Excellent.

Huzzah!! Finally someone to stand up to the Israelis

The best part is, they can't really call him an anti-semite, because he's Jewish!

cameroncrazy1984: The best part is, they can't really call him an anti-semite, because he's Jewish!

And a one fingered super Jew to boot.

Obama team readying for confrontation with Netanyahu

The preemptive briefing is meant to foil the possibility that Netanyahu may try to bypass the administration by rallying support in Congress.

This is far from over. Bush the Elder ran into a heap of trouble when he tried to cut loan guarantees for Israeli settlers. Lets see what happens here.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: cameroncrazy1984: The best part is, they can't really call him an anti-semite, because he's Jewish!

And a one fingered super Jew to boot.

Yeah, he's a hard-ass. I wouldn't want to be across the negotiating table from him.

Israel is probably regretting their endorsement of McCain and their attacks on Obama in the press.

Of course after 8 years of the Bush administration flooding Israel with money, weaponry and truckloads of American intelligence, Israel had the audacity to threaten creating alliances with Russia and China in an attempt to scare Americans into voting for McCain.
This action in itself should guarantee Israel never has access to American intelligence data again. Then the next time we catch an Israeli spy, they should never see the light of day. Israel needs to realize that either they behave has an ally or they are treated as much less.

Con_Authority: Israel(Likud) is probably regretting their endorsement of McCain and their attacks on Obama in the press.

This new Likud government lead coalition is very hard right. Frankly the only people in the world who share a similar worldview are neocons. No surprise there, neocons are tight with likud.

McCain was with the neocons well before Bush went that direction -after 9/11.

about time.. however I do have an issue with the part that says:
"President Obama has made it abundantly clear that the US will accept nothing less than Israel living side by side with a sovereign Palestinian state."

Setting up the goal as a two state solution will not work, it will further anger the people. a ONE state solution on the other hand, where the current exiled ALL will have citizenship, and equal rights would be the optimal solution.

After all the idea of "xxxish-state" is filled with racism and hate. as how could one have a "xxxish-state" while other none xxx live there?

Party Boy: McCain was with the neocons well before Bush went that direction -after 9/11.

bullshiat. Bush hired a slew of Neocons for his administration from the get go. Perle,Feith,Libby,Abrams,Cheney,Rummy and a bunch more. They had all this planned from the beginning. 9/11 was a Godsend for their agenda.

Any opinion from the Hamas Bee on this?

Hobodeluxe: bullshiat

No.

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI - the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy - had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.

See the fight between Powell-scowcroft and the neocons

Hobodeluxe: bullshiat.

recall the 2000 South Carolina debates between Buch and McCain

FOREIGN POLICY: McCain says he'd support, in some fashion, forces trying to overthrow regimes in 'rogue states' such as Iraq and North Korea. He'd also 'use our primacy in world affairs for humanity's benefit.'

Bush, too, counsels against isolationism but has emphasized more than McCain that the United States should intervene in conflicts when it is in the nation's direct interest to do so.

More Powell -After- Bush went Neocon

Powell began to lose favour in fallout of September 11

Sharon teaches Powell a lesson over breakfast

Colin Powell's Humiliation

Simpson on Sunday: Israeli leader has more power in Washington than Powell

Powell 'pushed out' by Bush for seeking to rein in Israel

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: And a one fingered super Jew to boot.

I don't know why, but the phrase "one fingered super Jew" just made me laugh really loud.

The stock rating for Mr Emanuel in the office death pool has gone from 'meh' to "holy shiat buy now"

/mysterious plane crash anyone?
//will need more details before judging whether this is a good idea or not
///when Tatsuma shows up there will be hell to pay

SilentStrider: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: And a one fingered super Jew to boot.

I don't know why, but the phrase "one fingered super Jew" just made me laugh really loud.

Sounds like it would be a character in a Broken Lizard movie or something.

CAN Israel still call the United States its best international friend? Apparently not, if you believe the tone of the local media

FTA: CAN Israel still call the United States its best international friend? Apparently not, if you believe the tone of the local media

Who is Israel's second-best friend?

Do they even have one?

Awesome. About goddamn time a US president stopped Israel's expansionist tendencies.

Party boy the fact is that many of the PNAC signatories already had positions in the administration. Now whether or not Bush campaigned on his pipe dream of rebuilding the middle east in his image is a different argument. But the fact remains that these people were brought in at the start. The PNAC had already written Clinton trying to get him to invade Iraq. The fact that Bush and Cheney chose a bunch of them to start with clues me in on what their real intentions were. And they were not what the campaigned on.

Wolfowitz,Feith,Abrams,Perle,Liddy,Rummy,Cheney,Addington and even a hold over from Clinton Richard Armitage were all members of the PNAC.
Now they may have awaited until 9/11 before muscling Powell at state but the moves in the Pentagon and intelligence had already begun at the beginning of the administration.

So, unless they evacuate the west bank we won't do anything about Iranian nukes or if they evacuate the west bank we'll take care of the Iranian nuke problem?

My guess is if they stay in the west bank, we'll still do something about Iran getting the nukes.

Marcus Aurelius: FTA: CAN Israel still call the United States its best international friend? Apparently not, if you believe the tone of the local media

Who is Israel's second-best friend?

Do they even have one?

Micronesia

Oh jeez. This thread is either going to be one of the best ever, or it's going to make me want to put myself through a wood chipper. There's really no in-between, and I'm predicting the latter.

That's a bee? It looks like Tweety Bird in a strapless bra.

Spanky_McFarksalot:

My guess is if they stay in the west bank, we'll still do something about Iran getting the nukes.

Yeah. Still, it's good to have it said aloud that these expansionists are a real problem and not some divinely endorsed squatters.

You mean what the Israeli's have been willing to do if the Palestinians were willing to sign a peace deal

Good. Very good.

The continuation of the Obama foreign policy continues: Screw your allies, aid your enemies.

FTA "If we lose America, then we are alone," says [random Tel Aviv barman Meir Avraham]. "So we must listen to what America wants. But really I think this is more about the little brother testing the limits of the big brother."

We're the "little brother?"

randomjsa: The continuation of the Obama foreign policy continues: Screw your allies, aid your enemies.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Addressing the failed Cuban policy and taking an even-handed approach to Israel? Who does this guy think he is, a rational leader?

Hobodeluxe: Party boy the fact is that many of the PNAC signatories already had positions in the administration.

Powell's plan of a multi-national force (most importantly, Muslim nations) to attack al Qaeda was first. Then the neocon plan took over after 9/11.

The Rift: U.S. Strongly Rebukes Sharon for Criticism of Bush, Calling It 'Unacceptable'
This is a war in which Arab allies are vital to Washington. Their price - imposed in part by the need of the Arab governments to justify working with the United States to their own publics - is a visible American effort on behalf of the Palestinians. That means American pressure on Israel for more concessions, and an American readiness to overlook the organizations and states that Israel would like to see crushed as terrorists and supporters of terrorists: Hamas, Hezbollah, the various armies of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Syria, Iran.

Those neocons you keep listing, were hired

Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy.

First it was a multi-national force (and Muslim nations) to get al-qaeda. This is very similar to the multi-national force to go after saddam, and not occupy in 1991.

Then you have the neocon plan. Clear differences. Bush went on board with it after 9/11.

The question is, does Israel want that help? Obama wants them to completely withdraw from the West Bank, like they did with Gaza. Things didn't go so well there, so from their viewpoint, there isn't much sense in repeating that.

Then you have to look at what Obama has to offer to deal with Iran. Talk. Iran has made it clear that no amount of talk is going to stop their nuke plans. So then what? What if talk isn't enough? Will Obama bomb them? I'm guessing they think the chances of that are slim to none.

So, if I were the Israeli PM, I would look at what Obama has to offer (from nothing to the creation of a state sworn to destroy me) and conclude that it would be in Israel's best interest not to have the US involved with the Palestinian problem.

But maybe thats just me.

Hobodeluxe: real intentions

theres no shadowy mystery here. There was a huge fight between Powell and neocons. Powell's plan was first, but he lost out to the neocons.

Israel needs a good cockslap.

IStateTheObvious: like they did with Gaza.

Israel didn't withdraw from Gaza. It was an effort to consolidate settlements in the West Bank.

Of course, then you have borders, airspace, etc.

Israel is going to continue to do what we tell them to do, they are our biatch and no addict is willing to cut of their supply to the crack.

They have no real support in attacking Iran, other than the Sunni leaders in the region, and its time for people to understand no matter what you do, Iran is going to acquire nuclear technology.


Time to live in reality folks

SilentStrider: e fingered super Jew" just made me laugh really loud.

It doesn't work as "missing finger super Jew."

FreakinB: Oh jeez. This thread is either going to be one of the best ever, or it's going to make me want to put myself through a wood chipper. There's really no in-between, and I'm predicting the latter.

Disable the woodchipper, just in case later you cannot resist the urge.

Isn't about time we started looking at reality and results, instead of fantasy and desire?

randomjsa: The continuation of the Obama foreign policy continues: Screw your allies, aid your enemies.

If Israel is an example of an "ally", then that's change I can believe in.

IStateTheObvious: Then you have to look at what Obama has to offer to deal with Iran. Talk. Iran has made it clear that no amount of talk is going to stop their nuke plans.

They won't just stop on a dime, but I think they will be willing to make some serious concessions and add some transparency so we know just what is going on over there.

Party Boy: IStateTheObvious: like they did with Gaza.

Israel didn't withdraw from Gaza. It was an effort to consolidate settlements in the West Bank.

Of course, then you have borders, airspace, etc.

Research the author a bit and you will see you have a highly biased article. Here's a hint, anytime someone tries to tell you what someone else is thinking, or what their 'secret' plans are is probably full of it. That is entering the realm of the conspiracy theorists, and I will leave that to the Truthers and the Birthers, thank you.

On what I posted before, I am not trying to say that Israel doesn't share any blame in their current situation. I was only responding to the headline from the Israeli point of view. Obama offers little to help with Iran, and wants to tie their hands with the Palestinians. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that this approach won't work. The real solution to the problem will come from the Israelis and the Palestinians. As long as there are those on each side that want to kill the other, it's going to happen. There's really not much we can do about it.

/I know how much weaponry they buy from us
//Russia would just love to take our place

crab66: Israel needs a good cockslappunch.

SeismicJizzer: Israel is going to continue to do what we tell them to do, they are our biatch and no addict is willing to cut of their supply to the crack.

They have no real support in attacking Iran, other than the Sunni leaders in the region, and its time for people to understand no matter what you do, Iran is going to acquire nuclear technology.


Time to live in reality folks


Imagine what other options we might have with Iran had we not blown our load with Iraq.

/penis

Pragmatism from an American President re: Israel? I have been waiting for such a direction. For the resident Israel-haters here, let's review the pragmatist's view on Israel/Palestine:
-settlements BAD. They're an annoyance to the soldiers who have to protect them, they're a source of embarrassment to fellow Israelis in Israel proper who have to endure rocket attacks because of the settlers, and they're a thorn in the side of political reconciliation.
-IDF GOOD. They're soldiers. They operate as soldiers do. Are there bad apples? Of course. There are bad apples in the US military (hello Ms. England, Mr. Frederick, Mr. Graner, Mr. Davis, Ms. Ambuhl, Ms. Harman, and Mr. Sivits); but because of the pressure they face every day as soldiers living in a de facto war zone, they deserve respect. They also wear uniforms and follow the conventions of war, unlike the enemy they face.
-political process GOOD. That's how we resolve international conflict - at the bargaining table.
-US involvement MIXED. It's been good (Oslo accords) and bad (Bush doctrine; I've skipped a bunch of other stuff. You get the idea).
-Palestinian leadership BAD. They've stolen much of the aid meant for their people, have inflamed tensions to keep their jobs (and heads) and rely on the violence of the populace to retain political control. Notice that Gaza is still in shambles and the West Bank has been comparatively quiet. Abbas may not be perfect, but what's happening there isn't near what Gazans face. Giving Gaza hope probably requires cutting out the Gazan leadership (I don't know how, but that's the leisure I can take as a keyboard warrior).

I say this as a Jew, a Zionist and a fella with family in harm's way.

IStateTheObvious: Research the author a bit

1. You post it
2. You havent dealt with the borders, airspace etc.
3. Most importantly, if your rebuttal is regarding "bias" then you'll have to accept

Sharon Aide Says Goal of Gaza Plan Is to Halt Road Map (Salon Oct 2004)
The aide, Dov Weisglass -- until recently Sharon's chief of staff, his personal attorney and still one of his closest advisers -- said the primary goals of the proposal to withdraw the 8,100 Jewish settlers from Gaza were to strengthen Israel's hold on its more numerous settlements in the West Bank and to freeze the political process as a way to indefinitely block the creation of a Palestinian state.


Israeli Causes Uproar Over Status of Road Map (NYT Oct 2004) (cant direct link it)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/international/middleeast/06CND-MIDE.html
Israel's proposed withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is intended to put the issue of Palestinian statehood on indefinite hold, a close aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said in an interview that was published today and immediately stirred controversy.
...snip...
Mr. Sharon has himself dropped many hints that he is less than enthusiastic about the road map, which would require many concessions from Israel. In a recent newspaper interview, Mr. Sharon said Israel was not following the peace plan, which stalled amid ongoing violence shortly after it was launched in June of 2003.
Still, Mr. Weisglass' published remarks were unusually blunt. He described the planned withdrawal of Israeli settlers from Gaza and a small part of the West Bank as a substitute for the road map, not a means of reviving the moribund peace process, as the Bush administration has stated.
"The significance of our disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process," Mr. Weisglass was quoted as saying in Haaretz, a liberal daily often critical of Mr. Sharon's government. "It supplies the formaldehyde necessary so there is no political process with Palestinians."
"When you freeze the process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state," Mr. Weisglass added. "Effectively, this whole package called a Palestinian state, with all it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda."
In the interview, Mr. Weisglass also said that the Israeli position had the "authority and permission" of the White House and Congress.
...snip...

In the interview, Mr. Weisglass said that 190,000 of the 240,000 Israeli settlers would not be moved from their current homes.

Also
Israel's identity crisis (Salon May 2005)www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/485989.html
Analysis / The adviser that roared
Ha'aretz 10/8/2004
Something nasty happened to Dov Weisglass when he emerged from the position of whisperer into Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's ear to public exposure. The statements he made in an interview to Haaretz correspondent Ari Shavit, to the effect that the disengagement plan is intended to freeze the political process and postpone the Palestinian state "indefinitely," triggered off stormy political and international reactions.

The big freeze

Finally someone is taking on those Jew bullies!