Slashdot Mirror
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."
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."
We're not giving them enough of someone else's land.
If he were running for US republican nominee that would have made him the front-runner.
I work for a small internet services company and they have a better social networking policy than the government of Israel.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Check, check, and check. This should be an interesting comments section. Where's the popcorn?
#DeleteChrome
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.