Obama’s War on Israel

[Manchester]

He's the only president in U.S. History to go on record to say Israel should go back to it's pre '67 borders. A plan where Israel's borders would be indefensible.

Borders so indefensible that if attacked they would take many years to defeat such enemies as would attack them?

Not following you.

The last time Israel was attacked with it's pre 67 borders it saw the enemy off in less than a week. Not really that indefensible.

 

[Rocko]

Borders so indefensible that if attacked they would take many years to defeat such enemies as would attack them?

Not following you.

The last time Israel was attacked with it's pre 67 borders it saw the enemy off in less than a week. Not really that indefensible.

Well, the indefensible claim is really the claim of the Israelis and how they see it. The point stands that Obama's proclamation was a hostile comment towards Israel, and the Israelis certainly took it as such.

 

[Manchester]

Not following you.

The last time Israel was attacked with it's pre 67 borders it saw the enemy off in less than a week. Not really that indefensible.

Well, the indefensible claim is really the claim of the Israelis and how they see it. The point stands that Obama's proclamation was a hostile comment towards Israel, and the Israelis certainly took it as such.

It most certainly wasn't a hostile comment towards Israel as I saw it, it was a stance that Israel needs to start riding roughshod over UN resolutions and fulfil it's obligations to the UN as a responsible nation.

As for the Israelis taking it at such I am not in the least bit suprised, the siege mentality within Israel allows the politicans of that state to ride roughshod over UN resolutions to start with, add to that a media who accuse anyone of Antisemitism for suggesting that bulldozing poor peoples houses is a legitimate use of your armed forces and you have a recipe for state sponsored human rights violations en masse. I understand how a country in Isreal's mentality has come to this given the behavoir of its neighbours of the last 60 years but something needs to be done to break that cycle and Obama certainly sounds in that soundbite like that is what he wants to do.

 

[Rocko]

The last time Israel was attacked with it's pre 67 borders it saw the enemy off in less than a week. Not really that indefensible.

Well, the indefensible claim is really the claim of the Israelis and how they see it. The point stands that Obama's proclamation was a hostile comment towards Israel, and the Israelis certainly took it as such.

It most certainly wasn't a hostile comment towards Israel as I saw it, it was a stance that Israel needs to start riding roughshod over UN resolutions and fulfil it's obligations to the UN as a responsible nation.

As for the Israelis taking it at such I am not in the least bit suprised, the siege mentality within Israel allows the politicans of that state to ride roughshod over UN resolutions to start with, add to that a media who accuse anyone of Antisemitism for suggesting that bulldozing poor peoples houses is a legitimate use of your armed forces and you have a recipe for state sponsored human rights violations en masse. I understand how a country in Isreal's mentality has come to this given the behavoir of its neighbours of the last 60 years but something needs to be done to break that cycle and Obama certainly sounds in that soundbite like that is what he wants to do.

What Obama tried to do was impose certain preconditions on Israel, and none on the Palestinians, before asking them to participate in a peace process. He took a stand against Israel. You may agree with him, but he took a stand against them nonetheless.

 

[Manchester]

Well, the indefensible claim is really the claim of the Israelis and how they see it. The point stands that Obama's proclamation was a hostile comment towards Israel, and the Israelis certainly took it as such.

It most certainly wasn't a hostile comment towards Israel as I saw it, it was a stance that Israel needs to start riding roughshod over UN resolutions and fulfil it's obligations to the UN as a responsible nation.

As for the Israelis taking it at such I am not in the least bit suprised, the siege mentality within Israel allows the politicans of that state to ride roughshod over UN resolutions to start with, add to that a media who accuse anyone of Antisemitism for suggesting that bulldozing poor peoples houses is a legitimate use of your armed forces and you have a recipe for state sponsored human rights violations en masse. I understand how a country in Isreal's mentality has come to this given the behavoir of its neighbours of the last 60 years but something needs to be done to break that cycle and Obama certainly sounds in that soundbite like that is what he wants to do.

What Obama tried to do was impose certain preconditions on Israel, and none on the Palestinians, before asking them to participate in a peace process. He took a stand against Israel. You may agree with him, but he took a stand against them nonetheless.

He supported international law, and the UN, to say he took a stand against Israel is to take suggest that Israel is immune to the rulings of the laws that all other nations are judged by. He also represents the people who pay for over half of their armed forces, he has a right to his say in their affairs.
He took no stance against Palestine as they have no powers to affect anything, its is a broken land full of powerless people whose one act of rebellion is occasionally throwing over a chinese made firework whilst Israel has US subsidised annual military spending that would arm in full military kit every man women and child in the nation twice. Not trying to sound like Stan Lee but Israel is militarily a very powerful nation and with great power comes responsibility.

 

[American_Jihad]

The U.S. Won't Save Israel From Iran

Posted: 02/13/2014
Lawrence Solomon

Many consider the Geneva negotiations over Iran to be a betrayal of Israel by America. Yes, it certainly is a betrayal. But is anyone really surprised?

It should surprise no one that President Barack Obama didn't have Israel's back -- he has too many personal associations with Israel-haters to make him a reliable ally. But more fundamentally, it should surprise no one that an American president doesn't have Israel's back.

American presidents have routinely ignored Israel's security needs, or turned on Israel, when doing so served American political interests. Americans look after American interests and if Israel's vital interests clash with American interests of the day, Americans will look after their own needs.

Before Israel declared independence in 1948, the U.S. under President Harry Truman demanded that Israel postpone its declaration and place itself under UN Trusteeship. If Israel, didn't, warned Truman's Secretary of State, George Marshall, the U.S. would impose an arms embargo on Israel, even though the British, Jordanians and Egyptians were arming the Arabs. The effect of the Arabs being armed and the Israelis unarmed, the Americans said, would be a second Holocaust. The Americans also threatened UN sanctions against Israel.

...

The U.S. has historically been strongly predisposed against Israeli military action. Israel is on its own. The stars are aligned for a unilateral attack.

The U.S. Won't Save Israel From Iran | Lawrence Solomon

Chinese made fireworks...

I'd like to send one of these chinese made fireworks up Manchester's wazoo...​

...

 

[Borillar]

If by boycott you mean give billions of dollars to, then boycott me!

 

[Mr. H.]

Good thing Israel doesn't have the largest coal deposits in the world. Obama would snuff out that shit in a heartbeat.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why attempt something he has no chance of getting? He would only lose favor politically. If it were up to him we wouldn't be sending Israel any money.

We shouldn't! We shouldn't send them one taxpayer dime. It's not like they're a country of starving Ethiopian's. They're a country of big-mouth assholes, running around the ME like their shit don't stink.

It's seems there are a lot of people on this board that are more loyal to Israel, than they are to the United States of America.

 

[Manchester]

The U.S. Won't Save Israel From Iran

Posted: 02/13/2014
Lawrence Solomon

Many consider the Geneva negotiations over Iran to be a betrayal of Israel by America. Yes, it certainly is a betrayal. But is anyone really surprised?

It should surprise no one that President Barack Obama didn't have Israel's back -- he has too many personal associations with Israel-haters to make him a reliable ally. But more fundamentally, it should surprise no one that an American president doesn't have Israel's back.

American presidents have routinely ignored Israel's security needs, or turned on Israel, when doing so served American political interests. Americans look after American interests and if Israel's vital interests clash with American interests of the day, Americans will look after their own needs.

Before Israel declared independence in 1948, the U.S. under President Harry Truman demanded that Israel postpone its declaration and place itself under UN Trusteeship. If Israel, didn't, warned Truman's Secretary of State, George Marshall, the U.S. would impose an arms embargo on Israel, even though the British, Jordanians and Egyptians were arming the Arabs. The effect of the Arabs being armed and the Israelis unarmed, the Americans said, would be a second Holocaust. The Americans also threatened UN sanctions against Israel.

...

The U.S. has historically been strongly predisposed against Israeli military action. Israel is on its own. The stars are aligned for a unilateral attack.

The U.S. Won't Save Israel From Iran | Lawrence Solomon

Chinese made fireworks...

I'd like to send one of these chinese made fireworks up Manchester's wazoo...​

...

By "routinely ignored Israel's security needs" do you mean forgotten to send the checks for a few days that pay for over half of the entire IDF. I don;t buy how you can ignore a countries defence requirements whilst paying for their army.

And the lols to be had at using scary photos of arms so small that a man can pick them up and carry them about as a threat to a country with the most state of the art weapons technology on the planet is laughable. Look at them, they are oversized kiddies toy rockets with a bit of explosoive in the tip. I imagine they could cause a nasty pothole and some poor Israeli might break an axle on it. I know what I'd rather have between those play things and this in my countries military

 

[theliq]

Why attempt something he has no chance of getting? He would only lose favor politically. If it were up to him we wouldn't be sending Israel any money.

If it were up to a lot of people we wouldn't be sending Israel money. It's time a sovereign country learned to stand on it's own two feet.

As far as Obama goes, this idea that he doesn't like Israel is a myth. There is no evidence to back it up, and Israel seems just as happy with this administration as any other. All they want is for the money and support to keep flowing.

It's hardly a myth. Obama's hostility towards Israel has been well documented, as have clashes Israel has had with Obama and his administration, most recently with that idiot John Kerry.

Are you based in Israel by any chance?????

 

[theliq]

So? I wasn't asked to produce anything on military aid.

You're right, you posted that before I asked for that. It also doesn't show any hostility that Obama has towards Israel, quite the opposite I thought, he said he wants a rather lovely peace in the area. Just like George W Bush said before him, he said he wanted peace there as well.

He's the only president in U.S. History to go on record to say Israel should go back to it's pre '67 borders. A plan where Israel's borders would be indefensible.

Why indefensible ??????

 

[theliq]

Not following you.

The last time Israel was attacked with it's pre 67 borders it saw the enemy off in less than a week. Not really that indefensible.

Well, the indefensible claim is really the claim of the Israelis and how they see it. The point stands that Obama's proclamation was a hostile comment towards Israel, and the Israelis certainly took it as such.

In a word BULLSHIT

 

[theliq]

The U.S. Won't Save Israel From Iran

Posted: 02/13/2014
Lawrence Solomon

Many consider the Geneva negotiations over Iran to be a betrayal of Israel by America. Yes, it certainly is a betrayal. But is anyone really surprised?

It should surprise no one that President Barack Obama didn't have Israel's back -- he has too many personal associations with Israel-haters to make him a reliable ally. But more fundamentally, it should surprise no one that an American president doesn't have Israel's back.

American presidents have routinely ignored Israel's security needs, or turned on Israel, when doing so served American political interests. Americans look after American interests and if Israel's vital interests clash with American interests of the day, Americans will look after their own needs.

Before Israel declared independence in 1948, the U.S. under President Harry Truman demanded that Israel postpone its declaration and place itself under UN Trusteeship. If Israel, didn't, warned Truman's Secretary of State, George Marshall, the U.S. would impose an arms embargo on Israel, even though the British, Jordanians and Egyptians were arming the Arabs. The effect of the Arabs being armed and the Israelis unarmed, the Americans said, would be a second Holocaust. The Americans also threatened UN sanctions against Israel.

...

The U.S. has historically been strongly predisposed against Israeli military action. Israel is on its own. The stars are aligned for a unilateral attack.

The U.S. Won't Save Israel From Iran | Lawrence Solomon

Chinese made fireworks...

I'd like to send one of these chinese made fireworks up Manchester's wazoo...​

...

Nonsense

 

[theliq]

Why attempt something he has no chance of getting? He would only lose favor politically. If it were up to him we wouldn't be sending Israel any money.

We shouldn't! We shouldn't send them one taxpayer dime. It's not like they're a country of starving Ethiopian's. They're a country of big-mouth assholes, running around the ME like their shit don't stink.

It's seems there are a lot of people on this board that are more loyal to Israel, than they are to the United States of America.

We a lot of people think that America/ns is the second State of Israel........and the CASH over 60 years is mind boggling

 

[bianco]

If the US abandons Israel...wonder which ally will be next?

 

[Manchester]

If the US abandons Israel...wonder which ally will be next?

What other allies are there, other than Israel, who really need an alliance with the US militarily?

 

[JoeB131]

I saw this thread title and thought that maybe Obama had started to the cut the $2 billion annual arms budget that US tax payers shell out in order to arm Israel. It seems his "war" hasn't stretched that far.

Obama can't cut the military aid to Israel without congressional approval, otherwise he would have cut it a long time ago.

Frankly, I'm wondering why we are spending billions of our tax dollars subsidizing Israel.

 

[Geaux4it]

I saw this thread title and thought that maybe Obama had started to the cut the $2 billion annual arms budget that US tax payers shell out in order to arm Israel. It seems his "war" hasn't stretched that far.

Obama can't cut the military aid to Israel without congressional approval, otherwise he would have cut it a long time ago.

I thought he said he had a pen and a phone

-Geaux

 

[American_Jihad]

Obama's constitutional overreach... and Israel
What should happen to a President who spies on America's lawmakers and her allies? (Hang him by the Balls...)
January 4, 2016
Caroline Glick

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

It is far from clear why senior Obama administration officials told The Wall Street Journal that under President Barack Obama, the National Security Agency has been aggressively spying not only on Israeli officials but on US citizens and lawmakers who communicate with Israeli officials. Perhaps they were trying to make Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu look like a fool.

After all, the article concludes that the NSA intercepts of these communications “revealed one surprise."

“Mr. Netanyahu and some of his allies voiced confidence they could win enough votes” in Congress to scuttle Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

Ha ha. What dummies.

If their goal was simply to show that the White House has more leverage over Democratic lawmakers than the Israeli government does, then the article overshot the mark.

Beyond expressing the administration’s contempt for Netanyahu, the Journal’s article showed that Netanyahu isn’t the only one the administration sneers at.

It sneers at the American public and at members of Congress as well. And in so doing, it sneers at and deliberately breaks US law and tramples the US Constitution.

Under US law, American intelligence gathering agencies, including the NSA, are only permitted to spy on US citizens in order to protect US national security.

Under the US Constitution, the administration is arguably prohibited from spying on US lawmakers.

And yet, according to the Journal report, to advance its diplomatic opening to Iran, the administration has knowingly and deliberately spied on both law-abiding US citizens who posed no risk to US national security and on US lawmakers engaged in their lawful, constitutional duties.

As the criminal activity was characterized by the report, to protect Obama’s nuclear talks with the Iranians, Netanyahu was marked as a top intelligence target for the NSA. The NSA monitored all of his communications and all communications of his senior officials – most notably Ambassador Ron Dermer.

The report explains that the NSA’s “targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with US lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears – an “Oh sh** moment, one senior US official said – that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.”

That “Oh sh** moment” didn’t make the administration pull back, or order the NSA to follow the law and destroy all communications between Israeli officials and US lawmakers. Rather the administration decided to suffice with winks and nods to make sure that the NSA understood that it should make law breaking an official policy and continue to share deliberately the communications it had mistakenly shared with the White House.

As the Journal report put it, “White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign [to convince Congress to scuttle Obama’s nuclear capitulation to Tehran]. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. “We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ a senior US official said. ‘We didn’t say, “Don’t do it.”’” Cute. But probably illegal.

The picture painted by the Journal article is of an administration that made massive, continuous and deliberate use of intercepted conversations between lawmakers and private citizens with Israeli officials.

Consider the administration’s indignant fury when news broke on January 21 of last year that the Republican congressional leaders Sen. Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehnor had invited Netanyahu to address the joint Houses about the dangers of the Iran nuclear deal.

Obama and his advisers insisted that they were blindsided by the news. Yet, on Wednesday, the Journal published a report that strongly indicated that through its spying on lawmakers, the White House learned of the plan to invite Netanyahu to speak before Congress before Netanyahu found out about it.

The Journal reported that Boehner and McConnell met on January 8 and decided to invite Netanyahu to address a joint session. Recognizing the sensitivity of the issue, they told only their closest advisers about their plan. On January 9, Boehner called Dermer and raised the issue for the first time.

Since we now know that the NSA was monitoring all of Dermer’s communications – including his communications with US lawmakers – it appears to follow that NSA intercepted Boehner’s call to Dermer.

According to the Journal, the White House’s demand for intelligence on Israel was so intense that the NSA was transferring transcripts of intercepted calls within six hours of their interception.

Two weeks after Netanyahu’s March 4 address before the joint Houses of Congress, the Journal reported that the US was concerned about Israeli spying on the nuclear talks with Iran.

...

But in truth, the story wasn’t really about Israel. It was about an administration so contemptuous of US lawmakers and citizens that its senior officials have no compunction about admitting that they are breaking the law. They brazenly admit that they are undertaking unlawful spying operations against private citizens and lawmakers and in so doing conducting a massive abuse of presidential powers while trampling the spirit and arguably the letter of the US Constitution.

And they expect that no one will call them to task for it.

Obama's constitutional overreach... and Israel