Israel 'To Review' Top Appointment After Facebook Controversy (bbc.com) 351
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."
Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
We're not giving them enough of someone else's land.
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, 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.
Re: (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 [wikipedia.org] except for the fact that Israel had ad
Re: (Score:3)
> 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: (Score:2)
> 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/
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
A slight technicality: weren't most of those cities established in the original Israel?
Re: (Score:2)
They predate the older Israel, even.
Re: (Score:2)
Touche! That is an excellent point.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
> 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: (Score:2)
Please inform yourself before making proclamations, your ignorance is making your argument meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
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, alo
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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. Lawrenc
Re: (Score:2)
Well no shit. The entire identity of "palestine" as it exists today is a total fabrication [al-rassooli.com]. 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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 exte
Re:Yeah (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 r
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
We didn't pump 100s of billions of dollars into them.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually we pay more collectively to the arab states than we do to Israel, just to keep them from bitching.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Yeah (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.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand they did terrorize and then confiscated the land of Christians in Israel (Maalul &co).
Re: (Score:2)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
That's exactly my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 undergro
Re:Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody even wanted that land until Israel became prosperous.
Re: (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.
Re:Yeah (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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 businessm
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Too bad (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd take Netanyahu over most of the field of GOP hopefuls.
Re: (Score:2)
Treasonous? I'm not the one that paved the way for Iran to have nukes. Is that you Donald?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Social networking policies (Score:3)
I work for a small internet services company and they have a better social networking policy than the government of Israel.
Foreign politician says US politician is childish (Score:2)
Said foreign politician promptly reminded that, as a politician, they're not expected to be honest but rather to say nice things.
Re: (Score:2)
But you have to phrase it in a way that your voters understand you!
Netanyahu is an embarrassment (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.
Re:Netanyahu is an embarrassment (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't help but wonder how y'all manage to keep electing him then.
Re: (Score:2)
USA elected Bush twice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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-... [haaretz.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 fo
Re:Review Baratz all you want (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obama is befuddled like Sarat, they both erroneously believed that Israel wants peace.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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).
Barack Obama, Israel, and Jews (Score:3)
Check, check, and check. This should be an interesting comments section. Where's the popcorn?
speak truth to power ? (Score:2)
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 tro
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Speaking as someone Jewish (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Social Networking and Politics (Score:2)
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'
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Schmobligatory Python reference (Score:2)
The text of that reprimand in full: ... ... if there might be any goyim listening.
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Because the Republican frontrunners are just such paragons of factual debate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
We live in an outrage culture. Those words have lots of effect. What they don't have is meaning.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:How is this different from the US GOP? (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:How is this different from the US GOP? (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
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 th
Re:How is this different from the US GOP? (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 [commondreams.org] 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 [nytimes.com], 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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 thin
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: GOP: The truth hurts (Score:2)
So the US Government doesn't give money to the Israeli Government?