Thursday, January 12, 2012

Yet Again President Obama Sides with Israel

Yet again, President Obama shows that his actions in support of Israel speak louder than critics suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS).

In addition to his "exceptional support for Israeli Security" (as stated by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak) and additional funding for Israel's Missle Defense systems, AND in addition to his support at the U.N. against Palestinian unlitateralism (which seems like it will be continuing in light of what looks to be a failure in the Amman Talks) AND in addition to his support in the rescue of Israeli Diplomats from an angry mob of Egyptians, AND in addition to his administrations support and committment of viewing an attack on Israel as tantamount to an attack on the U.S., the President YET AGAIN shows that he is a true friend to the nation of Israel and to it's people.

According to the White House:

"The two leaders also discussed recent Iran-related developments, including the international community’s efforts to hold Iran accountable for its failures to meet its international obligations," the White House said in a statement. 

"The president reiterated his unshakable commitment to Israel’s security, and the president and the prime minister promised to stay in touch in the coming weeks on these and other issues of mutual concern." 

Iran's "nuclear development problem can't be ignored by the world, so from that perspective we understand the US actions," Finance Minister Jun Azumi told reporters after meeting with US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who was visiting Tokyo after two days in Beijing.

Japan imports about 10% of its oil from Iran, Azumi said.

"We plan to start reducing this 10% share as soon as possible in a planned manner," he said.

Apparently the President's efforts at getting support for sanctions against the Iranian regime are bearing fruit. To get Japan on board with this... Pretty good.

Additionally, in referring to the Amman Peace Talks that seem to have stalled over the issue of borders (to be fair the Palestinains have produced a map based on the 1967 borders with 1.9% land swaps, Israel refuses to present a map) and continued Israeli Settlement construction, White House had this to say:

"Although this January 26th date has been out there, we do not want to see it be a rigid sort of straitjacket which chills the atmosphere", she said, adding that the date “was a proposal made by the Quartet. It was illustrative of what we wanted to see happen.”

“So it's really incumbent on the parties now to do the hard work to fill out the rest of the game plan through 2012. We don't want them or anybody else to get so fixated on the date that it chills the mood. We want them to keep going on the hard work that they're doing together,” she said.

Currently the two sides are arguing over whether the Quartet set Jan. 26th date is the actual date for talks to expire. The Quartet said that the two sides had Three months to get their act together and start talking. The Palestinians take this to mean that the "clock started running" at the time of that pronouncement. The Israelis have said that the "clock started running" with the opening of negotiations last week. Here is the U.S. taking an active stand and siding with the Israelis in saying "let's get this to work and nevermind the clock". An Israeli positive position.

Kudos to President Obama for taking these stands and standing with Israel as a friend to the Israeli and Jewish people.


  1. Unfortunately, some people fail to realize that Obama is a true friend of Israel and to the Jewish People that simply wishes to see Israel continue its existence as a Jewish and democratic state. Bradley Burston once wrote that Israel could be two of three things: 1. A Jewish state; 2. A democratic state; and 3. one state between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea. Obama wants the first two to remain the case, which is why he is pushing so hard on both sides to achieve the two-state solution.

    That makes him a friend of Israel, not an enemy of it. And, honestly, I like the fact that he doesn't take bullshit from either side. We've needed that for a long time, and not just when it comes to the Middle East. That's the President's general demeanor when it comes to governance. It's a refreshing change.

    1. (livosh1)

      Agree 100%. Of course, this diary has only stated what is plainly obvious.

    2. Well, as long as there are those out there that lie and distort President Obama's record, we have an obligation to speak up and do our best to prevent those lies from taking hold.

    3. Exactly Reuven... your comment in response to livosh is dead on. We do have an obligation to speak up against the Paulists and the ODS crowd at every opportunity / occasion. Both of those groups need to start actually looking at reality.

      Oh and yes - he does need to stand against Bullshit from both sides as right now - it is freely flowing from both sides.

  2. These are AMERICAN commitments. Does anyone here believe that any POTUS would do anything differently? Or that politicians would be fully candid and publicly announce disagreements?

    That said, should there be any qualms that Obama chooses Yusuf al-Qaradawi as a mediator? Or that has seems to have become quite cozy with the Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps more than he should, relying on secret assurances that it would uphold the Camp David Accords?

    The article said:

    Muslim Brotherhood deputy leader Dr. Rashad Bayoumi insisted that his group will never recognize Israel or its right to exist. "This is not an option, whatever the circumstances, we do not recognize Israel at all," said Bayoumi, adding, "The Brotherhood respects international conventions, but we will take legal action against the peace treaty with the Zionist entity."

    It continued that Essam Arian, deputy head of the Muslim Brotherhood's political wing the Freedom and Justice Party, took issue with the State Department's statement about secret assurances, while another Brotherhood official, Subhi Saleh, added that while "the Muslim Brotherhood will honor all agreements are sacred and any signed agreement can be reconsidered."

    Or what about Haniyeh in Tunisia, where one blogger reported:

    On at least foue (sic) separate occasions, inside the airport, outside it, before, during and after Haniyeh’s sermon at Uqba ’slaughterer of infidels’ ibn Nafia’s mosque in Qayrawan, and at an Ennahda/Hamas rally at a sports stadium in Sfax, chants of ‘Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahud’ and other anti-Semitic and genocidal taunts were made in the presence of leading Ennahda officials, and, in at least the case of Sfax and inside the mosque at Qayrawan, these officials, together with some of the country’s most senior clerics, joined in with the racist nasheeds.

    Of course, this is but a partial account of the deterioration that has also occurred amid the Obama friendship.

    Do not get me wrong. I am not saying Obama is to blame. But good intentions are not the sole determinant, in my opinion, and the incessant chanting about Obama's steely love for Israel may not just be inaccurate, but will ring hollow if its adversaries, with their religious antisemitic bent, continue to grow in power while he acts to reinforce their intractability.

    I suppose that is why Israel's National Security Council determined during an emergency meeting last week that US President Barack Obama is "naive" when it comes to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and the dangers it poses.

    Thus, rather than adopting a partisan approach that seems to try too hard to convince that Obama is Israel's BFF, perhaps it is better to keep watch based on the what occurs on the ground. Wishful conclusions that paint pictures in black and white do not serve a positive purpose in my reality.

    1. Well... where to start.....

      How about the last part? OK.. Partisanship - OH NOEZ, NOT THAT. BUT there is no reaching "wishful conclusions" - The President is a solid friend of Israel and his actions bear that out. No offense, but, Whether in your reality that works in not really a concern of mine. In the reality that we inhabit the President is a good friend to not only Jewish People but to Israel. I find btw your harping on "non-partisanship interesting as I don't see you doing that on a right wing blog that you post on. Interesting that... wouldn't you say?

      Ok, let's go to the beginning of this post.... While yes, the President has taken on responsibilities and American positions consistant with the Best of friends of Israel, he has been "exceptional" (DEFENSE MINISTER OF ISRAEL Ehud Barak's Term - not mine) in terms of Israeli security. He has inreased aid to Israel over what predessors (sp?) have done. Oversaw, total support at the U.N. against Palestinian unilateralism, Backing Israel in current negotiations in Amman, Rescuing the Israeli Ambassadorial Staff in Cairo (something he could not have done had he not had ties in Egypt), conducting the LARGEST JOINT MILITARY effort between the two countries... Do I need to going?

      So, onto the next thing. As for Egypt - I might suggest you follow your own advice of wait and see what happens. Victoria Nuland was over there talking to the Brotherhood about making sure that they honor the Peace Treaty. Wouldn't you say that is the most important thing? I don't see the U.S. being B.F.F.'s with the Brotherhood should they abrogate the treaty and threaten Israel.

      Oh yeah, and as far as talking to the Brotherhood - if that is anti-Israel you better get on it telling Avigdor Lieberman and the Israeli Foreign Ministry about how anti-Israel they are in reaching out to not only the Brotherhood but also to Al-Nour (the Salafists).

      As for Tunisia... wow, you didn't happen to catch the Government's official condemnation of the anti-Semitic cheering squad? Did you? What would you like them to do? Officially condemn them? Hey guess what, they did that. I am not saying they are such great guys but what do you suggest the U.S. do in this case? Rather than "play the scold", come up with a suggestion. Frankly, I would do exactly what the Obama Administration is doing.

      I find it interesting that while you rip on the Tunisian Government you must have missed this comment - talk about spreading partisan propaganda:,7340,L-4173442,00.html

      Rachid Ghannouchi also reiterated a policy of his Ennahda party, which heads the country's new government, that Tunisia's Jews are "full citizens with equal rights and duties."

      "Ennahda condemns these slogans which do not represent Islam's spirit or teachings, and considers those who raised them as a marginal group," Ghannouchi said in a statement.

      Or perhaps you missed this:,7340,L-4164325,00.html

      Tunisia's newly elected president called Monday for the country's Jewish population to return, in statements carried by the state news agency.

      During a meeting with the country's Grand Rabbi Haim Bittan, President Moncef Marzouki said that Tunisia's Jews are full citizens and those that had left were welcome to return.

      So you ask if I believe the POTUS would do something different - well lots of POTUS' have been far worse and not many have shown this level of committment to Israel. So yes, I do think most would be far worse than President Obama. The record is there for all to see and the more the Republicans, their clones and those with ODS attack the President the more I will answer. The difference is that I can point to actual instances of support while the Republicans and their synchophants can only scare with what if's.

    2. oldschool - I mean to reply to your comment but it is not showing up here. Anyone know why?

    3. Looks like my comment to which you are responding is not showing up either.

      In any event, I enjoy the back and forth, but may not be able to do more than listen to your thoughts. Busy day. We know what each other will say, for the most part. In many ways, it's the emphasis in which we differ.

      Have a good one!

  3. Where to start is right.

    As for the other blog, I have often admonished that it overstates the case, much as I do here when that happens. So you got your facts wrong.

    I raised the matter of partisanship because you generally give short shrift in your analyses to opposing views that show the weaknesses in your arguments, such as those I presented. Partisans are able to compartmentalize and ignore such that, in the end, what is presented is spin.

    I did not ask you to be concerned with my reality, all I did was state it. Is that not what you are doing as well?

    I do not expect Barak or anyone to say anything in public besides what was proffered. Even Netahyahu does that, and Obama. Why do you take it as gospel? Look what Obama said when no one was supposed to hear. That seems to take some of the bite out of your position.

    America is a friend to Israel because it is in our interest to do so. We have a stake in it beyond altruism, namely, our own security.

    As for the MB, I do not think they can be trusted, and it appears that Obama may be trusting them too much. The statements that contradict the State Dept. evidences that things are said depending on the venue and the language being used. We have seen this before. We know what the MB is about, from the start. That does not mean not to talk to it, but not to ignore its intended purpose either. Perhaps Obama is being naive. Is that beyond the realm of possibility? Are you really pleased that Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi is now seen as a moderating influence by the Administration?

    As for Tunisia, of course I know what was said, but it took awhile to come out. Further, it was claimed this was just isolated occurrences involving a few people. What I provided showed it was more prominent and that government officials were present when this occurred. Again, what gives you so much confidence? Some Jews in Tunisia are much less so.

    In addition, the draft Constitution and Ghannouchi's rhetoric against Israel and the "Zionist entity" does not point to moderation. Nor does his relationship with Qaradawi or the fact that Hamas was even invited. There is that MB connection again. Some have said that he needed to condemn the antisemitic statements as a measure of damage control. Time will tell, but his overall record does not deserve praise when seen from a Zionist perspective.

    Finally, I think your conclusion that lots of Presidents have been "far worse" and have not shown the level of commitment is sheer nonsense. You make it seem like the others have been anti-Israel, and overstating is the main criticism that I offer. Just like you claimed that Romney wants to destroy the country! Can you name one President that has a relationship with someone like Rashid Khalidi, a disciple of Said with ties to the PLO when it was a held to be a terrorist organization? Or should we consider him a good friend to Israel as well?

    I do not put a halo on Obama, or a pitchfork, but try to see him realistically, and believe he has many more flaws than you do, but that he is committed to American interests that include Israel's security. History will determine his role, and the extent of his personal friendship. One thing that would not surprise me, however, is that one day the Palestinians will jilt him in such a way that he will come to see the intention to destroy Israel even more than obtaining a state. This is part of my reality, even if you could care less.

  4. I just typed a huge response and Blogspot erased it.

    Ok.. I disagree with this entirely and I mean entirely. I don't have time to address these points but I really want to address one paragraph so work can wait. ;-)

    That is your comment about my comment about Presidents have been "far Worse" for Israel ... Well I can name FOUR off the top of my head: Eisenhower (R), Ford (R), Reagan (R) and George H. Bush I (R)... Notice something similar with all of them?

    I also want to address the silliness of Can I name a President with someone like Khalidi? I can name a President with a far more egregious tie. The Bush - Reagan Presidency's and their ties to the Royal House of Saud. You know the guys who export the radical Wahabi's and their Salafist message.

    Oh yeah, and the nonsense about Khalidi: Here is my Diary at DKos which completely dispells that:,-Good-for-Israel?showAll=yes&via=blog_747362

    Btw, here is President Obama on his "good friend" Rashid Khalidi:

    "You mentioned Rashid Khalidi, who's a professor at Columbia," Obama said. "I do know him because I taught at the University of Chicago. And he is Palestinian. And I do know him and I have had conversations. He is not one of my advisors; he's not one of my foreign policy people. His kids went to the Lab school where my kids go as well. He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel's policy."

    and here is Rashid Khalidi on his "good friend" President Obama:

    Q. Finally, on the issue of your relations with President Obama
    A. I don’t talk about that.

    Q. Are you disappointed with him?

    A. I had low expectations and my low expectations were more than fulfilled. He’s done considerably worse than I would have expected. But I never assumed that this would be someone who would be able to break the whole mold of American politics. And he didn’t. Quite the contrary. This has been an Administration that on certain key issues has been almost as bad as and sometimes even worse than the Bush Administration.

    Now... can we please put the BULLSHIT Right Wing talking points to bed as they are obvious failures.

    GOSH I wish I had the rest of my post....

    Oh yeah and as for Egypt - The President is far from naive. He is quite the realist. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists won about 70% of the vote. I mean the Liberals just dropped out of the election for goodness sakes. Am I happy about who the U.S. is using as a moderator? No, not really. But that is what is up. The MB is the only game in town right now in Egypt. Who else would you see in that role? You are critical of President Obama here (along with the rest of the Right Wing), so what would you do differently here? Easy question.

    The President is doing everything he can to keep the Peace Treaty alive. He knows exactly what he is dealing with but this is the hand he has been dealt. Far from being naive he is trying to salvage the treaty. What is your alternative?

    1. Just a quickie.

      You mentioned Republican presidents, yet provided NO SPECIFICS WHATSOEVER besides the fact that they have an R after their names!

      I did not say that Khalidi was an advisor, but he is more than you made or Obama out. According to the LA Times:

      It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

      A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

      Khalidi may publicly proffer his disappointment, but you will find no other US leader that has such a friend.

      Are you saying that Obama has no relationship to the House of Saud? We just sold them $30 BILLION in arms, including our most sophisticated fighters!

      Stop with the Right Wing accusations, already! It is unbecoming. It shows the weakness of your positions. Do I accuse you of swallowing anything Obama does whole?

      My alternative is for Obama to be more resolute. I did not say that he should not deal with the MB, but maybe he is empowering them more than he should. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

      I also think he may be sending the wrong message and reinforces poor behavior. For example, his cooperation with the OIC where, in effect, he promised that the US will work to implement the UN resolution requiring member states to pass laws that criminalize the “defamation of religions.” I totally oppose this course.

      With respect, you seem way too dogmatic. Any criticism of Obama you take as an attack. You are too adamant to prove yourself right. I never said that Obama is an enemy, yet your replies imply that I did. You are so defensive that you get offensive, and I think you should take a step back.

    2. "you will find no other US leader that has such a friend."

      This kind of Joe McCarthy bullshit reveals your ignorant right-wing perspective. Your rhetoric is the equivalent of Sarah Palin's "palling around with terrorists" remark.

    3. Typical ideological reply. It's all that matters, eh Anon? But can you name one? Pretty please?

      The difference is that I can support Obama without wearing the rose colored glasses that you must. Are you so threatened by what I said that you have to call me McCarthy and Palin in one reply?

      Call me whatever you like. I know who I am, and it's nowhere close to as obnoxious as you appear from your comment.

    4. When you adopt McCarthy and Palin rhetoric to demonize liberal politicians, you revealed exactly who you are. No one is fooled by your rhetoric. Perhaps you're spending a bit too much time in front of the television watching Fox News.

    5. Demonize? Funny, the demonizer accuses other of demonization. You remind me of the worst of those.

      I merely stated what is a fact. Read the LA Times article. That is not FOX news. What I quoted what quite tame, to show the friendship, in the context of a discussion. That is not demonization at all, except perhaps to one that practices demonization as you.

      Not a mention of McCarthy, Palin or FOX in that article. If I had wanted to go there, I would have asked why this tape is not being released, but I did not. But you have gone there, eh?

      Thus, I suggest you the demonizer that accuses others. You claim the liberal mantle, yet behave as a reactionary. And I would hope that you only speak for yourself here, not everyone.

    6. You are trying way too hard, clown. It is obvious to anyone reading this that you are desperately attempting to raise an inference that is the functional equivalent of the answer to the question "how many times did you beat your wife last week." You might want to try it on your right-wing buddies; maybe they won't laugh at you.

    7. You have shown your character. No wonder you refer to McCarthy. Have a great weekend!!

    8. Don't worry, the weekend has been great. I've been chuckling at all the garbage you've written.

    9. Good you can chuckle. I am saddened by your garbage, and your posing as a progressive.

    10. Awwwwww. I'm sure all your right-wing Obama-bashing buddies will cheer you up.

  5. Ahh the silliness continues....

    No specifics regarding the Presidents mentioned. Ok well thank you for Providing me that opportunity.

    Lets look shall we:

    Dwight Eishenhower (R): here you go... it is too long to post here but amongst other things - Eisenhower (R) said he would not have supported the creation of Israel but now that it was there he would back up obligations. Don't forget to look up Eisenhowers threats to Israel during the Suez Crises

    Gerald Ford (R): Threatened a "reassessment" of the relationship with Israel in 1975

    Ronald Reagan (R) in addition to visiting and HONORING SS Veterans of WWII, Reagan's administration was very contemptuous of Israel. Read this regarding: Chemi Shalev in Haaretz:

    George H. Bush: From the Jewish Virtual Library

    For many in the Jewish community, Bush's presidency could be encapsulated in his offhand quip to reporters in September 1991 during an AIPAC lobbying effort on Capitol Hill in support of the proposed $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel: "I'm one lonely little guy" up against "some powerful political forces" made up of "a thousand lobbyists on the Hill." The comment triggered a spate of antisemitic letters and comments for which the president later apologized.

    Or perhaps:

    Bush had opposed the loan guarantees as long as Israel continued settlement in the West Bank and Gaza. The president finally agreed to a loan guarantee package in August 1992, requiring as a set-off any funds Israel spent to build housing or infrastructure in the territories. Despite this action, the political damage was done. The loan guarantee controversy later motivated Jewish opposition to President Bush, who received no more than 12% of the Jewish vote in the 1992 election (down from close to 35% in 1988).

    ummm ... so you were saying? Bummer to have to torch the Republicans like this... Right?

    On Khalidi - you state they are friends, but they do not. I know some Right Wing bloggers and the L.A. times made some points about but as Khalidi is not an advisor and they in reality are not such good friends... Nu? Who cares.

    BUT the Bush family calling the House of Saud folks "family".... that far transcends ANYTHING President Obama has done. As for his military deal with Saudi Arabia that has to do with the alliances in the region - you know to fight Iran. BUT he doesn't call the Saudi Royal Family "like family". That would be the Bushes fyi.

    First off my positions are quite a bit stronger than yours which rely on Right Wing talking points and blogs. Sorry, I know that is distressing but the truth is powerful.

    Second of all, I will not stop with calling out your use of Rightist talking points until you stop using them.

    As for dogmatic... No I am not. I am combatting ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) by presenting facts. This seems to stress you out. Why is that?

    Perhaps if I am too dogmatic you should not worry about responding to my each and every post. But yet you do. However, I simply use facts. It really is that simple.

  6. I am far from stressed. You give yourself too much credit.

    You ALWAYS use facts? Like saying that "Romney wants to destroy the country?" Or that other Presidents have been "far worse" and not many have shown this level of committment to Israel." Or that "my positions are quite a bit stronger." Or that I "rely on Right Wing talking points" to suggest you thought process is more pure and independent? Some facts!!

    The FACT is that we have different views on some issues, yet you must throw out labels. Quite frankly, I think your approach to discourse is not very progressive at all. It largely consists of calling people right wing when they disagree with you. I am not right wing and find it quite strange that you must defend Obama against what is rather mild criticism. Yes, I am not a "bot" when it comes to him or anyone else. I plead guilty.

    However, I got some more news for you. Yours smells as bad as mine. That is a FACT! At least I don't pretend otherwise.

    You can spout about Reagan and Ford, but did the relationship actually change? As I said, there are constraints as to what any President can do given the strong pro-Israel consensus in the US.

    You cite Bush, but what about his letter that gave Israel permission to expand settlements even though his peace plan officially called for a freeze?

    In other words, this realm is filled with contradictions, yet according to you, only Obama is pure in his friendship and rises above anyone else. What utter nonsense. It sounds like something an 8 year old would actually say!

    As for Obama, what did he say to Sarcozy again? Why is he meeting behind closed doors with the OIC or choosing the genocidal Qaradawi? Why did he make plans in 2010 give those Saudis the the largest U.S. arms deal ever?

    The FACT is that you do not have a clue what he really thinks of Israel, nor do I, yet you pretend to be all-knowing of what he believes.

    And you respond to my posts in kind, don't you, each and every time? Why do you accuse me of doing just what you do?

    The difference between us, as I see it, is that I do not just hear what I want. I have said repeatedly that Obama follows what is long held American policy (except when it comes to the MB). I said his actions are a mixed bag, and explained why. I never said he is not a friend to Israel, but that escapes you. According to your skewed and one-sided perception, friends can do no wrong. After all, you ALWAYS deal with facts!

    1. I mentioned that you cited Bush, but it was Papa. My mistake.

      I hope you will spend more time dealing with those who actually hate Israel and/or Obama, and better understand that I am actually a friend that is not so beholden as to offer criticism when I deem it appropriate.

      Anyway, will leave it at that.

    2. No problem on the mistake... Shit happens, I do it plenty myself.

      oldschool you have to understand I am a Left/Center-Left guy. I don't like either the people with ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) on our side or those with IDS (Israel Derangement Syndrome)on the other side. I simply have no tolerance for either group. BUT right now with the U.S. election coming I am focused on our own politics. I am an American after all, I am not an Israeli citizen. I do love Israel, I may speak some hebrew (some) and I may do Krav Maga (not that well but well enough), but I am a proud American.

      I support the Obama administration and it's foreign policy goals. I wish it were more "liberal" on Domestic issues but... it is the best we can get - so I will take it.

      Anyway, I stated below where I am coming from. Will you be that forthright?

    3. I am a liberal and lifelong Democrat who is not afraid to see when the left goes awry, which I see increasingly as it mirrors the worst of the Right, namely, the lack of ability to hear anything other than its own dogma.

      I assume each side has good intentions and cares about the country, but each has a different vision of how to get there. I am mature enough to understand the points being made without twisting them to shreds. I mostly reject what the Right proposes, but that does not mean we are always right and they are always wrong.

      Finally, I am ALWAYS forthright.

      That will suffice for now.

    4. Interesting response and not forthright at all.. I asked specifically who you were supporting in both the U.S. and then who you identify with in Israel. It really is not hard. I asked for specifics and you answered that you are a liberal and lifelong Democrat. SO does that mean you will be supporting President Obama in November? If not, who would you support? You know very well what I am asking yet you did not give a forthright answer at all.

      Why are you hedging? Do you not have pride in your position?

      Oh and I don't disagree with you about the far Left and the far Right in terms of dogmatism, but, I do think the vision of the Right for America is pure poison for our country.

    5. Why do you impugn me and insinuate bad faith? Or must my responses conform to your dictates?

      I don't make these demands or, for that matter, silly remarks about courage or being forthright. Why must you?

      I suggest that you show a bit more respect toward others. I find your tolerance sorely lacking, particularly for a progressive, and somewhat authoritarian.

      I am glad to see that you agree regarding dogmatism. Sadly, I see it on occasion in your discourse.

    6. Apparently you missed my post below...

    7. Hard to keep track. You kind of missed some of mine as well. Just doing the best I can, under the circumstances.

  7. LOL... this is pretty funny. Talk about personal attacks! If this is you being "far from stressed" I would hate to see you when you get nervous. Talk about acting like a petulant Eight year old, this entire post reads like one wrote it.

    You say you are not Right Wing but you fawn over an interview with PM Netanyahu. You quote Right Wing cites. You get upset over my criticism of Mitt Romney.... Oh please. Be proud of what you believe. And yes, relying on Right Wing blogs as information and analysis as opposed to news sources really does taint your information.

    My criticsm's of Republican Presidents really seems to bother you. I'm sorry are you worried about what people will think of the Party when they see this. Count on far more of this as election season rolls on. The Republican Party is NOT a friend to Israel or the Jewish people despite what Ha'Likud or their Rightist allies in Israel think. Im Tirtzu doesn't determine who is Zionist and who is pro-Israel.

    As for PRESIDENT Obama what did he say to Nikolas Sarkozy... He said he felt PM Netanyahu was a pain in the ass. ON NOEZ... PM Netanyahu probably IS a pain in the ass for President Obama. So what. They don't really like each other. So.... Their are many in Israel that don't like the PM and say far worse about him than calling him a "Kootz b'tachat" (Pain in the ass). Are they all anti-Israel too?

    Why is he meeting behind closed doors with the OIC? Why the hell do you think he is doing that? He wants to keep the region solidly behind the U.S. in a conflict with Iran. You think those leaders will say publicly that they will stay out of hurting U.S. interests? They would face civil war from crowds in the street.

    Why is he dealing with crazies from the Brotherhood? Why is the Israeli Foreign Ministry reaching out to Al-Nour? You know why? Because those are the folks that are going to be running Egypt and they got 70% of the vote in a mostly fair election. Who else are we (or the Israelis) supposed to talk to there? Perhaps we should appoint Hosni Mubarak as the mediator? Would that make you happy? We are trying to salvage the Peace Treaty. That is the single most important thing there. As long as that exists Israel has breathing room in the South. Those meetings have to be closed door. G-d speak of being naive.....

    As for the House of Saud - the President is building a regional alliances. He is buying influence here. BUT Unlike his Republican counterparts he never referred to the House of Saud as "FAMILY". You should check out this book,_House_of_Saud

    I very much do have a clue as to what President Obama feels towards Israel - it is in his speeches and his action. He is a friend to Israel. He is a friend towards Jewish Americans. Only someone either really dumb or really Republican can't see that.

    I simply respond to your posts as you respond to all of mine. And... I will continue to do so. Is that a problem?

    Tell you what... let's clear this all up. I would like to know where you are coming from so I am going to ask you point blank... Who do you support for the U.S. President? Who would you support (what list would you vote) if you were Israeli? I will happily volunteer my info here.

    I support President Obama here for re-election. I would not vote for any of the current Republicans or really any Republican at this juncture. If I were Israeli I would vote Avodah although I am intrigued by Yair Lapid but I don't really know that much about him outside of some published views. That is where I stand. How about you? Do you have the courage to state your preferences?

    1. I am not going in circles with you over and over.

      I believe, however, that there is nothing wrong with self-criticism, and that we are not above error.

      I further believe that many of the Left are too wrapped in theory and often incompetent when it comes to getting things done on a practical level.

      I believe many on the Left are too quick to run from liberal values and proceed in fear of being labeled by the doctrinaires, much like you attempt to label me. The difference is that I am not willing to concede my values, which I maintain are based on the the UDHR.

      I have become more positivist with time, especially as I deal and confer with human rights practitioners who have experience in armed conflict. They understand and tell me that the theorists often accomplish nothing besides production of hot air.

      As for Obama, I did vote for him, will vote for him, and will criticize him, rather than idolize him.

      If you have a problem with Netanyahu's interview, what can I say? I do not idolize him either. I know how politicians are. That said, there was NOTHING in the interview that I objected to. The reality is that he has to deal with adversaries that want to kill all Jews, and has had to during most of his life, contrary to we who get to opinionize without risk. I respect that, and think he often does not get a fair shake, all things considered.

    2. One other thing, please cut the crap with the remarks about courage. It takes no courage to pontificate on a blog.

      And as to the Right, I don't need to drone about them, as I know who and what they are. As I said, I care about how people of my ilk act because there is an ability to have an effect and perhaps make a small difference. I see the endless diaries about Romney and Gingrich and think it's wasted time. You know, hot air about how much better we are, but it will not change a thing.

      So it seems we have different objectives. I am not a cheerleader. I want us to be better more than I want to show and offer self-congratulations that we are just so much better, which is often a self-delusion.

    3. Ok.. as per your first post... I can agree with much of what you said. It actually helps knowing where you come from on this. I am glad to see that you will support the President in 2012. Believe it or not, knowing that makes a difference.

      As for your second post, you are wrong about "courage". I bet many of our friends at another blog won't come out with their recommendations regarding support because they feel that they will be ostracized. Even on line. "Courage" is an interesting thing. I face it in myself a lot when sparring. I don't know where the line is sometimes but I disagree with you on this.

      I also do not agree with you regarding the diaries about the Republicans. Other people read these things and whacking the Republicans is as much about exposing their weaknesses to the general populace as anything else. I am not a cheerleader either. There are things about the President that I don't like, BUT, as long as the ODS crowd wants to post lies about him (and I include your Khalidi reference above) then it is up to us to counter that. SO... as long as ODS continues I will counter.

    4. It takes a lot of courage for Anon above to call me names.

      There is no semblance of courage where we are anonymous as well.

      Diaries about Republicans are generally a waste in my opinion, unless they are substantive and assume there is good faith. Since I do read more on both sides, I can assure you that the emulation is stark. I hardly learn a thing from the diaries except that there is a lot of close minded people.

      The Khalidi reference was merely to point out that Obama, unlike any other POTUS, had such a connection, in reply to the claim you made that others were "far worse," etc. It is not a talking point and I did not raise it as such. I did not use it as a disqualifer, but to show that your claim was overblown. None of this is as cut and dried as you intimated. You are free to misconstrue, however, but let's not pretend that I mentioned it out of the blue, or that it is even false that there is a relationship unlike any other President has had.

  8. You didn't ask me, but I'll volunteer my info.

    I support president Obama! Every one of these Republicans except for Huntsman is a fool who would be a disaster for our country. Obama isn't perfect, but I think he's doing well given the constraints.

    If I were an Israeli, I might just vote Likud. As per my previous post here, Israel is doing very well lately economically. And even diplomatically they are making pretty decent progress. I think that Netanyahu is doing an ok job, even though I am not aligned with him ideologically. Any American president presiding over 5% unemployment would be reelected easily.

  9. Interesting fiz... I would not put you for a Likudnik. Do you really support continued building in the West Bank? Giving more power to the YESHA? Privatizing formerly public lands and selling them to cronies? Empowering the release of extremists who attacked an IDF base? Why do I mention that - because all that is happening in Israel today. Don't forget a new immigration law that boggles the mind in it's xenophobia.

    I read Jeremy's Knesset Blog everyday and I see the bills that Likud and it's allies advance. I wouldn't vote for those in the U.S. for the most part...


  10. yeah, you're right. I would probably vote Kadima or Labor.

    But, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a Likud victory, given how the economy is performing.

  11. I actually would expect a Likud victory but not because of the economy. I would expect it due to the security issue and the fact that the Palestinians are bringing P.I.J. (Palestinian Islamic Jihad) and Hamas into the PLO AND considering renouncing recognition of Israel. That only brings on more nationalist sentiment.

    Here is the latest poll out of Israel (these change pretty constantly): Find lots of polls here:

    Three Yediot Ahronot telephone polls were conducted by Dahaf on January 9, 2012, and published the next day. The first measures the current Knesset parties along with the Lapid, Deri and Green parties. The second is similar to the first, with MK Mofaz leading Kadima. The third poll measures support if Lapid led Kadima. The nationalist camp would enjoy a majority of 61 seats if Livni heads Kadima and 62 if Kadima is led by Mofaz. The third poll has the nationalist camp at 58 seats compared to the Center-Left-Arab coalition at 57, and supposedly Deri could play kingmaker with the five other seats. The Arab parties are unlikely to join a Lapid or Kadima government. It appears from all three of these polls that the new parties would chip away at the right majority of 65 but would fall short of preventing the Right the opportunity to form the next government.

  12. Would be because of both then, wouldn't it? The economy and the security situation. In fact, I would think it would probably require monumental, historic incompetence for anything other than the right to hold onto power the next time around under such circumstances. But then again, who knows. I'm not an Israeli, obviously.