crime to take their life.

Re:Yeah

[Mashiki]

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

I'm sure Jordan will have no problem coughing up some land then.

Re:Yeah

[Tablizer]

The UN gave them the land.

No it didn't, Israel put "settlements" and other institutions outside of the agreed-upon borders.

Re:Yeah

[ArchieBunker]

Nobody even wanted that land until Israel became prosperous.

Re:Yeah

[Tablizer]

That's no excuse to swipe it. They should stop making "justifications", and simply get out of it. If it's not your land, it's not your land.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

That's laughable because all the other inhabitants hadn't been rulers in that region, ever. There never was such a thing as a state called Palestine, nor a people called Palestinian. Many nations have come and gone over the centuries but only the Jews have constantly lived there for thousands of years.

So, you might be justified in arguing that Jews were not the majority in the region for a few thousand years, but you are not justified in implying that any other nation held a majority over the region (or held it at all) any longer than the Jews.

The previous owner of the territory in question was the Ottoman Empire, but that nation ceased to exist during World War 2.

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

??? 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.

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

> because those aren't examples of "giving them enough of someone else's land"
Uh, yes they are. Arabs become dominant in those regions when they took over - how is this different other than that the re-establishment of Israel was internationally sanctioned and not a bloody conquest? If you're going to ask Israel to "give back" land to the Arabs then you're going to have to at least ask Arabs to give back land to Persians, Zorastarians / Aryans, Assyrians, etc.

Re:Yeah

[avivgr]

Israel is a tiny 500km strip of land, vs 22 Arab countries spanning 1/3 of the globe. Stop the BS

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

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.

That's laughable because all the other inhabitants hadn't been rulers in that region, ever.

So what? The Arabs had been the substantial majority for a very long time.

There never was such a thing as a state called Palestine, nor a people called Palestinian.

I suspect this is a standard argument for you since I spend most of the comment talking about Arabs.

Many nations have come and gone over the centuries but only the Jews have constantly lived there for thousands of years.

Well that's false.

Many populations had constantly lived there for thousands of years.

As for nations coming and going why give the land to a nation that hadn't existed in thousands of years?

So, you might be justified in arguing that Jews were not the majority in the region for a few thousand years

It's not an argument, it's a statement of fact.

but you are not justified in implying that any other nation held a majority over the region (or held it at all) any longer than the Jews.

I can only assume when you say "nation" you mean ethnicity.

I find that claim very dubious, to the extend we can track ethnicities I suspect Arabs have been a majority for longer. And certainly at the end of WWI they had been the majority of over 1000 years.

Personally I think considering 1000+ year old land claims is a really bad idea.

The previous owner of the territory in question was the Ottoman Empire, but that nation ceased to exist during World War 2.

I assume you mean World War 1.

The Arabs would have had some degree of autonomy under the Ottomans, either way that didn't give the West the right to give Jews ownership of the land.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

> because those aren't examples of "giving them enough of someone else's land"
Uh, yes they are. Arabs become dominant in those regions when they took over - how is this different other than that the re-establishment of Israel was internationally sanctioned and not a bloody conquest? If you're going to ask Israel to "give back" land to the Arabs then you're going to have to at least ask Arabs to give back land to Persians, Zorastarians / Aryans, Assyrians, etc.

Hmm, lets unpack this.

1) At the time of WWI Arabs were the majority in those regions, Western powers had no right to interfere in changing demographics and certainly not in giving power to a new ethnicity they'd just let in.

2) My point was to explain why the creation of Israel was extremely unjust and a huge mistake. Not to say that we should try to undo that mistake and give Israel back to the Arabs. Similarly trying to do some historic conquest like giving back Arab land to Iran or give back all Canadian/US land to Native Americans would also be a terrible idea.

3) Israel has undergone a fairly continuous expansion into Palestinian territory since 1967, therefore I see all of the post '67 settlements as part of a current ongoing conflict. Therefore I think a peace agreement starts with the assumption that Israel doesn't get to keep any of the post '67 settlements.

Re:Yeah

[Dog-Cow]

It's even worse than that -- before 1967, when Israel captured territory from a warring nation, the Arabs were content to be Jordanian citizens.

The Israeli-Arab conflict is predicated on the fact that Arabs cannot stand losing to Jews. That's it. Every single atrocity and "counter-"atrocity is predicated on that fact.

Re:Yeah

[Dog-Cow]

If you make shit up, you probably have shit for brains. The British offered territory to Jews that did not include Jerusalem. There are no other sites in Israel that are holy to Islam. From day one, it was the Arabs that refused to live with Jews, not the other way around.

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

[Dog-Cow]

The creation of Israel was as unjust as the creation of the US, Canada, every SA country, most European countries. India, most other ME countries, etc. The world over is full of nations that conquered people who were living there immediately before they declared themselves a nation/state.

It sounds like you're just pissed that Jews did it this time.

Re:Yeah

[Dog-Cow]

Jews and Christians have virtually no fights over religious sites in Israel or elsewhere. (I say virtually because there are probably some, somewhere, but I don't know of any). Muslims argue with everyone when it comes to religion. They have just claimed Rachel's Tomb as a Muslim holy site, despite the fact that not even their own tradition links Rachel to Islam in any way. Arabs regularly use religion as an excuse to grab land, and they regularly lie to the world in order to do it.

Re:Yeah

[Dog-Cow]

Jordan gave up the West Bank to Israel. It's the Arabs living there that don't want it.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

The creation of Israel was as unjust as the creation of the US, Canada, every SA country, most European countries. India, most other ME countries, etc. The world over is full of nations that conquered people who were living there immediately before they declared themselves a nation/state.

It sounds like you're just pissed that Jews did it this time.

I'm not going to bother arguing with you, I'm just going to ask you to imagining you were an Arab from that region and to honestly try putting yourself in their position.

Re:Yeah

[Bing Tsher E]

The Arabs from that region were nomadic tribes-people, similar in a way to the American Indians.

What happened to the American Indians was also deplorable, but the term to describe it is 'progress.' People can go all new-agey about the Indians and it's popular for people to do in late adolescence and early adulthood.

But it's no different than bemoaning progress in other spheres of human activity. Lots of people deride the 'buggy whip maker' losing their lifestyle here on slashdot. This isn't a lot different.

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

[quantaman]

The Arabs from that region were nomadic tribes-people, similar in a way to the American Indians.

In the early 1900's? I'm not sure that's accurate, they had cities.

What happened to the American Indians was also deplorable, but the term to describe it is 'progress.' People can go all new-agey about the Indians and it's popular for people to do in late adolescence and early adulthood.

But it's no different than bemoaning progress in other spheres of human activity. Lots of people deride the 'buggy whip maker' losing their lifestyle here on slashdot. This isn't a lot different.

The American Indians also fought back for several hundred years and are now a minority in really bad shape.

The question isn't whether we should try to reverse the European colonization of NA, the question is if we recognize those past colonizations were unjust and that we shouldn't perform another one.

Re:Yeah

[SuricouRaven]

According to the religious texts that Jews hold sacred, they did indeed found Israel after first wiping out the entire civilization that occupied the land prior.

But God said those people were evil, so that makes it ok.

Re:Yeah

[Mashiki]

That's exactly my point.

Re:Yeah

[mvdwege]

A tiny strip of land that already kicked those 22 countries' arses several times and has the support of the world's number 1 superpower.

Stop trying to sell the myth of 'poor little Israel'. It's just not believable anymore.

Re:Yeah

[drinkypoo]

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.

No, it's worse than that. They were literally never more than a racial minority in the region.

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.

The difference is that settling them in the middle of their historical enemies, people who had already recently successfully kicked them out of the region, was a good way to foment racial hatred and to fight Islam without actually engaging in all-out war on apparently theological lines. So instead, the people least wanted in the region were forcibly installed there, and predictable (as in, predicted by T.E. Lawrence) results ensued. I'd say that's a pretty massive difference. Everything about the Israel-Palestine conflict was engineered.

Re:Yeah

[drinkypoo]

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.

Perhaps the Palestinians would have done the same in time, had their land not been stolen and a new nation founded upon it.

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:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

While that's entirely conjecture; it should be noted that shortly after the territories were allotted to them the infrastructure quickly fell into disrepair and some of it was actually actively demolished in a backward attempt to revolt against Israel. So, even with progress handed to them, the Palestinians did not choose it.

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

I'd like to note it's even worse than that: while many "Palestinians" were content to be Jordanians it was Jordan who rejected them.

It's an unfortunate reality that the Palestinians are pawns, and much of the Arab world wants them that way. It's a case of "Heads we win, tails you loose", where if a Palestinian kills an Israeli their foreign backers share a victory in the battlefield, and if a Palestinian is killed they get to present it to the world media as Israel being the evil aggressor.

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

> Similarly trying to do some historic conquest like giving back Arab land to Iran
I completely disagree with this. Arab leadership in Iran has destroyed what is a beautiful country and the uprising that brought them into power resulted in the massacre and continued victimization and oppression of a diverse range of peoples.

As for the Native Americans... I'm not so sure a lot of tribes have it all that much better than Palestinians in the Transjordan region...

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

A slight technicality: weren't most of those cities established in the original Israel?

Re:Yeah

[Pinky's Brain]

We didn't pump 100s of billions of dollars into them.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Palestine was never partitioned. The UN proposed, in a non-binding UNGA resolution, a partition PLAN. This plan would have been enacted if both the Jews and the Arabs made a treaty based on it. When the Jews agreed, the Arabs rejected it and launched a full blown war, which culminated in the invasion of FIVE Arab armies that were all beaten back.

Since Arabs rejected the partition plan quite violently in 1947 it is preposterous to make the argument today that the obligations of this plan are somehow binding on the Jews.

Re:Yeah

[Pinky's Brain]

On the other hand they did terrorize and then confiscated the land of Christians in Israel (Maalul &co).

Re:Yeah

[drinkypoo]

While that's entirely conjecture; it should be noted that shortly after the territories were allotted to them the infrastructure quickly fell into disrepair and some of it was actually actively demolished in a backward attempt to revolt against Israel.

Uh-huh. Right. Because all the other obvious false flag shit Israel has done hasn't been a red flag to you?

Re:Yeah

[jbengt]

Arab leadership in Iran has destroyed what is a beautiful country . . .

Please inform yourself before making proclamations, your ignorance is making your argument meaningless.

Re:Yeah

[sumdumass]

What? Are you seriously trying to say let logic and reality, the history of most of the world take a back seat to the feelings of those who lost?

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Israel completely pulled out of gaza and left everything the settlers built, it got them nothing but Hamas in power and thousands upon thousands of rockets and mortars. Israeli criminals were hunted down by the government and put on trial, not held up as heroes and martyrs. Egypt has a land border with Gaza and is sick of their shit as well, and Israel delivers a frankly silly amount of aid to Gaza alone but it's stolen by Hamas.

Meanwhile the arabs have been calling for the total eradication of the jewish race literally since before Israel existed, and have never stopped. Palestinians are terrorists because their government charter openly quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and calls for genocide, a mandate they carry out by deliberately targeting civilians from behind civilians.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

1) The territory where israel exists was virtually uninhabited and there was not an arab or even muslim majority in the region for most of history, a fact openly remarked upon by arab historians who lamented the emptiness of their mosques.

2) 80% (probably more) of the land was given to the Arabs even after they refused to participate in drawing up the borders, and they immediately led a massive war of genocide led by a literal toured-auschwitz-and-formed-SS-divisions nazi.

3) Israel already offered that, along with payments and land transfers. It was rejected, even the Saudis walked away placing the entirety of the blame on Arafat. A peace agreement starts with the assumption that freaking genocide is not an option. That's why there hasn't been one yet, just read the Hamas government charter.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Cities which were virtually uninhabited, and you could travel through for days without seeing anyone, as per the peel commission and other first hand reports of the region.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Well no shit. The entire identity of "palestine" as it exists today is a total fabrication. The rampant anti-semitism in the region can be pretty directly tied to the mufti importing nazism and tying it into arab nationalism as part of his bid for power.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Actually we pay more collectively to the arab states than we do to Israel, just to keep them from bitching.

Re:Yeah

[Laguerre]

By that logic everybody of European and African descent should immediately leave the Americas.

Re:Yeah

[Blaskowicz]

They predate the older Israel, even.

Re:Yeah

[Kagetsuki]

Touche! That is an excellent point.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

If we weren't robbing you blind with bingo and casinos then, maybe, I might advocate such. I'd rather you just actually went ahead and started adhering to the treaties without violence, however.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

IIRC (and I'm pretty sure I do) the UN proposed a plan to separate into areas for the Palestinians and areas for the Jews. The plan was never signed or ratified. Why? Because the Palestinians did not want that - in fact, they ran around shooting stuff and blowing stuff up. The Jews aren't taking land that doesn't belong to them. They're using land that belongs to them by default because the Palestinians openly declared they didn't want the land and ran around blowing shit up.

Note that when the Jews weren't getting their way, they too ran around blowing shit up. Hell, even the Roman's had issues with the Jews except they weren't blowing shit up, they were just attacking in small numbers or hanging out in mountain fortresses (eventually killing themselves) and continuing to resist invasion. Eventually they had the country renamed by the same dude who built a wall across the UK.

Anyhow, it could have been the Palestinian's land. It's not. They didn't want it. Well, they do now.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

My history is a little fuzzy but the Crusades were mostly against Arabs or Moose Limbs, no? However, if we go back to Rome there's quite a bit of fighting there though I think the area was taken over before the era of Constantine. I seem to recall that the Crusaders held Jerusalem for a while and that, during that time, there wasn't much in the way of religious freedom but little outright oppression or warring occurred specifically with the Jewish peoples. (Jewish as in religion, not as in race.)

There was one city, I forget which, that had a huge population of Jews within it that were slaughtered by the Crusaders (I think that Saladin guy took it back) but I don't think that was over any specific holy land nor specifically targeting Jews. I want to say that it was quite a bit west of Jerusalem and not particularly holy.

Yeah, your link confirms what I'd suspected. Those were evil Moose Limbs. Though, it should be noted, they taxed the fuck out of the Jews but otherwise let them worship in peace and allowed them access to their holy sites.

To meander off into speculation and aside...

Much of the trouble in the modern Middle East can be blamed, pretty squarely, on Europe. First, the colonization really wasn't progress for the natives. The League of Nations then did a number of them, including putting in arbitrary borders where none existed and putting at-war groups within the same borders. It should also be noted that the US can't really be blamed for this. While we can be blamed for our involvement today, we might also justify that by saying we're cleaning up after the mess due to European intervention. But then how far back do we want to lay the blame? I'm comfortable telling the US to knock it off and get the fuck out of there.

To go even further off topic... I've had it brought to my attention that there's no actual certification or anything to be called a "Historian." So, assuming that I'm absolutely 100% wrong about any of the above (and I don't think I am, I could be, I guess) then I'm going to use my new title and credit the entirety of this post to famed (and published) author KGIII - Historian. Reason being, I get all of my history from documentaries and an occasional book. They're read for entertainment, not for study. Thus names and specific dates are lost to the mists of my addled mind. So, I think the above is mostly accurate but I could be mistaken. I've been wrong before.

Re:Yeah

[Blaskowicz]

Doesn't the idea of race date back to the early 19th century or something like that? I think races didn't exist in pre-industrial, medieval or antique times. You did have kingdoms, tribes, empires, and you were likely to own slaves of the same "race" as you.

Now maybe there is such thing as ethnicity, I don't really know how it's defined.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

They didn't get much help from the US in '47, '67, or '73. Not directly, at any rate. Err... As mentioned above, my history recollection is a bit fuzzy. Those might not be the correct years. They're still, numerically, the underdog. Hell, they've not even always had a technological advantage. During the first war, for example, they were even lacking in basics like firearms.

They were so lacking that they were building Sten-gun knockoffs (that's like making a cheap copy of a zip gun made by China) in underground weapons factories while the world pretty much decided to just watch. The next two, Yom Kipper (spelling?) and the 6 Day War didn't really last long enough for anyone else to get involved. I think that covers the big ones? I consume a lot of history but it's not done with the goal to retain it - it's just entertainment for me. I might be missing some, have names wrong, or have the dates completely wrong. That'd not be unusual and, like always, I'm way too lazy to care and it's not really all that important so Google is too much effort.

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

Then the Golan Heights, then everything from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt

Re:Yeah

[Hognoxious]

Western powers had no right to interfere in changing demographics

Having stolen it fair and square from the Ottomans, they totally did have the right.

Re:Yeah

[PmanAce]

Christians do have fights over land through oil.

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

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.

Yes, "might makes right."

If you believe that, then, if you're logically consistent:

-- You believe that the Germans had a right to their historical borders, formerly known as Belgium, France, Poland, Ukrainia, and Russia.

-- You believe that the Soviets had a right to everything up to Berlin when they came out on top.

-- You believe that Saddam Hussein had a right to Kuwait.

-- You believe that the U.S. has the right to take over the whole world, since we've got the bomb and the armies.

Actuall, after World War II, a team of international lawyers -- many of them Jewish -- wrote a set of laws and treaties, which most of the developed countries signed, which said that territories gained in a war of conquest were not the rightful property of the conquer.

Jews have gone to court, and gotten their property back (like the Klimt paintings in Austria) under those laws.

So "might makes right" was no longer the rule when the Israelis engaged in their wars of territorial conquest. Even Theodor Meron, the chief legal counsel of Israel's foreign ministry, agreed with that and wrote a memo to the Prime Minister telling him that the 1967 occupation was illegal, and the settlements were illegal. And they still are.

The Palestinians have always demanded that Israel settle their disputes in the international courts. The Israelis have always refused.

Under modern law, they're not victors. They're criminals.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

Yeah here's the problem... you're completely wrong about basically everything. First off we've got loads fo documentation going back centuries (incl. arab historians such as Muqaddasi and Ibn Khaldun) of the Jews being one of the only permanent inhabitants of an otherwise desolate malaria ridden shithole that just kept getting conquered and reconquered by various empires.

Second if there were such a thing as a "palestinian" then the term would apply to everyone from the roman region of Syria Palestinia, which by definition would include all of jordan and every jew from the region. Once again there's tons of documentation that the entire concept of an ethnically distinct arab people called "palestinians" is a modern fabrication.

1) I spent most of my time referring to Arabs, I'm not sure why you just made an argument about "Palestinian"

2) The Jews were a persistant long term minority, there are many long term minorities in the world. And since historical Palestinians aren't really a thing, only Arabs, the Arabs were a long term minority.

Third the levant is barely mentioned in the quran and primarily in the context of its holiness to the jews, until the arab league started stirring up nationalistic hatred against Israel using Islam as a vehicle nobody gave a fuck about it other than them and there's a couple centuries of edicts from various caliphates and empires backing that up too.

I'm an atheist, if they think those are holy sites to their religion then they're holy sites to their religion.

Finally when the british mandate ended the arabs were invited to the table to help draw up the partition and refused. The british STILL gave the ARABS over 80% of the land and called it "Jordan". The tiny remaining sliver was named "Israel" and given to the Jews since most of that land had been legally purchased from the ottomans before the collapse of the ottoman empire or was otherwise unowned land that had been settled and developed. Remember the entire world population was barely over a billion and the middle east was so utterly uninhabited that everyone from Mark Twain to the Peel Commission made a big point out of how absolutely desolate it was.

Well if they considered the entire idea of the partition to be unjust of course they'd refuse.

And much of that Jewish immigration had been illegal, but the British didn't really stop it because they didn't really mind and wanted a western friendly state there.

However you cut it they were still colonizing someone else's land, if the resident Arabs were in control they wouldn't have allowed the immigration since virtually no one allows another group to come in and take over their territory.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

So you've just justified terrorism on the part of American Indians, Hispanics, and any number of US Territories we took by force.

When the conflict was active sure.

Since then the conflict has been settled and a peaceful resolution mechanism was establish. Further terrorism would be unjust.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

> Similarly trying to do some historic conquest like giving back Arab land to Iran
I completely disagree with this. Arab leadership in Iran has destroyed what is a beautiful country and the uprising that brought them into power resulted in the massacre and continued victimization and oppression of a diverse range of peoples.

As for the Native Americans... I'm not so sure a lot of tribes have it all that much better than Palestinians in the Transjordan region...

I'm not sure what you're talking about, I know some Iranians and they are very emphatic about the fact they're Persian, not Arab. I don't know why you think Arabs are leading Iran.

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

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.

I know a bit of the history. I used to do fund-raising for Israeli scientific research. I read Israeli patents. I played a small part in the huge Israeli government public relations machine, until I had to confront the injustice and brutality.

I played a small part in selling you on the myth of backward Arabs wasting the land, and brilliant Zionist agronomists "making the deserts bloom", with your help. Thank you for your generous contribution.

That land was occupied by traditional Arab farmers (and businessmen and professionals) who lived there as they had for hundreds or thousands of years, and were as comfortable as many pre-industrial people were, just as the Jews had lived there 2000 years ago without benefit of irrigation pumps.

Just because you can take over somebody's agricultural land, and make more money out of it, doesn't give you the right to do so. That's robbery.

Anyone could have come to those farmers, and offered them the money and technology to improve their land, and gotten the same improvement. It was standard modern farming methods, taught in agricultural colleges from Iowa to Moscow. That's what the Communists (the other Jews) did in other underdeveloped countries.

I look forward to the day when Israel will be a good country again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

What? "Settle in international courts"? You mean the courts, like the UN, that are effectively run by the Arabs or Muslims that want nothing more than Israelis destruction? What you fail to understand is a simple fact. That Israel is the Jewish homeland. That there is not and never was such a thing as 'Palestinian'. That Israel makes up a tiny fraction of the Arab land. If you want peace in this world, you would make room for a people that have been in exile for over 2000 years. And while your making your moronic comparisons about 'might' and 'right', keep in mind that Israel is a democratic nation where Arabs enjoy the most freedom they can ever have hoped for in the area. YOU SHOULD BE ENCOURAIGING ISRAEL, AND MORE COUNTRIES TO BE LIKE IT.israel,is a GOOD thing for the word, it is an amazing country, stop crying over the BS Palestinian story that's full of lies and hate, living In the past, instead of looking forward to the future. Jews have done that for thousands of years, and overcame tremendous atrocities. Go move to Syria, or Iran, where if you look at one of their leader funny they will chop your head off, then let's hear your fucking complaints about Israel. If you want to talk about moral grounds, Israel is the most moral and justified county in the area, let alone the world. Stop with your obsessive Israel bashing, it's ridiculous, there are infinitely many more atrocities going in the world, yet this nonsense somehow always makes it to the top of people's bashing list. WTF.

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

Israel completely pulled out of gaza and left everything the settlers built, it got them nothing but Hamas in power and thousands upon thousands of rockets and mortars.

Israel didn't "completely" pull out. They imposed a blockade around Gaza. Under international law, a blockade is an act of war, and the Gazans have a legal right to defend themselves in that war.

The Israelis also attacked Gaza twice and bombed hospitals, which is a war crime.

A lot of us Jews thought of the Warsaw Ghetto.

The Israelis also destroyed everything the settlers built, except for a useless hydroponic plant.

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

Cities which were virtually uninhabited, and you could travel through for days without seeing anyone, as per the peel commission and other first hand reports of the region.

"Virtually" uninhabited? That means inhabited, right?

Re:Yeah

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I know a Jordanian-Palestinian-American who can tell you all about how Jordan bulldozed his and many other Palestinian villages.

It wasn't until fairly recent decades that other middle-eastern muslim countries' leaders realized they could use the Palestinians to redirect their local populations' anger against an external enemy -- Israel. It stops them from focusing their hatred on their own dictatorships.

Go read 1984. Hell, I'm sure half of you can quote it in your support of anti-George W. memes.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

It wasn't anyone's land except for the Ottoman Empire, which collapsed, and the jews who legally bought it from them beforehand... even though they were forcibly expelled for being jews. Which was incidentally also why the immigration was "illegal". Hell just BEING jewish was illegal under nazi rule.

I'm an atheist, if they think those are holy sites to their religion then they're holy sites to their religion.

That's the whole point, they weren't and nobody gave a fuck until AFTER the Jews showed up. Then suddenly the arab states not only started claiming jerusalem but even claimed the entire history of judaism in the region never happened. Hell just the last few months they demanded UNESCO erase all jewish history and declare the western wall and other jewish holy sites to be mosques.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Launching thousands of rockets and bombs at civilians is an act of war too. Hamas exists, per its own government charter, in a state of perpetual genocide-seeking war with Israel.

As for "hospitals"... you mean the one specifically evacuated well ahead of time and which had been used to fire weapons at Israeli civilians? That one?

Re:Yeah

[mvdwege]

They kicked the Arab Nations' arses in '48 and '67 without US aid, while those nations had Soviet support. '73 and after they had unconditional US support. "Poor little Israel" has always been a myth.

Re:Yeah

[Pinky's Brain]

They tried too.

Re:Yeah

[Tablizer]

Agreed. I don't get the "developed" logic at all. It's as if they think they repeat it enough it becomes true.

Re:Yeah

[Tablizer]

Jews and Christians have virtually no fights over religious sites in Israel or elsewhere.

Because they happen to more or less be friends at the moment, and allow visitors.

Muslims argue with everyone when it comes to religion.

Israel has one of the biggest money-backed lobbying forces. They use silly excuses, such as "we developed the land, they didn't" to swipe it. By that logic, China could just swipe our national parks.

Don't kid yourself.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

I dunno... I'd still have considered them poor and little - just not poor, little, AND defenseless or unwilling to defend themselves. They started off as a pretty poor and small group of people (in recent history) and got attacked - they're just weren't defenseless or, as said, unwilling to fight. The Arab goal was "to drive them into the sea." Backed in a corner, well, people learn to fight pretty damned quickly. Then Israel kind of grew and said, well, we're just going to keep this land we've conquered, that'll teach you to attack us. Now they're no longer poor and they're not all that large but they're not really little any more, either. They're sure as hell not defenseless, however.

Re:Yeah

[rtb61]

'ER' in our life times, in our lifetimes. Fuck what other idiots did in other times, fuck it. What happens in our life times, what we are responsible for, what we allow to happen and what we support, is what counts. Fuck off if you think you can let slide today because of what happened years ago. Purges of Jews happened years ago because of that should allow it happen again? Publicly accepted slavery happened years ago because of that should we allow it today? The romans feed christian to the lions should we allow it to happen again. What happend in Australia, the US and South America was evil, we acknowledge that today and seek meaningful discourse and remediation around it (apart from a bunch of psychopaths and narcissists who cheer it on and continue it's practices to this day)

We are meant to be a developing societal species and are meant to be leaving shitty abusive self serving actions behind, not hanging onto the worst of them. The apartheid state of Israel is an obscenity and should not be tolerated by modern secular states with freedom of religion and that is no different to abusive Muslim states or any other abusive religious state or totalitarian states (no matter how much the fuckers support US corporations).

To be Israeli is not to be Jewish, to be Jewish is not to be Israeli. Stop being some kind of shit head and dragging other people into your conflict based around land theft. There are Jews all over the world who want nothing to do with Israel or it's bullshit and Israel and you should stop purposefully trying to turn them into targets (both indirectly and directly via Mossad controlled Islamic fundamentalists), so Israel can scream anti-Semitism as they steal more and more land and genocidally remove it's current owners.

Re:Yeah

[Falconhell]

You can keep repeating your Israel shill lies, but it doesn't make them true. Israel is a country of murderous thieves, won by terrorism. There was land there and people owned it at the time, and it was stolen, how can you not see the obvious reality?

Re:Yeah

[cold fjord]

Uh-huh. Right. Because all the other obvious false flag shit Israel has done hasn't been a red flag to you?

If the only explanation you have for the Arab situation in Palestine is sabotage by Jews then you need to start looking for some new explanations.

PALESTINIANS: NO WAY TO HELP – THE SAGA OF THE GIFTED GREENHOUSES

Re:Yeah

[dave420]

You should see who breaks the most agreed cease-fires. Hint: It's not Hamas. If Israel wanted peace they would stop building the settlements (as they are the first thing to go after any lasting agreement) and stop breaking cease-fires. As long as Israel is settling, it doesn't want peace.

Re:Yeah

[dave420]

You do not remember correctly. Or, if you do, you read some pretty bad sources. You've just managed to badly mangle one side of the dispute and entirely ignore the other side. I'm not sure what point you tried to make, but the only point you ended up making was "KGIII gets confused and spouts some rather bizarre nonsense".

Re:Yeah

[drinkypoo]

If the only explanation you have for the Arab situation in Palestine is sabotage by Jews then you need to start looking for some new explanations.

No, the creation of the nation of Israel was sabotage by the UK (who came up with the idea) and the US (which rammed the idea through while the UK pretended it wasn't their idea all along.)

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

I figured I'd check, after all there's some chance you might be right and I could be wrong. Lemme have a look at Wikipedia... Can we assume they're factual?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Hmm... Seems to indicate what I said was true. :/ Now, I do have a fuzzy and frail memory but I don't think I got that one wrong - at least according to Wikipedia. It's a long read but basically the Arabs (of which the Palestinians are a member group) all got together and decided they were going to sweep the Jews into the sea but they didn't want that war - 'cause it'd be a war of extermination... Well, that's what they said, at any rate. It did not go well for them, as I recall.

Now, how about the Roman bit... Do I need to dig that out of Wikipedia for you too, or? The Roman dude's name was Hadrian, as I recall. I can do your history research for you, if you want. It's probably best that you do it yourself. It could have been a different one but I think he was the one that decided to call it Palestine 'cause he was hoping for a "final solution" to the Jewish insurgents by completely stripping them of their identity or something like that.

So, maybe Wikipedia is wrong and maybe Hadrian didn't actually rename it as Palestine and it's just some sort of conspiracy. I'm not sure how the facts are misrepresenting anything. Mayhap it is you who've been subjected to misinformation or, maybe, you just don't like Jews? I dunno... You could be a skinhead. It wouldn't surprise me, given the quality and tone of your other posts.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

And now you've crossed from uninformed to delusional. Israel has offered the palestinians every single demand they've ever made, even the Saudis walked away from the camp david accords placing sole blame on Arafat. Hamas doesn't make peace offers, they demand ceasefires which they promptly ignore and then bitch when the Israelis respond.

I mean the hospitals where the Palestinian and western doctors were working, and giving first-hand accounts of how the Israelis were bombing them even as they were telling the Israeli officials on the phone that they were filled with non-combatant civilians. They reported all of this in the British medical journals, in Haaretz, and in the reports afterwards by human rights groups.

You mean the hospitals evacuated well ahead of time by the IDF, which were caught on video firing weapons at civilians? The ones that were lied about by the same people and "human rights groups" whose employees name their kids "knives of jerusalem"?

As I said, I used to work in Israeli PR. I used to write the lies that you now believe.

Considering you're so uninformed that you literally don't know the first thing about the history of the region, the mandate and partition, or even the most basic information about the governments involved I doubt that.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Yeah it's TOTALLY not Hamas firing thousands of rockets or kidnapping people or bombing civilian targets even during supposed "ceasefires" that breaks ceasefires. Totally. You realise you're supposed to at least PRETEND not to have a blatant double standard right?

If Israel wanted peace they would stop building the settlements (as they are the first thing to go after any lasting agreement) and stop breaking cease-fires. As long as Israel is settling, it doesn't want peace.

What was the excuse in 48? 67? 73? Israel has already offered every single thing demanded by the palestinians except for the eradication of the jewish race and the state of Israel, every single time it was refused. Israel also unilaterally pulled out of gaza and took all the settlers with them, but left all the infrastructure they'd build. It got them nothing but another war front with an even more violent enemy whose own government charter explicitly quotes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and calls for total genocide.

There is no peace because the arabs don't want peace, they want to kill all the jews. Something they're perfectly willing to admit openly when crowds of hundreds chant "Slaughter The Jews" in sweden, or when the governments of the surrounding 30+ arab states make official broadcasts claiming the jews murder babies and use their blood to make matza every passover, or on their children's television programs where they have suicide bomber characters encouraging martyrdom and hosts praising kids that say they want to wipe out the jews... all of which never seems to make it into western media.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Maybe because I'm not on drugs so strong they make me think that siding with the group whose governments publicly quote the protocols of the elders of zion, who publicly claim all jews murder babies and use their blood to make matza every passover, who were led through multiple wars of genocide by literal nazis, are somehow the "good guys".

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/...

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Ah yes, the UN. Comprised of bastions of integrity such as the UNRWA and which condemns israel more than every other country on the face of the earth combined while completely ignoring genocides in Africa and horrific human rights violations in every single arab country. Unsurprising given that the UN bodies which most frequently condemn Israel are generally dominated BY those same arab countries, who are more than happy to claim the jews murder children and use their blood to make matza on official UN record.

Re:Yeah

[dywolf]

When you're so extremist you even make Bibi take a step back and say "whoa, that's going too far"....

Re:Yeah

[dywolf]

You are seriously in need an education in history.

Re:Yeah

[dywolf]

and that just makes it ok to just keep doing it?

Re:Yeah

[Nidi62]

My history is a little fuzzy but the Crusades were mostly against Arabs or Moose Limbs, no? However, if we go back to Rome there's quite a bit of fighting there though I think the area was taken over before the era of Constantine. I seem to recall that the Crusaders held Jerusalem for a while and that, during that time, there wasn't much in the way of religious freedom but little outright oppression or warring occurred specifically with the Jewish peoples. (Jewish as in religion, not as in race.)

There was one city, I forget which, that had a huge population of Jews within it that were slaughtered by the Crusaders (I think that Saladin guy took it back) but I don't think that was over any specific holy land nor specifically targeting Jews. I want to say that it was quite a bit west of Jerusalem and not particularly holy.

Generally the Crusaders tended to just kill everyone (Jew, Muslim, Christian, even Pastafarian-or would have if they existed) when they took a city. Mostly because living people tend to complain and get in the way when you try to take all their stuff. You didn't think the Crusade (in a macro sense anyway) were actually about religion, did you?

Re:Yeah

[zakeria]

Again the liberals are out in droves marking down valid posts such as yours!

Re:Yeah

[nbauman]

You're just denying the facts, the way people deny the Holocaust.

It's pointless to use facts and logic with you.

It's time for me to give up with people like you and move on to boycotts, divestments and sanctions.

Re:Yeah

[david_thornley]

If the conflict has been settled by overwhelming force in a way grossly unfair to one side, why does that count as "settled" morally? When the side that won keeps redefining the deals, including kidnapping children in an attempt at cultural genocide (the cases I am aware of ended in the 1940s), denying the other side things guaranteed by treaty, and doing things like selling resources on tribal reservations in sweetheart deals that do not benefit the tribes?

Re:Yeah

[david_thornley]

Hadrian didn't want to exterminate the Jews. While they were ignorant barbarians who refused to acknowledge Roman gods (the Romans were happy to acknowledge anybody else's gods, and preferably interpret them as aspects of their own), they at least worshipped as their ancestors did.

The problem with the Jews wasn't really cultural or religious: it was that they rebelled, more than once, and they were close to the Parthian border. It was a geopolitical issue.

Re:Yeah

[david_thornley]

I once read some Nordic text from about a millennium ago, referring to the "race of thralls" (presumably Slavs). In at least some aspects, it's pretty old.

Re:Yeah

[Shadow of Eternity]

Because pointing out the UN condemns Israel more than every other country in the world combined even in the middle of the chaos in Syria, brutal repression of protests and mass murder of gays and christians throughout the arab world, and genocides in sub-saharan Africa is equivalent to holocaust denial.

Because pointing out that the UN and its member bodies are so openly anti-semitic as to allow literal blood libel to stand as part of the record, and whose ranking officials routinely post violent anti-semitic materials inciting and endorsing further terrorist attacks is equivalent to holocaust denial.

Because targeting jews around the world and harassing/boycotting them if they don't join your crusade against Israel is TOTALLY not just plain old fashioned anti-semitism. Especially since every single one of the complaints you make against Israel is either unfounded, wildly exaggerated, or blatantly a double standard you hold Israel and ONLY Israel to.

It's fitting you admit to being a BDS supporter on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, because that's all BDS is. A modern day kristallnacht.

Re:Yeah

[Rakarra]

Maybe. Maybe not. Doesn't matter anyway, because it's way too late now.
This is an argument we could have made back in the 1960s. 70 years later and the Israelis have far more of a legitimate claim over the land than the Palestinians do. Now if someone was to kick them out, it would be as much of a travesty as what happened in the area after WWII.

Now the occupied territories and the settlers.... that's another matter.

Re:Yeah

[Rakarra]

Personally I think considering 1000+ year old land claims is a really bad idea.

I think considering 70 year old land claims is also a bad idea. They're equally as bad. No one, absolutely no one has claim over any land because they had an ancestor who lived there.

Re:Yeah

[Rakarra]

Israel is not answerable to the barking of the dogs of America or elsewhere. We take what we want because we are the stronger people. It is the way of the world, and the whinging of women will not change that.

You're serious about that? Israel would have collapsed decades ago if they hadn't been propped up by the US.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

That'd be why I put the "final solution" in quotes. It was mostly tongue in cheek. He did want some of them eliminated, though. I forget the name of the fort but they had that under siege for quite a while before the Romans built a giant dirt ramp up the top of it and were going to attack the following day - while doing the Roman thing of sealing them in. The Jews killed themselves though there's rumor of a mother with two children who survived by hiding in the water supply cave system.

The historians tend to agree that the reason for doing so was because he wanted to alienate them from their identity and, you know, get them to stop rebelling. One group in particular, the Assines (spelling) I think, were a particular thorn in their side for a while. They were pretty dedicated, some of them.

I watch way too many history documentaries. I don't remember all the names and places, I sure as hell don't remember the dates. They're watched for entertainment, not for study. Documentaries is about all I watch, actually. I try to get them from a variety of sources because there's a lot of propaganda in some of them. My current "thing" is finding barely translated WWII documentaries (made post fall of the Iron Curtain) from Russians. They're pretty good. Still right full of some really selective history but good, nonetheless. You can tell when Putin came into office. The documentaries became even more selective with their content.

The USSR gave out millions and millions of medals after the Great Patriotic War. But, I digress - I usually do.

Re:Yeah

[KGIII]

Nominally they were against the Muslims but, no, I've never thought that was the real reason. I've always assumed it to be a land and power grab with some intrigue being because the power grab wasn't actually always where they were crusading. I believe that I've also heard a theory that it was a way to get a collective going (one of the early crusades) in an effort to reunite Rome but I'd not dare make an authoritative statement on that.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

If the conflict has been settled by overwhelming force in a way grossly unfair to one side, why does that count as "settled" morally? When the side that won keeps redefining the deals, including kidnapping children in an attempt at cultural genocide (the cases I am aware of ended in the 1940s), denying the other side things guaranteed by treaty, and doing things like selling resources on tribal reservations in sweetheart deals that do not benefit the tribes?

I didn't say it was morally settled, I just said it was settled, the truth is that North Americans of European descent will never be able to make up for the injustices of the colonization of North America.

But there's no more active conflict and tensions have subsided, there's new tensions that have arisen but they're distinct enough that I don't think terrorism would be justifiable.

Re:Yeah

[quantaman]

Personally I think considering 1000+ year old land claims is a really bad idea.

I think considering 70 year old land claims is also a bad idea. They're equally as bad. No one, absolutely no one has claim over any land because they had an ancestor who lived there.

Not quite equally as bad, but bad.

I don't think Israel should be given back to the Arabs, I've said so repeatedly. But I do think it's important to recognize that the Jews had no claim when they first started immigrating in the early 1900's. The Arabs had a very just cause to be angry in 1949 and again in 1967.

At some point you have to say "ok, that was bad and unjust, but at this point we have to let it go". The question is where that point is. From what I can tell the objective of the current Israeli leadership is to keep annexing land and stalling peace. Their motive is the thought that when peace finally does come people will realize the Settlements are too far established and they can't be given back.

That's why I think a very line has to be drawn at the '67 borders, because as long as they think they can keep annexing land for good there's no incentive for peace. As soon as they start seeing the settlements for the massive liability they should be then peace becomes far more attractive.

Re:Yeah

[Rakarra]

At some point you have to say "ok, that was bad and unjust, but at this point we have to let it go". The question is where that point is.

That's pretty much my mantra through all of this, but I'm despairing that it will ever be the case. There's just too much cultural identity in totally hating Israel, and there's too much benefit in the existence of Israel for leaders of Islamic countries in the Middle East. Yes, Israel is very good for them, it gives leaders a nearby scapegoat to blame all their problems on, a clear "them" to contrast with themselves. Nothing brings people together under your banner like an external threat.

That's why I think a very line has to be drawn at the '67 borders, because as long as they think they can keep annexing land for good there's no incentive for peace. As soon as they start seeing the settlements for the massive liability they should be then peace becomes far more attractive.

Well geez, sounds like we agree on everything. Let's just put that all into a plan and get Obama, Kerry, Netanyahu and Rivlin, and the leaders of the various Muslim countries and faiths (the real leaders, not necessarily the Presidents) including Hamas together, get them all roaring drunk, and they'll wake up a day later finding they'd signed it. The real challenge would be getting the followers of Islam to drink. Well. We'll have to find a way. It's probably easier than than getting a peace deal any other way.

Awww, screw it. We all know that even if everyone agreed to a peace deal, SOMEONE would start lobbing rockets and the whole thing would fall apart. And you can bet any plan which would remove recent settlers from newly-created settlements would be absolute political suicide for any Israeli leader anyway. Maybe real suicide, considering the history of what the Israelis have done to their own peacemakers.

Too bad

[h33t l4x0r]

If he were running for US republican nominee that would have made him the front-runner.

Re:Too bad

[amiga3D]

I'd take Netanyahu over most of the field of GOP hopefuls.

Re:Too bad

[amiga3D]

Treasonous? I'm not the one that paved the way for Iran to have nukes. Is that you Donald?

Re:Too bad

[Opportunist]

Hey, national security is important, ok? We don't question that and if it's not getting in the way of making money, we're going to consider that. But if there's a good deal offered, wouldn't you take it? Hey, what are you, some pinko commie?

Re:Too bad

[unixisc]

I'd take Netanyahu over most of the field of GOP hopefuls.

Netanyahu is great, and had he been an American, he'd have trounced not just Obama, but Bill Clinton before him. Nor would we have had to put up w/ 8 years of Jihad Wahabi Bush. However, the current bunch of hopefuls are better than the ones in the past - like Cruz, Carson, Rubio and heck, even Trump!!! Only ones I'd look at suspiciously are Jeb, Christie, Carly and Graham.

Re:Too bad

[unixisc]

And you are probably an ISIS or Hamas cunt, mr AC

Re:Too bad

[unixisc]

You really should go over to Syria and join Hizbullah/Iranian/Alawite forces fighting... whoever

Social networking policies

[MichaelSmith]

I work for a small internet services company and they have a better social networking policy than the government of Israel.

Re:Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[MightyMartian]

Because the Republican frontrunners are just such paragons of factual debate.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[phantomfive]

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

Because the Obama administration complained to the Israeli government that they'd been insulted. The Israeli government felt like they should respond.

Foreign politician says US politician is childish

[penguinoid]

Said foreign politician promptly reminded that, as a politician, they're not expected to be honest but rather to say nice things.

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).

Re:Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[jrumney]

Name calling might be normal in internal politics, but in international politics, things are usually more diplomatic. Comparing Israel to the Democratic or as other posters have done, the Republican party misses the fact that Israel is not supposed to be in opposition to the US Government of the day, at least not if they want continued support in the UN Security Council from a country with veto power that they have enjoyed for the past few decades.

Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

As an Israeli citizen I must say that I am embarrassed by netanyahu. He is a racist buffoon who surrounds himself with like minded individuals.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[amiga3D]

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

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Tablizer]

USA elected Bush twice.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[phantomfive]

And it's not looking like the next presidential election will be much better.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[TheRealDilbert]

Actually, Netanyahu's party only got 25% of the vote (of the 70% or so of the population that bothered to vote), but because he was able to form a narrow right wing coalition, he gets to be PM. That means at least 75% of Israelis DIDN'T want him.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Bing Tsher E]

We elected jugears twice, too.

History's worst president.

Actively bad, not just incompetent like his predecessor.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Opportunist]

I dare say the US can sympathize with Israel here. For the same reason. What, I dare ask, is the friggin' alternative?

It says quite a bit about the state of a democracy when your voting decision is made the Sherlock Holmes way. As in "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how unwanted, must be what you decide for."

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Opportunist]

And let's be honest here, he had quite a competition for that title. The last decent president the US had was Eisenhower. And it really shows.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[LostMonk]

That's because Netanyahu is also a world class politician (AKA=bulshiter) who can turn on a dime .... so enough people are still buying his fear/hate/racism spiel.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[PopeRatzo]

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

But not with a majority. Remember, Israeli elections are not head-to-head races between candidates. Netanyahu's governments have been coalitions that include some rather fringe fanatical parties.

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-...

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[amiga3D]

I like Ike!

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[unixisc]

Hitler's meetings w/ Haj Amin al-Husseini is a matter of record, as is the latter's recruiting Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS. So Netanyahu and anyone else who says that is accurate: the Palestinians, and rather, Muslims in general, are pretty much pro-Nazi, even while projecting that onto Israelis. Mein Kamph was a bestseller in Turkey when Erodgan came to power, and sells like hotcakes in Arab countries as well. And who can forget Mahmoud Ahmadinutjob's conference on denying the holocaust??

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Opportunist]

I don't know anyone who doesn't.

Seriously, every single prez since had some kind of scandal, huge blunders and generally things that remain in the collective memory as something that requires a head-desk reaction.

Aside of Op Ajax (which was not really that bad a move at the time) and the U2-Incident, I can't really say anything bad about Eisenhower. On the other hand, he reigned in McCarty, built the interstates, started the Mercury program and steered a conservative, but moderate social and economic course.

And before anyone asks, I am anything but a Republican. Not even the "old school" kind, and certainly not the right wing nutjob kind of today. It's kinda sad for me that the only decent president in the last 60 years was a Rep.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Rujiel]

"the Palestinians, and rather, Muslims in general, are pretty much pro-Naz"

Even on Slashdot, hasbara trolls abounds. Funny how no one on here calls 1.3 billion humans "generally nazis" until they need to defend that war pig Netenyahu. Oh paid shills, never chanhe.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[unixisc]

I called them that b'cos that's what their texts say. Mohammed was the original Hitler/Eichmann, whichever way you want to look at it. The Quran describes Jews as apes and rats, and Christians as pigs and dogs. The Hamas charter contains the statement about trees speaking out about Jews behind them. Muslims are far worse than Nazis, and that's independent of whether Netanyahu had ever existed.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[dywolf]

they only barely won this last round.
they wont be there much longer.
thank god.
and then once they're gone, the world will breathe a sigh of relief.
and peace might stand a chance again.

Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment

[Nidi62]

Hitler's meetings w/ Haj Amin al-Husseini is a matter of record, as is the latter's recruiting Bosnian Muslims for the Waffen-SS. So Netanyahu and anyone else who says that is accurate: the Palestinians, and rather, Muslims in general, are pretty much pro-Nazi,

Damn, so I guess most of the Western world is pro-Nazi then by those standards. Because Waffen SS units had soldiers recruited from Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium (both Wallonia and Flanders), Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, Croatia, USA (15-20 volunteers), and Great Britain.

Oh, hey, another fun fact: Did you know that one of the founding members of the SS (literally the 2nd member of the SS, with Hitler being the 1st member) was Jewish? So now I guess even Israel is pro-Nazi!

Review Baratz all you want

[reboot246]

He was right.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

What a stupid statement. President Obama is nothing more, or less, than another liberal politician who feels that if only we could all sit down and talk we could all get along. He's constantly befuddled by how hard it is to deal with people that have hundreds upon hundreds of years of war and bloodshed between them with a sizable percentage that only know hatred for everyone who isn't one of them. The fact that there is no simple solution for the Middle East seems to elude them. If Israel acceded to all the demands place upon them by their hostile neighbors there would still be no peace in the Middle East. The one hero that stood up and made peace, Anwar Sadat, was murdered for that action.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[im_thatoneguy]

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

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[guises]

He's constantly befuddled by how hard it is to deal with people that have hundreds upon hundreds of years of war and bloodshed between them with a sizable percentage that only know hatred for everyone who isn't one of them.

This kind of language is counter-productive. There has been discontent in the middle east for a long time, but the current groups have been in open conflict only since 1945 and have been hostile for less than one hundred years. A peaceful resolution is certainly possible, given some significant changes in leadership. Those changes are coming - the people maintaining this conflict are primarily the old guard, the same people who started this conflict.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Alomex]

President Obama is nothing more, or less, than another liberal politician who feels that if only we could all sit down and talk we could all get along.

It worked with Egypt and Jordan in spite all the things you say being true.

It's seems you are a classic conservative politician thinking that armed conflict is the solution to everything (chicken hawk) in spite of facts showing the opposite (see Iraq or Afghanistan).

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

I don't see armed conflict as a resolution. Far from it. Surely you only picked one sentence and formulated the meaning outside the context. I see armed conflict as inevitable. I see no easy or simple solution to insane hatred in so large a portion of the population. For every step forward in the Middle East peace process there have been two backwards steps. The situation today is arguably worse than it was decades ago.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

I wonder how there can be peace when a very large portion of the population do not want peace. At least not what I call peace. I suppose the total eradication of all opposition could be called peace by some. I see little call for a middle ground.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[KGIII]

Wait... What? You think Obama is a liberal?

I'll give you the benefit of doubt, I've seen you post before and you seem otherwise sane and intelligent. In what way, and no - talking before fighting is not an adequate measure, is Obama a liberal? Against what backdrop are you calling him a liberal?

He's liberal as compared to, what? 'Cause he's pretty right, center-right, by much of the Western world. Even with using the US as the guide (which we really shouldn't) he's still pretty center though he'd be center-left by my reckoning. If Obama seems liberal to you then you must be in the 'extreme right' category - even if you don't self-identify as such.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[KGIII]

You mean the place where they held the violent revolution (Egypt) and the place with ongoing, near-daily, violence (Jordan)? I'm not sure those are good examples of your point. It's not that I agree with the parent poster but, well, if those are the best examples you have of talking being effective then I'm not sure you've got much of a point. Hell, Egypt's first round of Parliamentary Elections started today - they're just now getting to that point and still having violent outbursts from time to time.

Saying those "worked" makes me wonder what your definition is for success.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[unixisc]

He was right.

Mod this up!!! Everything that Obama has done since coming to power has been anti-Israel, to the point of embracing Jihadi forces like the Muslim Brotherhood. He started his presidency w/ that disgraceful speech at Cairo, actually invoking Jihadi verses in the Quran to back his statements, and then working to undermine stable Arab regimes that reined in Jihadist forces. Like Mubarak in Egypt.

While I don't share anybody's views that Obama is Muslim, I do think that he is competing w/ ISIS in running for Caliph after his term ends. Aside from all his rebuffs of Israel, he has done things like bow to Saudi king Abdullah, veto the Keystone pipeline that would make the US less dependent on Islamic oil, lecture India's Prime Minister about religious tolerance a day before visiting Saudi Arabia and not telling them a word about it (even though anyone w/ half a brain will agree that India is a far more religiously tolerant country than Saudi Arabia), closing down Gitmo and trying to get Jihadis onto American soil so that ACLU lawyers can bail them out, and recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Israel is doing the right thing by making its own deals w/ Russia, and putting any relations w/ the US on hold until Obama's term ends.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[unixisc]

You really need to stop watching the al Qaeda network - al Jazeera

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Alomex]

It definitely worked in that they established lasting peace with Israel. The OP was claiming it would never work. Guess what? it did, twice.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[unixisc]

It's good that Netanyahu is reviewing, as opposed to rescinding, the appointment. There is no reason for him to kiss up to a president who has been allah's gift to jihadis everywhere.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Alomex]

There hasn't been direct armed conflict since the Yom Kippur war. If you lived in Israel you'd realize they feel more secure that at any time in their short history.

I'm not claiming all is hunky dory, far from it, however your pessimistic interpretation that war is inevitable seems counter to the fact.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[KGIII]

Ah - alright. I was thinking you were implying a greater effect. I'd humbly submit that talking has already been done with regards to Israel and, well, pretty much everyone in the area - or have at least be attempted. This should not be construed to be an advocacy of violence, however. 'Tis an observation, not a suggestion or condemnation.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[guises]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The total eradication of all opposition, i.e.: death from old age.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

The only thing keeping war at bay is the fact that currently Israel holds an overwhelming combat advantage against her current enemies. It isn't that long ago that missiles were falling upon Israeli cities. While that attack was mostly thwarted by their missile shield it shows that the only thing holding back the tide is military might. It's only a matter of time until Syria and Iran have their proxies try again. I'd like to believe that everything will work out but given attitudes in the region I don't see peace breaking out within the next few decades. Frankly I think war is most likely.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

But they keep producing offspring. The next generation carry the torches.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Alomex]

You maybe right. You can equally claim that the only thing stopping Mexico from invading the USA is America's overwhelming military advantage. Regardless if that is true or not, the end conclusion is the same, peace with other countries such as Jordan and Egypt is a reality.

Your version of peace by means of not talking remains a fiction. Wars between Jordan and Israel since signing the peace treaty: 0. Wars with Lebanon since not signing the peace treaty:5 and counting.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

He's socially liberal. Personally I like some liberal policies. Getting rid of the "Patriot" act would be nice. Stopping the secret warrants would be nice. No more spying on people without a warrant at all would be nice. Sadly the President wasn't interested in any of that. He did champion many typical liberal projects though. Gay marriage, abortion and taxation are all interests he's pushed ahead. I suppose he's about as liberal as Bush Jr. was conservative. I don't know that the twisted mess that the Affordable Care Act became is actually a liberal act. I think it began as such but with the rush to shove it through without any actual thought about repercussions it became just one more huge bad government program when one special interest group after another got their claws into it. In the end it was just bad news. I think the original bill, while not good, would have been better.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[amiga3D]

Mexico seems to be currently carrying on a mostly successful invasion of the US. Yes, Jordan and Egypt both decided to make peace and have stuck with it. Both have moderate governments and a largely moderate population. Peace is possible with people who are moderate. I think that pretty much sums it up. I'd hardly call Syria or Iran moderate. I believe extreme would be a more apt description. Israel was willing to give up land to Egypt in return for peace because they believed it was possible to have peace with Egypt. It's hard to sit down and talk with someone when the only thing the other party has to say is "Die!"

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Alomex]

Syria sans ISIS had a pretty moderate record and was>< this close to signing off peace a while back. Iran has recently backpedaled in its anti-America stand, maybe Israel is next.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[Falconhell]

You hate the truth don't you shill boy. Al Jazeera is far more trustworthy than the US media.
But that doesn't suit your shilling for Israel does it?

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[unixisc]

Sure, you'd believe al Qaeda and perhaps even ISIS over anything that the big EEEEVIL US media has to say

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[KGIII]

Hmm... Just to give some insight, you know - in most other Western nations, things like abortion, gay marriage, and reasonable taxation aren't even debated by the right - maybe on the far right. Maybe. As for the ACA, that's a boon to corporate insurance companies and the industrial medical complex (I can't believe I just used those words, in a sentence, and together - but I lack a better phase). His intentions might have been liberal with that one, I'm not sure if I'm qualified to speculate, but the results are less than stellar.

If you look at it from a strictly American view then, sure, I guess you could call him a liberal, if only barely, but I'd think that's disingenuous. Our politics have gotten so screwed over the past fifty years or so that, really, we're kind of behind the times - in areas where we should be leaders. In short, assuming it's exclusively through an American lens, then I think you described it fairly well. He's as liberal as Bush was conservative. I can agree with that.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[dywolf]

veto the Keystone pipeline that would make the US less dependent on Islamic oil

We already are not dependent on Islamic Oil.

Did you just miss the entire exploding oil infrastructure in our nation?
Did you just miss that the worlds largest producer of oil is now the United States of America, both in 2014 and so far in 2015?

We are a petro nation now. The oil we do import we largely import our oil from Mexico and Canada, not the middle east.
And that ignores our shrinking demand for oil, as we expand out natural gas production.

The KXL pipeline would have done -zero- to affect the supply or demand for oil in the US.

closing down Gitmo and trying to get Jihadis onto American soil so that ACLU lawyers can bail them out

The constitution applies to them just as much as it does American citizens. it applies to all persons subject to the authority of the United States Government, citizen or not, enemy combatant or not. Indefinite detainment without trial or charge is very much illegal and unconstitutional. as is the continued detainment of people classed as nonthreats (and in some cased mistaken identities) and cleared for release several months ago....but that's another story.

for the ones who actually are bad guys (and not just swept up because paid informants, whom we know never ever lie or give false information in order to get an enemy in trouble, named them) a quick trial followed by a slow hanging or life in prison isn't something im opposed to.

but you do still need to fulfill the constitution's requirements that theoretically keep the exercise of governmental power over persons in check.
though, btw, you also apparently missed how he's in fact totally failed to close gitmo, going on 8 years now, and not even begun to take steps to do so.

Basically your entire post is a pile of BS that stands in total contrast to actual facts.
Which is pretty much par for the course.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[dywolf]

More ignorance.

Al Jazeera is a Qatari based news organization respected the world over, on a level similar to the BBC.
It's main biases, such as it is, is towards Qatar itself, and specifically the ruling royal family and its interests, and occasionally a pro-sunni/anti-shia bias when reporting on regional issues in regional markets.

The only way you could actually believe they are a part of Al Qaeda is you believe all muslims are part of it, which would just make you an ignorant bigot.
which frankly, meshes with your previous comments, and so wouldn't terribly surprising.

Re:Review Baratz all you want

[unixisc]

Sorry, Mohammed, the constitution does not apply to people who are not citizens of the US - particularly enemy combatants. The rest of your post is an ACLU rant

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:How is this different from the US GOP?

[phantomfive]

But the Netanyahu administration is putting that all at risk by closely aligning with only the right wing of the Republican Party.

How is Netanyahu aligning closely with only the right wing of the Republican Party? Serious question.

Barack Obama, Israel, and Jews

[93 Escort Wagon]

Check, check, and check. This should be an interesting comments section. Where's the popcorn?

Re:Barack Obama, Israel, and Jews

[Hognoxious]

Slight problem there. Systemd hasn't started up the heatcereal service. We don't know why (check the logs? Yeah, very funny), but it seems to have started when someone installed 3D printer drivers.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[NicBenjamin]

Because the GOP's our opposition, therefore much as I hate those chintzy fuckers, opposing Obama is actually their entire fucking job.

OTOH in legal theory the internal politics of all nation-states are supposed to be totally irrelevant to the one another. People don't pay much attention to that shit, but it's still considered a big deal in terms of an international relationship if one country makes a guy who really hates the leadership of another country their fucking spokesman (non-spokesperson-type jobs are different -- nobody gives a shit whether the EPA Administrator thinks Justin Trudeau is the only Canadian stupider then Stephen Harper, but you can bet there's be some fucking angst if John Kerry or Jay Carnay said that shit).

This is magnified when the relationship we're talking about is Israel-US, because the US is pretty much the entire fucking reason that half the Israeli cabinet has not been banned from international travel over ethnic cleansing allegations. And it gets even more fraught now that the stupid fucking politicians involved are Obama and Netanyahu. They have had some extremely strong disagreements over issues such as the Iran deal, Netanyahu's stance on negotiations with the Palestinians, Netanyahu's inexplicable decision to make that speech in front of Congress detailing all that shit, his slightly more explicable decision to run as the don't-worry-I-won't-sign-a-peace-treaty candidate, etc.

Which basically means that by hiring this particular guy Netanyahu would be perceived as intentionally insulting the Obama Administration. Since Obama takes his campaign promises of 2008 way more seriously then he gets credit for, that's probably not a problem in the short term. But in the long-term it's ridiculously fucking stupid because Obama is term-limited, and there's roughly a 50% chance the next President won;t be nearly as pro-Israeli as he is. For example Bernie Sanders was angry enough at Netanyahu's behavior prior to that speech that he boycotted it. Hillary is probably the most pro-Israeli Democrat of any kind left, and she is architect of much of the Obama policy Bibi haters, her husband helped draw up the peace treaties Bibi is trying to work his way around, and if her position on this particular dispute is anything but "Fuck you too Bibi" she's gonna lose a lot of the black votes that make her more likely to be the nominee then Sanders.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[fnj]

How is Netanyahu aligning closely with only the right wing of the Republican Party? Serious question.

He isn't. The President of the US, the country which in fairly recent history has been Israel's only real ally, has gone in the tank with a raging insane theocracy, Israel's (and the US's) sworn, naked, and unabashed enemy, and one of the most evil hotbeds of hate in the world. In so doing he has closely allied himself with the goal of the destruction of Israel (and the US). The only part the right wing of the Republican Party has with this is that they are the only ones expressing shock, disgust, and horror at this literal insanity, though they haven't done so with much intensity or dedication.

Re: Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[Anonymous Coward]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Disagreement with the policy or actions of the Israeli government because those actions suck is not "anti-semitic".

And to throw it around so cheaply, like you (and it seems, the official Israeli communications director) provides a stunningly weak straw man that devalues anything else you say because the mind of the listener switches off with a "what a complete idiot this guy is, I'm going to stop paying attention now".

Re:News for nerds?

[roger10-4]

No kidding, but probably because the word "Facebook" appeared in the article.

speak truth to power ?

[swell]

The problem with this is that there is a universal 'gentleman's agreement' among world and corporate leaders that they never say what is actually on their mind. Public statements must be carefully scripted and reviewed by the advisers; they must be designed to obscure any element of truth and cover it with vaguely bold assertions.

Nikita Khrushchev, Mayor Daley, Donald Trump and a few others live in infamy (or ridicule) because they dared speak their minds:

"I once said, "We will bury you," and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you." - Khrushchev

"The police are not here to create disorder, they're here to preserve disorder." "We shall reach greater and greater platitudes of achievement." - Richard J. Daley

Re:speak truth to power ?

[SuricouRaven]

Without that agreement, the world would be one angry conversation away from nuclear war. There's a reason diplomacy depends heavily upon protocols and formal agreements.

Re:speak truth to power ?

[PopeRatzo]

The problem with this is that there is a universal 'gentleman's agreement' among world and corporate leaders that they never say what is actually on their mind.

Maybe that's because if they said what was really on their minds, there would be rioting in the streets.

Re:speak truth to power ?

[swell]

So, in this political season in the US, can we believe anything that the candidates say?

Trump and Carson seem quite candid and frequently reveal their lack of presidential quality. Clinton, and the rest of the republicans, is scripted and it's impossible to know what she/they might actually think or do as a president. That leaves the outsider, Bernie Sanders, has no chance at the White House, partly because of his honest candor.

Obama campaigned on certain assurances which have failed to materialize. He seemed a 'man of the people' until he neglected to address the illegal immigrant problem and supported the trade agreement driven by the corporate elite and failed to close the inhumane prison in Cuba. There was no way to predict his actual actions from his promises as a candidate.

We want diplomacy in important sensitive discussions, but at some level we want honesty and openness from our elected officials. Can we have both?

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

You disgust me. After these insults I don't see any reason why we should give Israel their 3 billion dollar welfare check. If you're an American you're a traitor, if not you are our enemy.

Re:Foreign politician says US politician is childi

[Tablizer]

as a politician, they're not expected to be honest but rather to say nice things.

But "John Kerry is a big doody-head" doesn't carry much information. If you are going to insult, make it a useful insult.

Speaking as someone Jewish

[MobyTurbo]

Speaking as someone Jewish here, let me say this is just plain embarrassing - but I guess it's something to be expected when the Israeli government made, Netanyahu's previous cabinet, a frothy-mouthed extremist its face to the world as Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman.

Re:Speaking as someone Jewish

[TheRealDilbert]

And how is this different from "a senior whitehouse official" calling bibi a chickenshit and have it published in the Atlantic? http://www.theatlantic.com/int...

Re:Speaking as someone Jewish

[MobyTurbo]

Not much. Personally, I'm embarrassed in general with the state of relations between Netanyahu and Obama. I guess it's too late to hope that one side will take the high road.

Re:Speaking as someone Jewish

[Opportunist]

I feel compelled to inform you that there is no need to be Jewish to feel embarrassed by this.

Being human and knowing that this buffoon is of the same species already does that for me.

Re:Speaking as someone Jewish

[MobyTurbo]

There's a lot of buffoons in that category, sadly.

Re:Speaking as someone Jewish

[unixisc]

The blame for that goes squarely to Obama. It was he who was in bed w/ Rashid Khalidi - a Pali professor, and who decided to convert his hidden Judeophobic mindset into a set of policies that were not just anti-Israel, but pro-Islamic as well

Re:Speaking as someone Jewish

[Falconhell]

Is there any paranoid delusion you won't post shill boy?

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[im_thatoneguy]

It's different because the GOP doesn't receive $3B a year in support from the state department. Israel is playing with fire with its belligerence. If they become too partisan then their bipartisan American support will evaporate and they'll end up with nothing since neither party can act unilaterally. If the State of Israel becomes the State of The GOP in Israel then you can be certain that Israel will no longer be viewed as a "Friend of America" by the majority party (Democrats) in America. The GOP has only won one national majority in nearly 24 years (GWB 2nd term). Clinton won every majority vote in the 90s, George W. lost the 2000 majority (but won the electoral college) and then Obama won the popular vote again twice in 2008 and 2012. So if you take the popular vote as a "poll" of Americans the GOP hasn't polled terribly well at the national level.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Dog-Cow]

The term anti-semitic may have a word that refers to a race which most Jews do not (except possibly really, really distantly) belong to, but the term itself means anti-Jew. If you don't like it, make up your own language and convince the world to use it.

Social Networking and Politics

[quantaman]

A similar thing came up in the recent Canadian Election where several candidates were withdrawn due to social media posts, some were justified but others were probably an over reaction. Either way we're going to have to figure out how to deal with it unless we want our political ranks full of people who have never tried to express an opinion.

I think the way to think about this is to think of it as things said in a bar, opinions will be hyperbolic and sometimes completely out of character. But sometimes you'll see that people do have very extreme beliefs and probably shouldn't be in power.

For instance the comment 'describing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as having a "mental age" of no more than 12'. I severely doubt he actually thinks Kerry's mental age is no more than 12, he may not even think Kerry is below average intelligence, rather he's just insulting Kerry which doesn't show anything more than he really didn't like Kerry at that particular instant.

On the other hand 'accusing President Obama of anti-Semitism' is a bit different, it raises the possibility that Baratz either seems anti-semitism in any action that seems to go against Israel or that he likes to use accusations of anti-semitism to attack his enemies. If either is something Baratz makes a habit of than he probably isn't someone you want influencing the government.

Re:Social Networking and Politics

[SuricouRaven]

I've heard it said that in the future, there will be no-one able to run for president - because with everyone's life extensively documented, there will always be skeletons in the closet. Embarrassing acts from teenage years, things said in haste or ill-worded, just waiting for the opposition's hired investigators to mine it from the archives.

Re:Social Networking and Politics

[Nidi62]

I've heard it said that in the future, there will be no-one able to run for president - because with everyone's life extensively documented, there will always be skeletons in the closet. Embarrassing acts from teenage years, things said in haste or ill-worded, just waiting for the opposition's hired investigators to mine it from the archives.

If everyone knows about them then they aren't skeletons in a closet. The scandals always come from candidates who try to portray themselves as squeaky clean, never did anything wrong or never changed their mind. If a candidate were to admit they did something stupid when they were young, or believed/thought one thing but changed their mind when they learned they were taught the wrong things then there wouldn't be any problems. You would have no swiftboating, no Ben Carson, no flip-flopping "I was for it before I was against it", no "I did not inhale", etc. Most people would rather have someone who learned from their mistakes than someone who made mistakes but simply tries to pretend they never happened.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Opportunist]

That's your government. You may make fun of your government. But anyone else doing it is a nono.

It's a bit like your mom jokes. You can complain about your parents all you want, but anyone making a your mom joke goes home with a blue eye.

Re:Foreign politician says US politician is childi

[Opportunist]

But you have to phrase it in a way that your voters understand you!

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[SuricouRaven]

The president has attempted to negotiate an agreement which allows for peaceful coexistence with Iran. It's a pretty good deal too - it includes extensive monitoring of any nuclear activity and builds economic ties. Yes, it does mean making peace with an oppressive theocracy - but what is the alternative to that? The only alternative is open war followed by the same destabilisation that followed the war in Iraq, only on an even larger scale. It would kill hundreds of thousands (not from the fighting, but the destruction of government), cost trillions, and eventually a new and even worse power may emerge.

Uncomfortable peace, or hundreds of thousands dead and the global economy destroyed? Which would you prefer?

The only other option I can see would be targetted bombing of nuclear manufacturing sites, but that only buys time - Iran would just rebuild them.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[andydread]

Sounds like you've been swallowing the fox/talk-radio/daily caller propoganda echo chamber a little too much. HOw about getting some fresh air.

Re: GOP: The truth hurts

[cyber-vandal]

So the US Government doesn't give money to the Israeli Government?

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because the GOP's our opposition, therefore much as I hate those chintzy fuckers, opposing Obama is actually their entire fucking job."

No, just no. Your political system has no concept of an opposition. That is something that was invented by sore losers, people who basically go "well if I can't have it, nobody can" and spend all their energy trying to screw with the winners. Their job is to represent their district, nothing more. Their vote should be based on whether their district wants the bill, not what their political party wants.

I'd be nice if politics didn't always degenerate into childish us vs them cheap political point scoring.

Re:Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[drinkypoo]

However, the US has committed gaffes at the very top, such as Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy calling Netanyahu a liar.

You can call someone a liar when anyone can see that they are a liar. Except, apparently, the people of Israel. They keep re-electing that shitbag.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Prune]

stupider then

Oh, the irony!

there's be

I believe the original quote from Oscar Gamble was “They don't think it be like it is, but it do.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Gamble

then he gets credit for

The ride never ends!

it's ridiculously fucking stupid

You can say that again!

she is architect of much of the Obama policy Bibi haters

So she designed the Bibi haters of Obama policy?

nominee then Sanders

By now I'm pretty sure one of your keyboard, fingers, or brain hates you with a passion.

Schmobligatory Python reference

[Hognoxious]

The text of that reprimand in full:
My boy, my boy, what kind of a schlemiel are you? You can't say things like this already ...
[looks around and breaks into a whisper] ... if there might be any goyim listening.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[KGIII]

Hmm... You're assuming it wasn't intentional and that this ensuing response isn't, in fact, part of some further goal. The guy was recently appointed. Do something, get in the news, get thrown under a bus, and then ... ? (I assume it's profit, it almost always is.)

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[NicBenjamin]

How about Cali, which is going on 20 years of Democrats, or Mass, which hasn't elected a Republican to a full Senate-term since a black guy in the 70s. Or NYC, whose local-level Republicans frequently switch parties to run for higher office, and when they don;t tend to get their butts handed them in primaries. Places with similar GOP-dominence in the South can become tech hubs, but only if the Feds build NASA there.

A for Roosevelt, I kinda thought that beating Hitler and ending the Depression were good things, and that the GOP of the time strongly opposed all measures associated with both on the basis of Rand Paul-style isolationism and Tea Party style economic conservatism.

Re:Israel leaders are now members of DNC

[KGIII]

We live in an outrage culture. Those words have lots of effect. What they don't have is meaning.

Re:Politically incorrect question

[amiga3D]

The funny thing is, the Jews in the US support Democratic policies and politics. The only place they ever have any friction is over the State of Israel. I do thank you for being consistent in your disdain. Most people who are anti-semitic fail to criticize the bat shit crazies on the other side. Maybe because it's so dangerous. The Jews lobby, the Islamics lob bombs.

Re:News for nerds?

[unixisc]

You nailed it!!!

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[phantomfive]

I don't know.......if he was going to "suicide-insult" his career, I think he could have found a more productive way to do it.........

Re: GOP: The truth hurts

[unixisc]

Nothing compared to the money given to Islamic hellholes like Egypt, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and so on

Re:And why is this surprising?

[unixisc]

Jews are originally from Israel. Them being there is not like, say, the Brits being in India, or the French being in Congo, or the Portugese being in Angola or Brazil. If you want racist colonialism, look at all the Arab countries outside the Arabian peninsula, who once had their native civilizations, but which were wiped out by the Arabs. Such as the Persians, the Egyptians, the Barbers, the Kurds and so on. Within the Islamic world, there is a pecking order, where Arabs are at the top, non-Arabs like Turks, Farsis, Pakis, below them and Blacks right at the bottom. The whole situation in Darfur was a case of Arab racism against Blacks, even though the latter are fellow Muslims. The Arabs use the term 'Abid' to describe Blacks, which is their term for the n-word.

If you are Muslim, this is a clear case of projection

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[KGIII]

Well, maybe he's hoping for a comeback when things die down? It's a rather conspiratorial line of thinking, anyhow. I should also add that I've absolutely no clue how Israeli politics works.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Hognoxious]

Do something, get in the news, get thrown under a bus, and then ... ? (I assume it's profit, it almost always is.)

You aren't indulging in a bit of stereotyping there, are you?

But you could well be right that he's "taking one for the tribe". Umm, I mean team.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[KGIII]

If by stereotyping you mean thinking they may have politics similar to my own country, then yes. If by stereotyping you mean my assumption that politicians may be scum, then yes. If by stereotyping you mean something to do specifically with Israel or Jewish people then I'd suggest you look to your own prejudices for having leaped to such conclusions. Why would you even think such a thing? Are Jewish people stereotypical conniving politicians? I don't know, you'll have to tell me.

Seriously, what is it with you freaks and your desire to manufacture outrage where there is none? "Oh no, my poor sensitivities! You said something that I can relate to my own prejudices and I'm going to be presumptive and accusatory!!!" I don't know what you think about when you think of Jews but, personally, I don't align them with conniving politicians - I think that's a trait regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexuality.

Normally you're pretty smart but when you go full retard, you don't hold back anything, do you? This is me we're talking about. Not only do I have a pretty extensive history of posting in support of Israel and Jewish people in general, I've also been to their country a half dozen times and almost married a lady of the faith. All topics covered here, on this site, specifically. Dumb ass.

"No! I need to be offended! I'll just make shit up in my head, assume my own prejudices apply to everyone, and make stupid fucking allegations in the name of raising awareness and social justice!!!" If you don't feel stupid at this point then check your privilege because you probably should feel that way.

I hope, for your sake, you're drunk. I do, however, have my prejudices against politicians. Tribe... *sighs* You know, I'm a mixed race mutt, right? My strongest/highest percentage of ethnicity is, indeed, tribal - I'm mostly Native American. Yup. That's me. The mixed race guy hating on and making strange ass presumptions about Jews throwing one another under the bus for political reasons. Where the hell did that even come from? Seriously, I hope you're drunk. Otherwise, you're a fucking moron. I don't typically keep up on your racism so I've no idea what traits you arbitrarily assign groups of people based on their ethnicity.

Seriously? Man, you're so off my Christmas card list. I don't even... *sighs* Yeah, yeah... You need something to be outraged about. I can do that, if you want, but it probably won't be about the Jewish people. I'm kind of fond of them. I'm fond of them to the point where I even understand why they do what they do to the Palestinians. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand.

Yeah, no Christmas card for you, buddy! I do hope that you're drunk and haven't suddenly gone stupid. You've otherwise been mostly rational and, at least, marginally intelligent. Why the change?

Re:Idiot, not treasonous

[amiga3D]

That's right. Iran is the place of enlightenment and peace. Amnesty international, NOT a right wing group by any possible stretch of the imagination had this to say about Iran.

"The authorities restricted freedoms of expression, association and assembly, arresting, detaining and prosecuting in unfair trials minority and women’s rights activists, journalists, human rights defenders and others who voiced dissent. Torture and other ill-treatment remained prevalent and were committed with impunity. Women and ethnic and religious minorities faced pervasive discrimination in law and practice. Flogging and amputation sentences were reportedly carried out, some in public. Executions continued at a high rate; juvenile offenders were among those executed. Judges continued to impose sentences of execution by stoning, although none were reported to have been carried out."

https://www.amnesty.org/en/cou...

Land OR peace, can't have BOTH

[Tablizer]

Regardless, for two decades it was the de-facto border and there was relative peace. If you wander outside of those borders, you can't complain about war and revenge. Israel got what it bargained for.

The fact the other side isn't perfect is irrelevant. It's deflection to mention their sins. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Guantanamo Bay

[MagickalMyst]

Anyone who supports the land theft and genocide of the Palestinian people should be charged with terrorism and thrown into Gitmo.

I can't believe that there are actually people out there who support these crimes against humanity... And then propagate their hated of Arab peoples on Slashdot and other sites; whilst claiming to be "victims". Absolutely disgusting.

Burn in hell, you evil baby killing thieves!

Re:Immature and Anti-Semitic are being generous

[MagickalMyst]

If what you have to say is so important then please post as yourself not an AC.

Of course, you won't because your post speaks for itself - you drank the kool-aid and now you suffer from Islamophobia.

If you were true to your beliefs you wouldn't care about your post being voted down a by a few measly points because someone has a different, non-racist, opinion than yours.

As an Israeli, this article on ./ worries me

[lagi]

I don't like Netanyahu, nor I elected him - However, like other mentioned, he's world class politician. And I agree.
Why? He goes to US, asking for stuff military aid, relations are not good so no body fucking cares.
He needs some attentions form US public, hmm... Will he do that?
You get the point. Really nice move.

I've been Slashdot user since I don't know when (really couldn't check - but see my user id?).
This is the first time I see this kind of article about Israel on this site.
And why this worries me? Because when I come to ./ I expect reading about gcc, C++, Linux and perhaps other shit. Not about Mr. Netanyahu my ass hole PM thank you. Is this now turned into geo-political site? Just because the statement was made on Facebook? Or by Israeli PM? Really? Keep this kind of things out of here plz.

Re:and then proved our stupidity with Obama

[Tablizer]

What makes you think they wouldn't do those things anyways without a treaty? It's NOT like a shopping mall where we can just pick out and buy treaty features we want like a rich 14 year old.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Rakarra]

I don't know.......if he was going to "suicide-insult" his career, I think he could have found a more productive way to do it.........

It's only suicide if it's not approved of by his boss.
This is a way for Netanyahu to make known what he feels without having to say it himself.

Re: How is this different from the US GOP?

[Rakarra]

Maybe not. He's certainly anti-Israel though. He's undermined them at every turn.

Maybe. What if that's so? Disapproving of the politics of Israel does not make one an anti-Semite any more than disapproving of Obama's policy decisions (such as his support for the Iran deal) makes one racist against black people.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[Rakarra]

Money started creating "parties" not long after the founders were in their graves and unable to fight.

And by that you mean that most founders were themselves in political parties? George Washington is the only President the US has ever had who was not in a political party. John Adams, Federalist. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe? (not sure that Monroe counts as a "founder" though) They were Democratic-Republicans.

Re:How is this different from the US GOP?

[phantomfive]

This is a way for Netanyahu to make known what he feels without having to say it himself.

I hope not. There are certainly more eloquent, and substantial, ways to insult Kerry.