PM: Only Israelis will determine Israel's interests

[Jefferson23]

Obama is so mean to me

Commenting on harsh criticism by US President Obama, Netanyahu says that past four years have seen Israel 'face tremendous diplomatic pressure'

Ilana Curiel 01.17.13

"Only the Israeli people will determine who best represents the State of Israel's vital interests," Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday.

The statement was made as a comment on harsh criticism by US President Barack Obama, who – in closed doors briefings – told associates that "Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are."

The American president also said that Netanyahu's policies are leading Israel down a path of near-total isolation within the international community.

snip* "They insisted that we curb our demand for action on Iran; that we withdraw back to the 1967 lines; that we divide Jerusalem – that we stop building in Jerusalem.


"We fought against those pressures. I will continue to safeguard Israel's vital interests, for its security." he said.


in full: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4333458,00.html

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

1. I'm not sure how Bibi sees what PBO has said can be defined as harsh criticism.

It's fairly mild.

1) They insisted that we curb our demand for action on Iran.
Saber rattling and rhetoric is one thing but calling for the west to wage war on another nation is not wise. Diplomacy works best.

2) that we withdraw back to the 1967 lines;
The West Bank doesn't belong to Israel. How many times does this have to be said?

3) that we divide Jerusalem
The UN and the international community, the guys that recognized Israel as a state, have a different opinion.

4) that we stop building in Jerusalem.
Illegal settlements are just that: illegal.


PBO is apparently right: Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are.

[oberliner]

2. Maybe the US shouldn't interfere with another country's elections?

To make a disparaging comment about one of the candidates in the weeks before election is meddling, isn't it?

[azurnoir]

6. true that, was there an IVoteAmerica campaign sponsored by American

Last edited Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:17 AM - Edit history (1)

supporters of Barack Obama?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

8. I see you don't have a clear idea on what meddling is.

PBO made a comment about Israel, its future and its PM.

You see, there's a certain thing in the USA called freedom of speech. Perhaps you are familiar with the US Constitution and the first amendment contained therein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


It's not meddling or disparaging no matter how hard that some wish it to be or make the case for it. It just doesn't exist. Sorry to have to break it to you like this. Now if PBO was doing presser after presser on Israel and its current PM, meeting with the Israeli PMs opponents, having photo ops with them and using bellicose language (saber rattling) about Iran which could draw Israel into an unwanted fight then you would have the equivalent of meddling in a country's elections.

Now interfering in a country's elections looks like this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/us/politics/romney-plans-trip-to-israel.html

and this...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/minutes-before-netanyahu-meeting-romney-cancels-on-yacimovich-1.454425

and this...

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0927/What-Netanyahu-s-meddling-in-US-election-means-for-Obama-Romney-and-diplomacy

and this...

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/brinkley/article/Netanyahu-burns-bridges-with-Obama-4045204.php

Now if PBO was doing what Bibi had been doing on the run-up to the US election then you would have a case. Right now you apparently have a axe to grind with a phantom.

And that for one is puzzling.

[oberliner]

30. That's hilarious

I sincerely hope people do read your links and compare the two situations.

Completely proves the point I was making.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

32. I see that you are having difficulty refuting what I have written.

That is usually the case with those who have nothing with regard to facts.


Have a nice day.

[geek tragedy]

41. Only to the willfully blind. Netanyahu took PUBLIC actions to try

to undermine President Obama last fall--a fact denied only by Likudnik cheerleaders.

Obama spoke the truth in public about Netanyahu and all of sudden Israeli Victimology Syndrome kicks into effect.

Very curious how some so-called liberal Americans side with Dick Cheney-type figures leading foreign powers against the President of their own country and of their own party.

[eyl]

50. As I recall

Obama was fairly blatently opposed to Netnyahu during the latter's previous election run, and for that matter Clinton also openly displayed his preference for Netanyahu's oponnent during Bibi's first run in the 90s. Frankly, the US does not have clean hands when it comes to interfering in elections.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

52. Links would be great if they exist.

[eyl]

61. Can't find a link

for the one during the last elections (google keeps getting swamped by more recent comments) but examples of earlier cases can be found here[1]

[1]www.inss.org.il/upload/(FILE)1320580181.pdf

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

62. Sorry. I don't download unknown pdfs.

If you have the offending quotes then please post them.

Thanks.

[geek tragedy]

40. Ha ha ha. Like Bibi bashing Obama last fall and treating Romney

like a visiting head of state?

Oh wait, I forgot AIPAC Rule #1--Israel can do no wrong.

[oberliner]

48. This did not actually happen

Israel can definitely do wrong. Netanyahu especially.

[geek tragedy]

49. Funny how everyone else on the planet disagrees with your denial.

Might want to pull your head out of the sand.

[Jefferson23]

4. I wish I could say I thought this would help the Palestinians, but I don't think so.

And of course, Israel is not acting in its own best interest. A highly dysfunctional relationship
with the U.S. doesn't help matters.

It will be up to the Palestinians, alone, for the most part, in the end.

[aranthus]

37. A question.

You wrote: "3) that we divide Jerusalem
The UN and the international community, the guys that recognized Israel as a state, have a different opinion."

My question is. Why does the UN have any moral authority that gives that opinion any worth?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

38. "Why does the UN have any moral authority."

It has the same moral authority that any and all member nations expect from it when they need its help.

Case in point: Israel has thumbed its nose at the UN and simply ignored every resolution that it disagrees with; which is surprising since PM Netanyahu went before the UN General Assembly a short time ago with presentation to drum up support for action against Iran.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/27/netanyahu-abbas-un-general-assembly-live

Israel is perfectly capable of leaving the UN if it feels that it is not being represented but instead it stays.

[aranthus]

39. That's not a viable answer.

Member nations don't expect moral authority from the UN. It's a political club. It's a forum. Of course Netanyahu uses it. That's not an expectation of moral authority. The fact that Israel or any nation stays in it says nothing about whether it has any moral authority.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

42. I believe that you have absolutely no understanding of the UN or are being

completely disingenuous in order to deflect from the fact that PM Netanyahu seeks the authority of the UN while at the same time rejecting it.

The UN acts literally as a world body, democratically, to help end conflicts, ensure peace and security, promote human rights and international law. Perhaps you should visit their site and see that it doesn't describe themselves as a club.
http://www.un.org/en/

If the UN didn't have any authority, moral or otherwise, then PM Netanyahu would have skipped his bomb of a address before the UNGA and just asked the West directly to attack Iran.

Calling the UN a "political club" or a forum not only belittles what it does, what it attempts to do but suggests that you're are fairly naive on the subject.

Here's their purpose for you to read.
www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

1.To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;


Have fun reading it.

[shira]

44. And the UN is in breach of its principles. In a hideous way...

What about UN crimes?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4223342,00.html

Have fun reading that.

Let's see you try defending the UN once you finish reading it.

They have no moral authority.

======

And in comparison to Israel, there is no comparison. The UN makes Israel look saintly and pristine in comparison.

Rwanda
Srebrenica
Oil for food
Mass rapes
Utter corruption

And it goes on.

Now why on earth should the UN be considered a moral authority on anything?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

46. My, friend. you posted to an opinion piece on Ynet.

The article is about troops, from foreign countries being accused of crimes.

You are seriously confusing the moral authority of the UN with bad soldiers, sent from countries that should never have sent them into any situation let alone had them in the military in the first place. Do you believe that the UN President, Security council, or General Assembly really would knowingly commit troops to situations if they thought that things would get out of control?

In addition all the positive things that the UN has done over the years since its inception outweighs all the bad that those few soldiers who have worn the blue, and shouldn't have, have done. I see that you fail to mention one thing positive about the UN at all which is questionable, and I would suggest that the opinion piece that you have posted tries to deflect from IDF crimes by charging that other guys are bad or worse than our bad guys. It's a hollow defense, and a tired cliche.

I understand that some have to try as hard as they possibly can to throw up roadblocks and protests at every turn of the narrative. How else will they deflect from the human rights violations that Israel has committed if they don't at least try it?

"They have no moral authority?" Yes, the UN does. If Israel sees differently then they can always leave, but instead it will just send hypocritical PMs demanding UN belligerent action and sacrifice while ignoring the UN's rulings on it's own belligerence.

You should take a break, get some rest, and reconsider if anybody finds Netanyahu, his failed Israeli policies or your unquestioning support of them believable.

[shira]

47. It's not opinion, it's fact. The UN has zero moral authority.

And it's not just about troops. That would be bad enough due to the fact those crimes still go on and the UN does little to nothing to hold anyone accountable. The troops remain unpunished to this day...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-shame-over-sex-scandal-431121.html

Did you know....

1. UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali supplied weapons to the Hutu regime? The same Hutus who were committing genocide against the Tutsis? It took a US veto to keep that asshole from doing a 2nd term as UN Gen. Sec. years later.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/sep/03/unitednations1
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/20/world/round-one-in-the-un-fight-a-us-veto-of-boutros-ghali.html

Ghali turned out to be as evil as Kurt Waldheim. Remember him as UN Sec Gen? Nice record of UN chiefs.

2. The UN admitted it refused to act in order to prevent the Rwanda Genocide (while Boutros-Ghali was the head).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/568566.stm

3. The UN allowed for the Srebrenica massacre (genocide) as well. The Dutch peacekeepers responsible for separating the men from the women and children have still not been held accountable to this day. Compare to Ariel Sharon (who did not actively & knowingly assist in a massacre of over 8000).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/521825.stm
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2081634,00.html

4. The Oil for food scandal that happened under Kofi Annan's watch. Annan and his son were directly involved in the corruption...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec04/oil-for-food_12-3.html
http://www.economist.com/node/2618260
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090701646.html
http://www.economist.com/node/10853611

Only those prosecuted in the US have been held accountable.

5. The UN has consistently appointed and elected deeply racist representatives from inhumane regimes like Libya, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Sudan to run its Human Rights Council (which explains why the council focuses on Israel more than any other nation year after year). I shouldn't have to tell you that this disproportionate obsession allows for these rogue regimes to keep the focus off themselves (which is why they insist on being on the council). Hundreds of millions around the globe suffering under evil conditions daily wish the UNHRC would spend proportionate time on them. The "world" doesn't care b/c that "world" is deeply racist.

==========================================

So you're wrong. This isn't just about UN troops. It's about UN evil. The top UN leadership is neck deep and responsible for the mess and lack of reform.

Why would any liberal or progressive look to the UN (or as you see it, the "world&quot as a moral authority on anything? Why defend such an evil, corrupt, politicized, and deeply racist organization? They make Israel look saintly and pristine in comparison.

==========================================

Oh yeah, before I forget, I should mention that Israel is the only UN member nation excluded from full UN participation. The UN practices apartheid vs. Israel.
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/13395/israel-now-an-insider-but-new-u-n-status-is-limited/

The reason?

Pure, unadulterated bigotry.

==========================================

So it turns out you support, defend, and grant moral authority to a deeply racist, corrupt, criminal, and evil enterprise that practices apartheid. This is the "world" that Israel should look up to. Israel should aspire to be just as moral and ethical as the UN.

Fine. Let's judge Israel by the UN's standards and its own practices, shall we?

[aranthus]

56. You raise an interesting question.

Why would any liberal or progressive look to the UN (or as you see it, the "world&quot as a moral authority on anything?

The reason it's interesting is that it is only the Left that does have this view. Thoughtful moderates and conservatives don't.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

57. It's time to refute the shadow of disinformation #1: Boutros Boutros-Ghal

This is not to gainsay what has been written by you, but to call out both the inaccuracies (AKA blatant untruths or omissions) and the poor manipulation of the data to make those who have held high UN office to appear solely guilty when accusation of guilt is held by many. The UN, as an institution, was at the very least aware of the aftermath of the genocide, and acted accordingly. One might also acknowledge that the UN security council and general assembly members as a whole were also cited in the report.


1. UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali supplied weapons to the Hutu regime?

Yes, he supplied weapons to the Hutus in 1990. That's what the article that you posted says. 1990. The Hutu Tutsi conflict/genocide didn't occur until 1994. Had UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali the gift of divination to determine what would happen with his approval of an arms sale to the Hutus he might have changed his mind. Had he sold weapons directly to the Hutu during this time then your post and objection would hold some weight. Seeing how it was a sale that happened 4 years before the bloodshed your argument holds little, if anything. So, my friend, why you would want to stir the pot on such an horrible situation when if you read the article, or for that matter anybody read the article, leaves me to believe that your motives on this are less than honorable. Is it to distract from something else?

But if we are going to talk about arms sales lets start with Israeli approved arms sales to Argentina during the Falklands War.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8463934/Israel-supplied-arms-to-Argentina-during-Falklands-War.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1379008/A-deep-rooted-hatred-British-How-Israelis-armed-junta-Falklands-conflict.html

So Israel, under Menachem Begin may have helped to arm Argentina, a belligerent dictatorship, which in turn helped murder English troops? Yes, I am sure that some will accuse the source of being Anti-Israel or a such and such.

As I stated above, Had he sold weapons directly to the Hutu during this time then your post and objection would hold some weight. So since it is fairly possible to say that Israel was involved in supplying arms Argentina during the Falklands war, which may have lead to English military deaths, what would you make of that? Well? What weight will you give to that? Probably none, my friend.

Shall we look at Israel and Iran?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

According to Ronen Bergman, Israel sold Iran US$75 million worth of arms from stocks of Israel Military Industries, Israel Aircraft Industries and Israel Defense Forces stockpiles, in their Operation Seashell in 1981.[1] Materiel included 150 M-40 antitank guns with 24,000 shells for each gun, spare parts for tank and aircraft engines, 106 mm, 130 mm, 203 mm and 175 mm shells and TOW missiles. This material was transported first by air by Argentine airline Transporte Aéreo Rioplatense and then by ship.

Is it fair to say that Israel may sell armaments to enemies if it helps other enemies go away or even allies? The enemy of my enemy...

Israel and Rwanda?

Now that I have corrected your unfortunate errors what is tragically comical in your analysis is that there is also a possible overlooked Israeli involvement of arms shipments to, yes you guessed it, Rwanda during the 1994 genocide. Really?
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=685987

The Rwanda affair

Meanwhile, “Financial Times” reported that IIsrael was a source of arms shipments to the Rwanda government responsible for the genocide of almost a million minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus[/b in one of the most brutal campaigns of mass murder in human history.

“ Financial Times” claims that the arms were sent from Tel Aviv to Albania, where they were trans-shipped to Rwanda in April-July 1994, when the genocide was at its height. The Ministry of Defense was almost certainly unaware of the deal, which was a gross violation of international treaties.

Ethiopia

In 1998, it was reported that then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided not to cancel a deal to sell upgraded MiG 21s to Ethiopia, despite its ongoing border war with Eritrea. Eritrea’s ambassador to the UN condemned the deal. Netanyahu’s media advisor Aviv Bushinsky said the deal had been approved because the planes would have been delivered only a year later, in the hope that a peace agreement would be worked out in the interim.

Do you know the old saying about people who live in glass houses?

I can understand that some would want to paint the UN in a poor light when they were/are up to their proverbial eyeballs in the bad things that happened in former tragedies or unfolding ones.

The Rwandan genocide was truly a horrible stain on human history and something to be learned from so that it doesn't happen again. The one thing that this tragedy does is make the UN's role more imperative from stopping any kinds of genocide in the future from happening ever again. The UN will have to live up to this authority no matter what kind pressure or self-serving accusations are aimed at it by those who wish to subjugate a people, whether internal or external - citizen or perceived subgroup, for their own purpose or military profit. All I can hope and pray for is that the UN doesn't let another tragedy happen with an end game right wing Israeli conquest of the Palestinian people.


More to come.

[Shaktimaan]

64. Interesting POV.

So in response to the revelation that the UN enforces bigoted policies singling Israel out, denying them rights equal to every other member state, your only recommendation is for Israel to leave? In response to an assertion that the UN lacks moral authority, no less! Rather than offer criticism and attempt to change bigoted UN policies through discussion you refuse to even acknowledge that such bigotry exists. I suppose that throughout history the main way for victims of discrimination to react would have been to stop participating I guess?

Do you believe that the UN President, Security council, or General Assembly really would knowingly commit troops to situations if they thought that things would get out of control?

I think that you should probably be aware that the UN doesn't have a president and that the GA has no authority to commit troops to anything and otherwise learn some basic facts about the UN before you go around passing judgement on criticisms of UN policies.

I understand that some have to try as hard as they possibly can to throw up roadblocks and protests at every turn of the narrative. How else will they deflect from the human rights violations that Israel has committed if they don't at least try it?

So you find nothing wrong with the fact that the UN has put the nations with some of the absolute worst records on human rights in charge of their human rights committee? You defense is like saying "So what if the police put serial pedophiles in charge of their child services. If you don't like it, don't call the cops."

[aranthus]

55. And I think it's you who hasn't understood or thought it through.

You post:"The UN acts literally as a world body, democratically, to help end conflicts, ensure peace and security, promote human rights and international law. Perhaps you should visit their site and see that it doesn't describe themselves as a club."

[font color=blue]First of all the UN is not a democracy. It's an oligarchy. Yes, every UN ambassador gets one vote, but who does that ambassador represent? Well consider the ambassador from the US. Who appoints that ambassador? The President of the United States. To whom does that ambassador ultimately report? The President. Who can tell that ambassador what to do? The President. Who can fire the ambassador? The President. And only the President. And that's in the US which is much more democratic than most countries. UN ambassadors, like all other ambassadors of any country, represent only the head of the government of that country. There's nothing democratic about it.

Second, I'm not particularly interested in how the UN advertises itself. That propaganda is for fools. What matters is how it works and what it does. And all that it does is support the interests of the governments who can control it. Most of those are kleptocracies at best. That's why the UN is not a moral place. It's a political forum. It's a place where world leaders can talk to the world. That's it. The fact that Netanyahu uses the forum doesn't mean that he gives it any moral respect or that he should.[/font]

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

58. Excellent fail on your part...in pretty blue no less.

"First of all the UN is not a democracy."

I believe that they would disagree with you.

"It's an oligarchy."

No, my friend, it is a world body. You can call it a shrimp cocktail, but it doesn't meant that your humble opinion is valid.

"Yes, every UN ambassador gets one vote,

That is what is known as Democracy. Your failure is noted.

but who does that ambassador represent? Well consider the ambassador from the US. Who appoints that ambassador? The President of the United States."

The POTUS submits the candidate for approval, the Senate confirms or denies. That, my friend, is Democracy.

I would go on from here, but you seemingly have such a dim view of the UN and a clouded view of how Democracy works; so that to entertain or educate you any longer will not be worth the time.

[aranthus]

59. You're still not thinking things through.

First of all the UN is not a democracy.

"I believe that they would disagree with you."

[font color=blue]So what? It's the validity of UN opinion that's at issue. You can't defend UN opinions with more UN opinions. Circular reasoning.[/font]

It's an oligarchy.

"No, my friend, it is a world body. You can call it a shrimp cocktail, but it doesn't meant that your humble opinion is valid."

[font color=blue]Except that my opinion was backed up with facts and logic, and you haven't said anything that refutes it. Saying that it's a world body doesn't mean anything.[/font]

Yes, every UN ambassador gets one vote,

"That is what is known as Democracy. Your failure is noted."

[font color=blue]Do you understand the difference between an oligarchy and a democracy? Oligarchies may be internally democratic (like the UN), but they only represent their small group (in the case of the UN that's heads of government). The UN isn't representative democracy like a Congress or Parliament.[/font]

but who does that ambassador represent? Well consider the ambassador from the US. Who appoints that ambassador? The President of the United States.

"The POTUS submits the candidate for approval, the Senate confirms or denies. That, my friend, is Democracy."

[font color=blue]Great. You've proven that the United States is a democracy. But we're talking about the UN. How many UN ambassadors go through a confirmation process? Not many. Plus, you seem to have either missed the point or else you are intentionally ignoring it. UN ambassadors are responsible to and represent only the head of their government. That makes the UN an oligarchy. Not to mention that most of those governments are kleptocracies. They aren't moral places, so neither is the UN.[/font]

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

60. Have a good night.

[holdencaufield]

3. He's right, of course ...

... only the citizens of a democracy should determine what is best for that country.

Syrian citizens are trying to just that as we speak.

[delrem]

7. Yes, but Obama is right too.

Obama knows very well how isolated the US was in supporting Israel in the latest UN general assembly vote, and no doubt understands the resentment that the majority of the world feels when the US uses its veto *every time* to benefit Israel in the security council. Israel's reaction was to spit in the face of the UN by ramping up a behavior that the UN, in its laws, deems criminal. Israel wouldn't be able to do what it does to the Palestinian people if it were not for US backing, and because of Israel's extreme intransigence that backing is costing more and more of a dwindling stock of political capital.

I've heard the argument that the whole world, the entire planet, is "antisemitic", and that's why it "picks on Israel" even tho' Israel does no wrong. That argument is totally out there, like some off the wall dude saying that the whole world is insane except him. The "whole world" could give a shit about "Jews", or "the Irish" for that matter. Neither group is the center of the universe. The world is reacting to the systematic repression of and elimination of an entire population of indigenous Palestinians. The whole world is reacting to the fact that Israel is systematically wiping Palestine off the map.

[holdencaufield]

9. The UN spits in Israel's face on a daily basis ...

... a little spit back isn't entirely uncalled for.

Why is the US such a steadfast supporter of Israel? Some see conspiracies of a Judaic origin. I prefer to see my country as the only one noble enough to stick to a principle. Britain back-stabbed the nascent Israel in '47 just for the sake of a few pounds off the price of their oil. France as well as Russia and China have screwed over Israel just to flip the bird at the US.

If you can show me any indication that indigenous Palestinians are being eliminated by Israel I'd love to see that. There are four times the number of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza than there were when Israel came into being. I can however show you copious examples of Palestinians being eliminated in wholesale quantities by Jordan and Syria.

We support Israel because it's the right thing to do.

[delrem]

11. The UN crime according to Israel: recognizing the existence of Palestine.

As Israel annexes more land refugees are pushed into smaller plots. That's ineluctable fact. Like Gaza, where 70% of the population are refugees, and the West Bank, which is getting smaller and smaller, where the number is 30%.

You seem entirely happy with the fact that Palestine is being systematically wiped off the map -- except for the fact that you perceive Israel to be the victim of terrible plots.

[delrem]

13. That statement is without doubt the most offensive

that I've heard uttered in this group.
IMO, that statement is evil.

[holdencaufield]

15. But ... historically accurate

[delrem]

17. No. It's just 100% offensive. nt

[shira]

27. Palestine was a geographic area; never a sovereign nation.

Who were Palestine's rulers prior to 1948?

There weren't any.

[aranthus]

19. But you're not allowed to tell the truth at DU.

Surely you've learned that by now. How else to explain how your post, which wasn't offensive at all, and was factualy true, got removed. I should be stunned that it was removed, but, sad to say, I'm not surprised anymore.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

21. Actually, you are allowed to write the truth.

Perhaps you should read the rules again, or bring it up in Meta.

[azurnoir]

22. It's just when the 'truth' resembles something Newt Gingrich said

it tends to get a bad reception here at Democratic Underground

[aranthus]

34. Except Holden didn't post anything like what Gingrich said.

Gingrich said that Palestinians were an aritficial nation. Whatever Gingrich meant (and he alone knows what was in his mind), that sounded very much like saying that Palestinian nationalism was illegitimate. Holden said nothing of the sort. He posted that there was never a Palestine, which sounds like he's saying that there was never a country called Palestine. That's entirely true. More important it says nothing about the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism today. If Duer's can't tell the difference, then they have a problem understanding intellectual argument.

[azurnoir]

43. nice in depth analysis some 14 or so hours after the fact

however I said resembled not the exact same and in my first reading that is how it came off to me too

[Scootaloo]

26. Is that why you never bother?

[aranthus]

35. Clever.

Since it's obvious that I do post here, it's clear that you mean that I don't post the truth. So, please back up that allegation. Where have I lied, let alone lied repeatedly?

[zellie]

23. Delrem....in all sincerity..

with regards to the post that was deleted ,

What exactly is "offensive" in that post?

What exactly is "evil" in that post?

If I am ignorant of the obvious, please direct me to the obvious. I really would honestly like to know.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

24. To me it exhibits callous indifference.

[delrem]

25. I don't accept your statement that you "don't know". nt

[zellie]

31. Delrem , I'm not feigning ignorance.

You were outraged at that post that was hidden and I still just don't see it.

You certainly don't have to answer ( its a free country) but I am sincerely ignorant to your insight with regard to this post.

Can you just tell me what is "offensive" and "evil" you see that I am ignorant about ?

Sincerely.

[shira]

28. I wrote a post yesterday clearly outlining the racism of low expectations....

...exhibited by Palestinian supporters here (the anti-Israel brigade).

A post that mocked their racism of low expectations was somehow interpreted to be outrageously racist (by me) against Palestinians.

You figure it out.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

33. Do you ever read what you write?

"Palestinian supporters here (the anti-Israel brigade)."

Support of Palestinians in their want for a state is not being anti-Israel. Criticism of Israeli practices is not being anti-Israel.


And you believe others are racists for this?

Reread your posts.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. "... that never existed in the first place."

I'm sorry to have to refute that but.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File alestine_south_1924.jpg

Map of Palestine: 1924.
Source: National Library Of Scotland
Author: British war office

I'm sure, given a few minutes of introspection, you will come up with something as cynically cold, uncaring and callous as you just did.

A side note: What Israel is doing to the Palestinians is morally offensive, a violation of UN resolutions - international law, and for some to sneer and ignore the suffering of a people, while insisting that those responsible for the suffering are somehow the victims, is a perverse act that will be reviled by history.

Israel should think long and hard on whether it wants to be a state recognized as a modern democracy worthy of praise or as some follower of ultra-nationalist pride: wiping out any traces of what it deigns as inferiors and outsiders.

[Shaktimaan]

65. you should know

that nothing you wrote is true. Look at a map. Israel has been GIVING the Palestinians more and more land. You have it entirely backwards.

The only places that Palestine exists on the map at all is because Israel gave them land to exercise sovereignty over for the first time in recorded history. If not for Israel, Palestine wouldn't exist at all.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

14. Indication of indigenous Palestinians being eliminated by Israel...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113428314#post6

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/idf-kills-teenager-in-west-bank-fourth-palestinian-death-in-a-week-1.494135

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/20121119194625198412.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/21/schoolsworldwide.israel

Seems like these people have been "eliminated." No?


"We support Israel because it's the right thing to do."


My country, right or wrong?

[holdencaufield]

16. Do you not understand the difference ...

... between killing a person and eliminating a people? If that is your position do you acknowledge that Palestinians are attempting to eliminate Jews? They killed a fair few of them over the year.

Delrem accused Israel of systematic elimination (genocide) of the Palestinian people -- a patently untrue claim.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. And now the grand backtracking and rationalizations begin.

I believe that you wrote, "If you can show me any indication that indigenous Palestinians are being eliminated by Israel I'd love to see that."

I believe that I just showed you that to your great dissatisfaction. These people gunned down have names, had lives.

If you wish to play "but they're doing it too" the I guess that its 'In for a penny, in for a pound, in for a shilling, in for the killing."

If you want to give a value to what the IDF has done to what "those bad Palestinians (that don't really exist since they never had a state to wipe off the map)" have done then exactly what difference are they compared to Hamas?

Israel is supposed to be the Democracy, goddamit!

[shira]

29. "The whole world is reacting to the....elimination of...indigenous Palestinians".

You cannot be serious. The Palestinian population is growing at the same rate as Israel's. Israel must be the absolute worst at carrying out ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc.

=============================================

But back to "the world".

The world doesn't give a shit about Palestinians. What's wrong with you?

There are oil-rich countries in Israel's region that have their own self-interests. One of them is to hate on Jews and blame the Jews for any and every thing, in order to keep the focus off themselves. They are successful getting many Western nations to play along. Oil and the fear of terror going mainstream in the West goes a long way to getting others on board vs. Israel.

But back to this BS about the world caring so much. The world couldn't care less and is 100's of times worse than anything it could ever dream of accusing Israel.

What about UN crimes?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4223342,00.html

The same UN (world) that accuses Israel. The same, hypocritical and sanctimonious human rights groups (HRW, Amnesty) covering for, denying, censoring out the world's (UN) crimes. All self-appointed Judges of the Jews' behavior. All disgusting, sanctimonious bigots.

[SDjack]

5. All Pres. Obama did was spread some sauce on the gander (Bibi), who didn't like it,

unless he is spreading sauce on Pres. Obama. Specifically, Pres. Obama sent the message: "Hey, Bibi. Remember when you interfered in my campaign? Well, here is something for you to deal with."

[Scurrilous]

10. Yep.

[bemildred]

36. Derp derp derp derp ...

"You dare to question me?"

Why yes, we do.

[Alamuti Lotus]

45. that's right, keep biting the hand that sends weapons to you..

I don't see the logic in snapping at what amounts to basically their only friend, but I approve of the growing appearance of tension all the same.



But as usual, the issue seems a bit contrived and quite soft as fights go--the criticism is never actually harsh, and punitive actions are never taken in the same manner that certain other nations receive quite casually.

[larkrake]

51. good, return our donations

and by the way, our support stops today, we no longer support pre emptive wars

[oberliner]

53. Who do you think should determine Israel's interests? nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

63. Israel should not determine the interests

Last edited Tue Feb 5, 2013, 09:11 PM - Edit history (1)

of others outside its own internationally recognized borders.