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."

16 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah by Njorthbiatr · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Yeah by aevan · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Yeah by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Yeah by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Yeah by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:Yeah by Kagetsuki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ??? 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.

    6. Re:Yeah by quantaman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    7. Re:Yeah by Dog-Cow · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    8. Re:Yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ??? 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.

  2. Too bad by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  3. Netanyahu is an embarrassment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  4. Re:How is this different from the US GOP? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  5. Re:How is this different from the US GOP? by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:How is this different from the US GOP? by fnj · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  7. Re:Review Baratz all you want by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.