Obama: "I have Israel's back" (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

Tim, the point here is that there are two equally viable sides to this story. Therefore your analogy is total crap as it simply demonstrates a clear choice with no real moral ambiguity.

You've already said you don't know if Iran is working towards a bomb or not. I've told you (and you are free to read it yourself) that neither American nor Israeli intelligence agencies have any evidence that Iran's program is anything but civil.

So the real analogy is you come across someone who your neighbor tells you is a serial killer, but there is absolutely no evidence that he is a serial killer, but he is running away and your neighbor that you know hates this person is putting a gun in your hand, saying "kill him now or he will get away. I know he's a serial killer. Trust me!"

Put that in a movie and tell me who the villain is.

Sorry, but we've been through this crap before. We're not just ignoring history from 100 years ago, we're ignoring history from 10 years ago.

There is no evidence anywhere saying Iran is going to have a bomb by X date. There is no evidence that Iran is even working on getting a bomb. And the people trying to push into another unnecessary war are the exact same cast of characters (minus retirees) that pushed us into Iraq.

I mean, how unbelievably stupid are we, both as a government and as a people? We just invaded Iraq, got NOTHING out of it, it cost us billions, and the only country that could be said to have received any actual benefit from it is Israel! And now Israel is trying to get us to do the exact same thing! Ten years later! And Tim is apparently more than willing to go along with this charade like he hasn't seen the exact same charade ten years ago.

People, this is nothing more than spring 2003 all over again. Wake the hell up.

My analogy was not supposed to be with regard to Iran. It was in answer to an ethical argument that the Commish was raising regarding the valuation of human life. He and I profoundly disagree on how one measures that issue, and the analogy was designed to highlight that disagreement, nothing more. With regard to your comments, I don't really disagree with you too much. As I've written here several times, I am not willing at this point to take action against Iran over this issue, for the reasons you state- there is no compelling evidence. We probably disagree in that I, like President Obama, wouldn't rule out the use of force in the future if it made sense to do so.

And by the way, I was very opposed to the Iraq war and I remain convinced that I was right about that. But the analogy is a weak one. A better analogy would be Israel's bombing of Iraq in 1982.

Wait...what? You were attempting to say you value human life as much as I do. How did that scenario you came up with illustrate that?

 

[timschochet]

Tim, the point here is that there are two equally viable sides to this story. Therefore your analogy is total crap as it simply demonstrates a clear choice with no real moral ambiguity.

You've already said you don't know if Iran is working towards a bomb or not. I've told you (and you are free to read it yourself) that neither American nor Israeli intelligence agencies have any evidence that Iran's program is anything but civil.

So the real analogy is you come across someone who your neighbor tells you is a serial killer, but there is absolutely no evidence that he is a serial killer, but he is running away and your neighbor that you know hates this person is putting a gun in your hand, saying "kill him now or he will get away. I know he's a serial killer. Trust me!"

Put that in a movie and tell me who the villain is.

Sorry, but we've been through this crap before. We're not just ignoring history from 100 years ago, we're ignoring history from 10 years ago.

There is no evidence anywhere saying Iran is going to have a bomb by X date. There is no evidence that Iran is even working on getting a bomb. And the people trying to push into another unnecessary war are the exact same cast of characters (minus retirees) that pushed us into Iraq.

I mean, how unbelievably stupid are we, both as a government and as a people? We just invaded Iraq, got NOTHING out of it, it cost us billions, and the only country that could be said to have received any actual benefit from it is Israel! And now Israel is trying to get us to do the exact same thing! Ten years later! And Tim is apparently more than willing to go along with this charade like he hasn't seen the exact same charade ten years ago.

People, this is nothing more than spring 2003 all over again. Wake the hell up.

My analogy was not supposed to be with regard to Iran. It was in answer to an ethical argument that the Commish was raising regarding the valuation of human life. He and I profoundly disagree on how one measures that issue, and the analogy was designed to highlight that disagreement, nothing more. With regard to your comments, I don't really disagree with you too much. As I've written here several times, I am not willing at this point to take action against Iran over this issue, for the reasons you state- there is no compelling evidence. We probably disagree in that I, like President Obama, wouldn't rule out the use of force in the future if it made sense to do so.

And by the way, I was very opposed to the Iraq war and I remain convinced that I was right about that. But the analogy is a weak one. A better analogy would be Israel's bombing of Iraq in 1982.

Wait...what? You were attempting to say you value human life as much as I do. How did that scenario you came up with illustrate that?

You made the claim that since I don't regard all killings of human beings as morally equivalent, I don't value human life as much as you do. I am arguing that precisely because I regard some killings as justifiable, I value human life as much or more than you do. I used an example to prove my point. Obviously, I don't expect you to agree.

 

[Clifford]

You guys are talking sideways to each other:

Both of you agree to killing for the greater good, according to Tim's example.

Commish is suggesting this should only be done with profound regret because of causing loss of life.

Tim is saying the person pulling the trigger should feel good about their decision since it prevented further wanton destruction of life.

Both of you have a good argument.

 

[Gawain]

You made the claim that since I don't regard all killings of human beings as morally equivalent, I don't value human life as much as you do. I am arguing that precisely because I regard some killings as justifiable, I value human life as much or more than you do. I used an example to prove my point. Obviously, I don't expect you to agree.

Faulty logic is faulty.[tim] I value love more than you. I love it when dinner is ready when I get home. That's why I beat my wife. [/tim]

 

[timschochet]

You made the claim that since I don't regard all killings of human beings as morally equivalent, I don't value human life as much as you do. I am arguing that precisely because I regard some killings as justifiable, I value human life as much or more than you do. I used an example to prove my point. Obviously, I don't expect you to agree.

Faulty logic is faulty.[tim] I value love more than you. I love it when dinner is ready when I get home. That's why I beat my wife. [/tim]

 

[The Commish]

Tim, the point here is that there are two equally viable sides to this story. Therefore your analogy is total crap as it simply demonstrates a clear choice with no real moral ambiguity.

You've already said you don't know if Iran is working towards a bomb or not. I've told you (and you are free to read it yourself) that neither American nor Israeli intelligence agencies have any evidence that Iran's program is anything but civil.

So the real analogy is you come across someone who your neighbor tells you is a serial killer, but there is absolutely no evidence that he is a serial killer, but he is running away and your neighbor that you know hates this person is putting a gun in your hand, saying "kill him now or he will get away. I know he's a serial killer. Trust me!"

Put that in a movie and tell me who the villain is.

Sorry, but we've been through this crap before. We're not just ignoring history from 100 years ago, we're ignoring history from 10 years ago.

There is no evidence anywhere saying Iran is going to have a bomb by X date. There is no evidence that Iran is even working on getting a bomb. And the people trying to push into another unnecessary war are the exact same cast of characters (minus retirees) that pushed us into Iraq.

I mean, how unbelievably stupid are we, both as a government and as a people? We just invaded Iraq, got NOTHING out of it, it cost us billions, and the only country that could be said to have received any actual benefit from it is Israel! And now Israel is trying to get us to do the exact same thing! Ten years later! And Tim is apparently more than willing to go along with this charade like he hasn't seen the exact same charade ten years ago.

People, this is nothing more than spring 2003 all over again. Wake the hell up.

My analogy was not supposed to be with regard to Iran. It was in answer to an ethical argument that the Commish was raising regarding the valuation of human life. He and I profoundly disagree on how one measures that issue, and the analogy was designed to highlight that disagreement, nothing more. With regard to your comments, I don't really disagree with you too much. As I've written here several times, I am not willing at this point to take action against Iran over this issue, for the reasons you state- there is no compelling evidence. We probably disagree in that I, like President Obama, wouldn't rule out the use of force in the future if it made sense to do so.

And by the way, I was very opposed to the Iraq war and I remain convinced that I was right about that. But the analogy is a weak one. A better analogy would be Israel's bombing of Iraq in 1982.

Wait...what? You were attempting to say you value human life as much as I do. How did that scenario you came up with illustrate that?

You made the claim that since I don't regard all killings of human beings as morally equivalent, I don't value human life as much as you do. I am arguing that precisely because I regard some killings as justifiable, I value human life as much or more than you do. I used an example to prove my point. Obviously, I don't expect you to agree.

What point is it you think the example proved again?

 

[The Commish]

You guys are talking sideways to each other:Both of you agree to killing for the greater good, according to Tim's example.Commish is suggesting this should only be done with profound regret because of causing loss of life.Tim is saying the person pulling the trigger should feel good about their decision since it prevented further wanton destruction of life.Both of you have a good argument.

You seem to have a better grasp on the point he's trying to make than I do, so maybe you can help me out. I'm not saying my position is superior and I'm certainly not the one wanting to compare "who values life more" but on the surface, it seems that if one can muster any sort of "feel good" about another person dying, they won't have the same views on life as one who remorses equally in all human death. Those are two completely different levels of value places on life.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Fearmongering neoconservative lunatic's take on the Iran situation...http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20220309obama_fiddles_as_atomic_clock_ticks/srvc=news&position=also

fyp

 

[timschochet]

You seem to have a better grasp on the point he's trying to make than I do, so maybe you can help me out. I'm not saying my position is superior and I'm certainly not the one wanting to compare "who values life more" but on the surface, it seems that if one can muster any sort of "feel good" about another person dying, they won't have the same views on life as one who remorses equally in all human death. Those are two completely different levels of value places on life.

I think I understand you a little better now. Clifford is right, we were talking sideways to each other, and I'll chalk that up to my fault for both not understanding you and making myself not very clear. So let's start over:When 99% of humans die, I am not happy about it. When 99% of people are killed, I am not happy about it. Apparently I separate myself from you because there are exceptions which do make me happy. These are so rare I can count them over my entire life on the fingers of one hand. Osama Bin Laden was one example. Before that, you have to go back to the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing to find a time when I was happy someone was killed. Most of the time, I feel exactly the way as you do.Now in the case of a scientist who is helping the current Iranian government obtain nuclear weapons, I am not happy to see that person die. But I can find the murder of such a person morally justifiable. These are two different concepts. When I was commenting on this originally I brought up Yamamoto for a reason. He is a man I very much admire- not only was he a brilliant strategic thinker, from what I know he was a very good man as well, perhaps bordering on great. It's terrible that such a man be assassinated, yet had I been Chester Nimitz (Cincpac) I would have ordered it just as he did, with no moral compunction whatsoever. It was necessary to help win the war. Winning the war saved thousands of lives, and help secure this nation's liberty. But I would take no joy out of his being killed. I don't think we're really all that far apart, at least I hope we're not. I will never agree with you that all killing is morally equivalent. But my examples to the contrary are pretty rare. So let's say I agree with you...most of the time.

 

[tommyboy]

i was happy when the guard shived Dahmer

 

[Boston]

Fearmongering neoconservative lunatic's take on the Iran situation...http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20220309obama_fiddles_as_atomic_clock_ticks/srvc=news&position=also

fyp

That sounds like Krauthammer...he's definitely one not to have his facts straight and throw BS against the wall...you can tell that from his bio...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

 

[The Commish]

You seem to have a better grasp on the point he's trying to make than I do, so maybe you can help me out. I'm not saying my position is superior and I'm certainly not the one wanting to compare "who values life more" but on the surface, it seems that if one can muster any sort of "feel good" about another person dying, they won't have the same views on life as one who remorses equally in all human death. Those are two completely different levels of value places on life.

I think I understand you a little better now. Clifford is right, we were talking sideways to each other, and I'll chalk that up to my fault for both not understanding you and making myself not very clear. So let's start over:When 99% of humans die, I am not happy about it. When 99% of people are killed, I am not happy about it. Apparently I separate myself from you because there are exceptions which do make me happy. These are so rare I can count them over my entire life on the fingers of one hand. Osama Bin Laden was one example. Before that, you have to go back to the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing to find a time when I was happy someone was killed. Most of the time, I feel exactly the way as you do.Now in the case of a scientist who is helping the current Iranian government obtain nuclear weapons, I am not happy to see that person die. But I can find the murder of such a person morally justifiable. These are two different concepts. When I was commenting on this originally I brought up Yamamoto for a reason. He is a man I very much admire- not only was he a brilliant strategic thinker, from what I know he was a very good man as well, perhaps bordering on great. It's terrible that such a man be assassinated, yet had I been Chester Nimitz (Cincpac) I would have ordered it just as he did, with no moral compunction whatsoever. It was necessary to help win the war. Winning the war saved thousands of lives, and help secure this nation's liberty. But I would take no joy out of his being killed. I don't think we're really all that far apart, at least I hope we're not. I will never agree with you that all killing is morally equivalent. But my examples to the contrary are pretty rare. So let's say I agree with you...most of the time.

Then I go back to my two comments:

Because you can justify it doesn't make it right. Because you have no moral problem with it doesn't make it right. Killing people is bad and unfortunate. It doesn't matter what the excuse is you come up with to make yourself feel better. The reality is humans are killing each other. That you can be ok with that tells me a lot about your value of human life.

If you can justify one life over another and cases where it's "ok" for a human to kill another human, then you absolutely put less value on life than I do and it's not close.

I think we're done here

 

[cstu]

I can't wait until Iran has nukes just to stop hearing about it.

 

[timschochet]

You seem to have a better grasp on the point he's trying to make than I do, so maybe you can help me out. I'm not saying my position is superior and I'm certainly not the one wanting to compare "who values life more" but on the surface, it seems that if one can muster any sort of "feel good" about another person dying, they won't have the same views on life as one who remorses equally in all human death. Those are two completely different levels of value places on life.

I think I understand you a little better now. Clifford is right, we were talking sideways to each other, and I'll chalk that up to my fault for both not understanding you and making myself not very clear. So let's start over:When 99% of humans die, I am not happy about it. When 99% of people are killed, I am not happy about it. Apparently I separate myself from you because there are exceptions which do make me happy. These are so rare I can count them over my entire life on the fingers of one hand. Osama Bin Laden was one example. Before that, you have to go back to the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing to find a time when I was happy someone was killed. Most of the time, I feel exactly the way as you do.Now in the case of a scientist who is helping the current Iranian government obtain nuclear weapons, I am not happy to see that person die. But I can find the murder of such a person morally justifiable. These are two different concepts. When I was commenting on this originally I brought up Yamamoto for a reason. He is a man I very much admire- not only was he a brilliant strategic thinker, from what I know he was a very good man as well, perhaps bordering on great. It's terrible that such a man be assassinated, yet had I been Chester Nimitz (Cincpac) I would have ordered it just as he did, with no moral compunction whatsoever. It was necessary to help win the war. Winning the war saved thousands of lives, and help secure this nation's liberty. But I would take no joy out of his being killed. I don't think we're really all that far apart, at least I hope we're not. I will never agree with you that all killing is morally equivalent. But my examples to the contrary are pretty rare. So let's say I agree with you...most of the time.

Then I go back to my two comments:

Because you can justify it doesn't make it right. Because you have no moral problem with it doesn't make it right. Killing people is bad and unfortunate. It doesn't matter what the excuse is you come up with to make yourself feel better. The reality is humans are killing each other. That you can be ok with that tells me a lot about your value of human life.

If you can justify one life over another and cases where it's "ok" for a human to kill another human, then you absolutely put less value on life than I do and it's not close.

I think we're done here

I guess we are. I've tried to explain my attitude in detail to you. You seem to want to reject my explanation, and are willing to go with your own rather limited (IMO) judgment about my values in comparison to your own. You're completely wrong, and I regret that you feel the way you do.

 

[The Commish]

You seem to have a better grasp on the point he's trying to make than I do, so maybe you can help me out. I'm not saying my position is superior and I'm certainly not the one wanting to compare "who values life more" but on the surface, it seems that if one can muster any sort of "feel good" about another person dying, they won't have the same views on life as one who remorses equally in all human death. Those are two completely different levels of value places on life.

I think I understand you a little better now. Clifford is right, we were talking sideways to each other, and I'll chalk that up to my fault for both not understanding you and making myself not very clear. So let's start over:When 99% of humans die, I am not happy about it. When 99% of people are killed, I am not happy about it. Apparently I separate myself from you because there are exceptions which do make me happy. These are so rare I can count them over my entire life on the fingers of one hand. Osama Bin Laden was one example. Before that, you have to go back to the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing to find a time when I was happy someone was killed. Most of the time, I feel exactly the way as you do.Now in the case of a scientist who is helping the current Iranian government obtain nuclear weapons, I am not happy to see that person die. But I can find the murder of such a person morally justifiable. These are two different concepts. When I was commenting on this originally I brought up Yamamoto for a reason. He is a man I very much admire- not only was he a brilliant strategic thinker, from what I know he was a very good man as well, perhaps bordering on great. It's terrible that such a man be assassinated, yet had I been Chester Nimitz (Cincpac) I would have ordered it just as he did, with no moral compunction whatsoever. It was necessary to help win the war. Winning the war saved thousands of lives, and help secure this nation's liberty. But I would take no joy out of his being killed. I don't think we're really all that far apart, at least I hope we're not. I will never agree with you that all killing is morally equivalent. But my examples to the contrary are pretty rare. So let's say I agree with you...most of the time.

Then I go back to my two comments:

Because you can justify it doesn't make it right. Because you have no moral problem with it doesn't make it right. Killing people is bad and unfortunate. It doesn't matter what the excuse is you come up with to make yourself feel better. The reality is humans are killing each other. That you can be ok with that tells me a lot about your value of human life.

If you can justify one life over another and cases where it's "ok" for a human to kill another human, then you absolutely put less value on life than I do and it's not close.

I think we're done here

I guess we are. I've tried to explain my attitude in detail to you. You seem to want to reject my explanation, and are willing to go with your own rather limited (IMO) judgment about my values in comparison to your own. You're completely wrong, and I regret that you feel the way you do.

Turns out, I'm not having a problem understanding you. I just disagree. Killing people is black and white to me. I don't care what excuse we use, the end result is a dead person and that saddens me and I think it's a tragedy in all cases. If that's wrong in your eyes, fine.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Fearmongering neoconservative lunatic's take on the Iran situation...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20220309obama_fiddles_as_atomic_clock_ticks/srvc=news&position=also

fyp

That sounds like Krauthammer...he's definitely one not to have his facts straight and throw BS against the wall...you can tell that from his bio...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

I don't need that misguided idiot's bio, Boston. I've followed him since the 90s. He's PNAC from way back. I don't call a neoconservative a fearmongering lunatic unless it fits. Some Chuckie Krauthammer quotes:

2002

Iraq is Hitlerian Germany, a truly mad police state with external ambitions and a menacing arsenal.

Saddam survived, rearmed, defeated the inspections regime and is now back in the business of building weapons of mass destruction.

Time is running short. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He is working on nuclear weapons. And he has every incentive to pass them on to terrorists who will use them against us.

Saddam Hussein is driven by hatred of America and is developing weapons of mass destruction that could kill millions of Americans in a day.

The threat of mass death on a scale never before seen residing in the hands of an unstable madman is intolerable -- and must be preempted.

2003

The inability to find the weapons is indeed troubling, but only because it means that the weapons remain unaccounted for and might be in the wrong hands. The idea that our inability to thus far find the weapons proves that the threat was phony and hyped is simply false.

2006

Our objectives in Iraq were twofold and always simple: Depose Saddam Hussein and replace his murderous regime with a self-sustaining, democratic government.

Boston, if you like the guy then whatever, but he is a fearmongering neoconservative lunatic.

 

[ren hoek]

It looks like some of us will just have to agree/disagree. If you can't see the absolute quagmire that pre-emptive strikes get us into then I'd hazard a guess we're not gonna agree on how to handle Iran.

 

[jon_mx]

The CIA removal of Mossadegh was, in retrospect, probably not the smartest of moves by the Eisenhower Administration. But there were a lot of reasons for it at the time, having to do with the Cold War. It was not a "terrible, terrible" policy, as Ren puts it.

And despite the fact that it is used continually to justify Iranian animosity toward the United States, this really is not so. Almost every democratic reform that Mossadegh attempted was later adopted in the early 1960s in the Shah's White Revolution, which was supported by the United States. These reforms, which included equality for women, voting power for all Iranians, and the education of the Iranian masses, were all opposed by the Ayatollahs, and this is the reason that they began to call America "the Great Satan." They don't hate us because we helped overthrow Mossadegh; that's just a sorry excuse. They hate us because we tried to help the Shah bring western civilization to Iran, and they saw that, correctly, as a threat to Islamist rule which relies on ignorance and hatred.

Who are we to tell them that their views on women's rights and education are wrong? You can't just overthrow governments you disagree with. Also, the Shah was a brutal dictatorship, not a bringer of democracy. The US and Britain didn't like the cut of Mossaddegh's jib when he nationalized Iran's oil (which was done with the overwhelming approval and popularity of the Iranian vote), rather than letting these "western democracies" molest them for their natural resources. So he was replaced. I'm having a hard time with this "US/Israel are the good guys" "Iran is evil" stuff. You can't seriously believe that.

The Shah was not a dictator; he was an authoritarian monarch. The current regime is totalitarian. And my main point, which you didn't reply to, was that the reason the ayatollahs despise us is who we are much more than any specific thing we did. I absolutely do believe Iran is an evil regime. They do evil things all the time. Any regime that uses religion as a means to impose horrific laws and punishments is evil, whether it's Islamist Iran, or John Calvin's Geneva (the closest Christian analogy I can come up with.) I absolutely believe that the United States and Israel have been forces for good in the world.

So does Israel. So does the United States. So does China. Are these also evil regimes? Seems like you are cherry-picking religion. What Israel does to Palestinians is evil. What we do to terror suspects is evil. What China does to Tibet is evil.You're getting into real trouble with the evil/good delineations.

Once you start calling some countries good and other countries evil, you are merely permitting evil to be done to the countries you consider evil, without any moral consequences. If assassinate an Iranian leader or scientist the act is not considered evil. If they do the same to us then it is they who are evil.

Sorry, this is just dumb. It's really beneath the points being discussed here, and automatically prevents the even-handed approach you say the situation needs.

I should congratulate you for even agreeing that any of the above described actions are evil. Most progressives I know are extremely reluctant to even use the term these days. That being said, you're wrong. Yes, the United States and Israel do bad things from time to time, but these actions do not define them. The evil actions that Iran takes on a regular basis is part of their intrinsic makeup as an Islamist govenment. Simply put, Islamism, which is defined as the attempt to implement a 6th century stringent religious code of ethics upon a modern day 21st century civilization- is evil. The United States and Israel are great purveyors of international freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Iran is none of these things.

In the past 10 years we have completely leveled 2 countries and killed countless citizens that had never threatened the US. You can go back further for more examples. There are also egregious examples above about Israel. Please get off your high horse. kthanks

Thank you for sharing your love of the Taliban and Saddam. Sometimes liberals make me sick. This line of reasoning is one of those times.

 

[The Commish]

The CIA removal of Mossadegh was, in retrospect, probably not the smartest of moves by the Eisenhower Administration. But there were a lot of reasons for it at the time, having to do with the Cold War. It was not a "terrible, terrible" policy, as Ren puts it.

And despite the fact that it is used continually to justify Iranian animosity toward the United States, this really is not so. Almost every democratic reform that Mossadegh attempted was later adopted in the early 1960s in the Shah's White Revolution, which was supported by the United States. These reforms, which included equality for women, voting power for all Iranians, and the education of the Iranian masses, were all opposed by the Ayatollahs, and this is the reason that they began to call America "the Great Satan." They don't hate us because we helped overthrow Mossadegh; that's just a sorry excuse. They hate us because we tried to help the Shah bring western civilization to Iran, and they saw that, correctly, as a threat to Islamist rule which relies on ignorance and hatred.

Who are we to tell them that their views on women's rights and education are wrong? You can't just overthrow governments you disagree with. Also, the Shah was a brutal dictatorship, not a bringer of democracy. The US and Britain didn't like the cut of Mossaddegh's jib when he nationalized Iran's oil (which was done with the overwhelming approval and popularity of the Iranian vote), rather than letting these "western democracies" molest them for their natural resources. So he was replaced. I'm having a hard time with this "US/Israel are the good guys" "Iran is evil" stuff. You can't seriously believe that.

The Shah was not a dictator; he was an authoritarian monarch. The current regime is totalitarian. And my main point, which you didn't reply to, was that the reason the ayatollahs despise us is who we are much more than any specific thing we did. I absolutely do believe Iran is an evil regime. They do evil things all the time. Any regime that uses religion as a means to impose horrific laws and punishments is evil, whether it's Islamist Iran, or John Calvin's Geneva (the closest Christian analogy I can come up with.) I absolutely believe that the United States and Israel have been forces for good in the world.

So does Israel. So does the United States. So does China. Are these also evil regimes? Seems like you are cherry-picking religion. What Israel does to Palestinians is evil. What we do to terror suspects is evil. What China does to Tibet is evil.You're getting into real trouble with the evil/good delineations.

Once you start calling some countries good and other countries evil, you are merely permitting evil to be done to the countries you consider evil, without any moral consequences. If assassinate an Iranian leader or scientist the act is not considered evil. If they do the same to us then it is they who are evil.

Sorry, this is just dumb. It's really beneath the points being discussed here, and automatically prevents the even-handed approach you say the situation needs.

I should congratulate you for even agreeing that any of the above described actions are evil. Most progressives I know are extremely reluctant to even use the term these days. That being said, you're wrong. Yes, the United States and Israel do bad things from time to time, but these actions do not define them. The evil actions that Iran takes on a regular basis is part of their intrinsic makeup as an Islamist govenment. Simply put, Islamism, which is defined as the attempt to implement a 6th century stringent religious code of ethics upon a modern day 21st century civilization- is evil. The United States and Israel are great purveyors of international freedom, democracy, and the rule of law. Iran is none of these things.

In the past 10 years we have completely leveled 2 countries and killed countless citizens that had never threatened the US. You can go back further for more examples. There are also egregious examples above about Israel. Please get off your high horse. kthanks

Thank you for sharing your love of the Taliban and Saddam. Sometimes liberals make me sick. This line of reasoning is one of those times.

Not sure "reasoning" was the right word. He simply reminded you of recent historical events. Granted, "countless" and "completely leveled" are a bit of hyperbole, but the facts remain. Why does him recounting history = loving Taliban and Saddam?

 

[ren hoek]

Iran Wants War

 

[flapgreen]

If Marky Mark was involved, it would've never gotten to this point.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There were a few reasons to like Obama when he ran in 2008.

One was, for me, his stated support for Israel.

Now, I recall that during the 2008 debates Obama said he would defend Israel militarily if they were attacked by oh say Iran.

Since then we've seen Obama send Netanhayu, literally, through the back entrance at the WH and give him short shrift here there and everywhere.

Now, this is where we are, from our SOS Kerry:

A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state,” Kerry told the group of senior officials and experts from the U.S., Western Europe, Russia, and Japan. “Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to.

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, the “crime of apartheid” is defined as “inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” The term is most often used in reference to the system of racial segregation and oppression that governed South Africa from 1948 until 1994.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/27/exclusive-kerry-warns-israel-could-become-an-apartheid-state.html

I know Kerry has walked this back - but I'm going to go ahead and say/guesstimate this administrative has been the least supportive of Israel of any administration ever.

Now it's also possible that Kerry - who heads our state department of course - has no frikkin' clue what this word means diplomatically, in which case he is just an incompetent.

Either way Obama needs to personally walk this back himself.

 

[CBusAlex]

Now, this is where we are, from our SOS Kerry:

A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state,” Kerry told the group of senior officials and experts from the U.S., Western Europe, Russia, and Japan. “Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to.

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, the “crime of apartheid” is defined as “inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” The term is most often used in reference to the system of racial segregation and oppression that governed South Africa from 1948 until 1994.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/27/exclusive-kerry-warns-israel-could-become-an-apartheid-state.html

I know Kerry has walked this back - but I'm going to go ahead and say/guesstimate this administrative has been the least supportive of Israel of any administration ever.

Now it's also possible that Kerry - who heads our state department of course - has no frikkin' clue what this word means diplomatically, in which case he is just an incompetent.

Either way Obama needs to personally walk this back himself.

I'm not sure what part of Kerry's remarks you find objectionable. Do you think "apartheid" is a racial slur or something?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Now, this is where we are, from our SOS Kerry:

A two-state solution will be clearly underscored as the only real alternative. Because a unitary state winds up either being an apartheid state with second-class citizens—or it ends up being a state that destroys the capacity of Israel to be a Jewish state,” Kerry told the group of senior officials and experts from the U.S., Western Europe, Russia, and Japan. “Once you put that frame in your mind, that reality, which is the bottom line, you understand how imperative it is to get to the two-state solution, which both leaders, even yesterday, said they remain deeply committed to.

According to the 1998 Rome Statute, the “crime of apartheid” is defined as “inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” The term is most often used in reference to the system of racial segregation and oppression that governed South Africa from 1948 until 1994.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/27/exclusive-kerry-warns-israel-could-become-an-apartheid-state.html

I know Kerry has walked this back - but I'm going to go ahead and say/guesstimate this administrative has been the least supportive of Israel of any administration ever.

Now it's also possible that Kerry - who heads our state department of course - has no frikkin' clue what this word means diplomatically, in which case he is just an incompetent.

Either way Obama needs to personally walk this back himself.

I'm not sure what part of Kerry's remarks you find objectionable. Do you think "apartheid" is a racial slur or something?

This is one diplomatic definition, as posted above:

inhumane acts… committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”

the use of the word ‘apartheid’ is not helpful at all. It takes the discussion to an entirely different dimension,” said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, an organization that has been supportive of Kerry’s peace process initiative. “In trying to make his point, Kerry reaches into diplomatic vocabulary to raise the stakes, but in doing so he invokes notions that have no place in the discussion.”

leaders of pro-Israel organizations told The Daily Beast that Kerry’s reference to “apartheid” was appalling and inappropriately alarmist because of its racial connotations and historical context.“One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues ‘apartheid’ policies,” Goldstone wrote in The New York Times in 2011. “It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to ####### rather than advance peace negotiations.”

This is Obama when he wanted pro-Israel voters in 2008:

“There’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal,” Obama said. “It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.”

I'll say that I disagree with what Kerry said for starters, but I realize that debates can be had here and elsewhere.

What ticks me off is that this is a major insult coming from our top State official in a diplomatic capacity; essentially calling Israel a criminal, racist state. Some words you can't just take back.

 

[CBusAlex]

What ticks me off is that this is a major insult coming from our top State official in a diplomatic capacity; essentially calling Israel a criminal, racist state. Some words you can't just take back.

Ah, so you think Kerry called Israel an apartheid state? You might want to go back and read it again. He described a hypothetical one-state solution as apartheid, and went on to state that Israel's leaders were "deeply committed" to avoiding that situation.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What ticks me off is that this is a major insult coming from our top State official in a diplomatic capacity; essentially calling Israel a criminal, racist state. Some words you can't just take back.

Ah, so you think Kerry called Israel an apartheid state? You might want to go back and read it again. He described a hypothetical one-state solution as apartheid, and went on to state that Israel's leaders were "deeply committed" to avoiding that situation.

So what is he saying they have now?

 

[CBusAlex]

So what is he saying they have now?

He doesn't appear to address it in those remarks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So what is he saying they have now?

He doesn't appear to address it in those remarks.

Well it's not a two state situation right now. It's a unitary state with an occupied territory, a situation Kerry describes as apartheid.

 

[CBusAlex]

Well it's not a two state situation right now. It's a unitary state with an occupied territory, a situation Kerry describes as apartheid.

I would disagree that the current situation is a unitary state. The West Bank and Gaza Strip aren't a part of Israel. They have their own government; their residents aren't Israeli citizens and don't get to vote in Israeli elections.

 

[timschochet]

Kerry is right.

Most of us who are longtime supporters of Israel have feared this for years. It's a question of demographics. Israel wants to maintain itself as a democratic society, but it also wants to maintain itself as a Jewish state. Under any "unified state" solution, the two goals are incompatible. If a two-state solution does not occur, the only way Israel can maintain itself as a Jewish state is by restricting the rights of Palestinian citizens, starting with the right to vote- in other words, Apartheid. Not the most politically correct term to use, but it's accurate.

That being said, the resistance of the current Israeli government to support a two-state solution is not the main stumbling block. As always, that comes from the Palestinians. In order for this to happen, the Palestinians:

1. Have to recognize the State of Israel's right to exist.

2. Have to give up demanding the right of return.

3. Have to accept Gaza and the West Bank as two separate areas for the Palestinian state, or 2 Palestinian states (in essence, a "3 state solution) without a contiguous border.

4. Accept that Israel will continue to control Jerusalem.

If the Palestinians, whether its Fatah or Hamas, accept these points, we could have peace tomorrow.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well it's not a two state situation right now. It's a unitary state with an occupied territory, a situation Kerry describes as apartheid.

I would disagree that the current situation is a unitary state. The West Bank and Gaza Strip aren't a part of Israel. They have their own government; their residents aren't Israeli citizens and don't get to vote in Israeli elections.

Kerry is right.

Most of us who are longtime supporters of Israel have feared this for years. It's a question of demographics. Israel wants to maintain itself as a democratic society, but it also wants to maintain itself as a Jewish state. Under any "unified state" solution, the two goals are incompatible. If a two-state solution does not occur, the only way Israel can maintain itself as a Jewish state is by restricting the rights of Palestinian citizens, starting with the right to vote- in other words, Apartheid. Not the most politically correct term to use, but it's accurate.

That being said, the resistance of the current Israeli government to support a two-state solution is not the main stumbling block. As always, that comes from the Palestinians. In order for this to happen, the Palestinians:

1. Have to recognize the State of Israel's right to exist.

2. Have to give up demanding the right of return.

3. Have to accept Gaza and the West Bank as two separate areas for the Palestinian state, or 2 Palestinian states (in essence, a "3 state solution) without a contiguous border.

4. Accept that Israel will continue to control Jerusalem.

If the Palestinians, whether its Fatah or Hamas, accept these points, we could have peace tomorrow.

So:

would you say Palestine as it is now is Apartheid?

How about any of the Arab states?

 

[timschochet]

Well it's not a two state situation right now. It's a unitary state with an occupied territory, a situation Kerry describes as apartheid.

I would disagree that the current situation is a unitary state. The West Bank and Gaza Strip aren't a part of Israel. They have their own government; their residents aren't Israeli citizens and don't get to vote in Israeli elections.

Kerry is right.

Most of us who are longtime supporters of Israel have feared this for years. It's a question of demographics. Israel wants to maintain itself as a democratic society, but it also wants to maintain itself as a Jewish state. Under any "unified state" solution, the two goals are incompatible. If a two-state solution does not occur, the only way Israel can maintain itself as a Jewish state is by restricting the rights of Palestinian citizens, starting with the right to vote- in other words, Apartheid. Not the most politically correct term to use, but it's accurate.

That being said, the resistance of the current Israeli government to support a two-state solution is not the main stumbling block. As always, that comes from the Palestinians. In order for this to happen, the Palestinians:

1. Have to recognize the State of Israel's right to exist.

2. Have to give up demanding the right of return.

3. Have to accept Gaza and the West Bank as two separate areas for the Palestinian state, or 2 Palestinian states (in essence, a "3 state solution) without a contiguous border.

4. Accept that Israel will continue to control Jerusalem.

If the Palestinians, whether its Fatah or Hamas, accept these points, we could have peace tomorrow.

So:

would you say Palestine as it is now is Apartheid?

How about any of the Arab states?

1. No, but neither did Kerry. Jimmy Carter, however, did assert this in his book, which I took offense to.

2. I don't understand your second question. Are you asking if any of the Arab states are involved in racist repression of minorities? Of course. Does slavery count?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well it's not a two state situation right now. It's a unitary state with an occupied territory, a situation Kerry describes as apartheid.

I would disagree that the current situation is a unitary state. The West Bank and Gaza Strip aren't a part of Israel. They have their own government; their residents aren't Israeli citizens and don't get to vote in Israeli elections.

Kerry is right.

Most of us who are longtime supporters of Israel have feared this for years. It's a question of demographics. Israel wants to maintain itself as a democratic society, but it also wants to maintain itself as a Jewish state. Under any "unified state" solution, the two goals are incompatible. If a two-state solution does not occur, the only way Israel can maintain itself as a Jewish state is by restricting the rights of Palestinian citizens, starting with the right to vote- in other words, Apartheid. Not the most politically correct term to use, but it's accurate.

That being said, the resistance of the current Israeli government to support a two-state solution is not the main stumbling block. As always, that comes from the Palestinians. In order for this to happen, the Palestinians:

1. Have to recognize the State of Israel's right to exist.

2. Have to give up demanding the right of return.

3. Have to accept Gaza and the West Bank as two separate areas for the Palestinian state, or 2 Palestinian states (in essence, a "3 state solution) without a contiguous border.

4. Accept that Israel will continue to control Jerusalem.

If the Palestinians, whether its Fatah or Hamas, accept these points, we could have peace tomorrow.

So:

would you say Palestine as it is now is Apartheid?

How about any of the Arab states?

1. No, but neither did Kerry. Jimmy Carter, however, did assert this in his book, which I took offense to.

2. I don't understand your second question. Are you asking if any of the Arab states are involved in racist repression of minorities? Of course. Does slavery count?

You took offense to Carter calling Palestinian state? But not offense to him calling Israel a Palestinian state?

And so you say that the Arab states are Apartheid states, but you do not call on Obama/Kerry to say the same?

There is almost practically speaking not a single notable news-worthy supporter of Israel who supports what Kerry said, which is evidenced by how he has to walk back his ill thought out comments.

I also find it remarkable you think Obama is right to pledge military support if you think Israel is an Apartheid state. You think the US should be militarily backing an Apartheid nation?

 

[CBusAlex]

I also find it remarkable you think Obama is right to pledge military support if you think Israel is an Apartheid state. You think the US should be militarily backing an Apartheid nation?

So far, the only person who's called Israel an apartheid nation is you.

 

[timschochet]

Saints, I'm not sure you read me correctly (or Kerry for that matter). I do not believe Israel is an Apartheid state. I am fearful that, unless a two state solution is reached at some point in the near future, Israel will be forced by demographics to impose Apartheid like restrictions on the Palestinian population, and I don't want to see that. So far as I understand, that's what Kerry was warning about and I agree with him.

But it would be both incorrect and the worst sort of anti-Israeli propaganda to suggest that Israel is anything close to an Apartheid state RIGHT NOW. That's what Carter did, and that's why I took offense.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I also find it remarkable you think Obama is right to pledge military support if you think Israel is an Apartheid state. You think the US should be militarily backing an Apartheid nation?

So far, the only person who's called Israel an apartheid nation is you.

The key words in that question to Tim ("if you think Israel is an Apartheid state") were "if" and "you".

I will also add that Kerry has been roundly rebuked from pro-Israeli and he has indeed rescinded his comments. He obviously said the wrong thing, I'm saying it was inappropriate and incompetent for him to say it in the first place and the damage has been done.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe Kerry "obviously said the wrong thing." I would never have used the word Apartheid- thats a pejorative term and sure to create trouble- but Kwerys message was substantively correct.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't believe Kerry "obviously said the wrong thing." I would never have used the word Apartheid- thats a pejorative term and sure to create trouble- but Kwerys message was substantively correct.

Tim, you just said he used a pejorative term sure to create trouble - and it did. I'd call that the wrong thing.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe Kerry "obviously said the wrong thing." I would never have used the word Apartheid- thats a pejorative term and sure to create trouble- but Kwerys message was substantively correct.

Tim, you just said he used a pejorative term sure to create trouble - and it did. I'd call that the wrong thing.

But his message was correct. And furthermore you used this an example to argue that Obama has been less supportive of Israel than other Presidents, and I completely reject that statement.

 

[CBusAlex]

I also find it remarkable you think Obama is right to pledge military support if you think Israel is an Apartheid state. You think the US should be militarily backing an Apartheid nation?

So far, the only person who's called Israel an apartheid nation is you.

The key words in that question to Tim ("if you think Israel is an Apartheid state") were "if" and "you".

It kind of seems like you've given up trying to make sense at this point. If you're just looking for some reason to be outraged and don't care how illogical it is, then by all means, go ahead.

 

[Koya]

I don't believe Kerry "obviously said the wrong thing." I would never have used the word Apartheid- thats a pejorative term and sure to create trouble- but Kwerys message was substantively correct.

Tim, you just said he used a pejorative term sure to create trouble - and it did. I'd call that the wrong thing.

But his message was correct. And furthermore you used this an example to argue that Obama has been less supportive of Israel than other Presidents, and I completely reject that statement.

I dont think Obama has been especially positive on Israel, and worse so in terms of his rhetoric. That said, Congressman Steve Israel, who heads up the DCCC (controls a lot of the financial strings), is about as strong a supporter of Israel as you will find, and is probably as close to Obama as anyone in DC outside of perhaps Biden, in terms of elected.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I also find it remarkable you think Obama is right to pledge military support if you think Israel is an Apartheid state. You think the US should be militarily backing an Apartheid nation?

So far, the only person who's called Israel an apartheid nation is you.

The key words in that question to Tim ("if you think Israel is an Apartheid state") were "if" and "you".

It kind of seems like you've given up trying to make sense at this point. If you're just looking for some reason to be outraged and don't care how illogical it is, then by all means, go ahead.

CBA - let me back up - I am trying to listen and take in your points, I did not mean to blow by them if that's what you think.

I was speaking separately to Tim at teh time and was trying to understand his assumptions.

He like you said that Kerry was creating an alternative scenario should peace talks fail, I get that point now and I thank you for it. I hate internet discussions that are just yammering wingish accusations back and forth, I'm really just trying to understand the issue so thanks for the feedback, seriously.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't believe Kerry "obviously said the wrong thing." I would never have used the word Apartheid- thats a pejorative term and sure to create trouble- but Kwerys message was substantively correct.

Tim, you just said he used a pejorative term sure to create trouble - and it did. I'd call that the wrong thing.

But his message was correct. And furthermore you used this an example to argue that Obama has been less supportive of Israel than other Presidents, and I completely reject that statement.

I said this before, but even taking the statement as you and CBA have put forth (you're likely right there)...

I still have a problem with him suggesting that Israel will become an Apartheid state - that's obviously a false alternative, almost a threat to Israel indicating they must become racist to survive. It's absurd and really just plays into the hands of people who clearly hate Jewish people and Israel itself in Palestine and the Arab states. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong all over.

This is what Obama said before about teh A-word:

“There’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal,” Obama said. “It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.”

That's what should be said now, by Kerry and by Obama. Using this word has only played into the hands of enemies of Israel.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe Kerry "obviously said the wrong thing." I would never have used the word Apartheid- thats a pejorative term and sure to create trouble- but Kwerys message was substantively correct.

Tim, you just said he used a pejorative term sure to create trouble - and it did. I'd call that the wrong thing.

But his message was correct. And furthermore you used this an example to argue that Obama has been less supportive of Israel than other Presidents, and I completely reject that statement.

I dont think Obama has been especially positive on Israel, and worse so in terms of his rhetoric. That said, Congressman Steve Israel, who heads up the DCCC (controls a lot of the financial strings), is about as strong a supporter of Israel as you will find, and is probably as close to Obama as anyone in DC outside of perhaps Biden, in terms of elected.

Obama is not that supportive of the current Israeli government. Neither am I.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't believe Kerry "obviously said the wrong thing." I would never have used the word Apartheid- thats a pejorative term and sure to create trouble- but Kwerys message was substantively correct.

Tim, you just said he used a pejorative term sure to create trouble - and it did. I'd call that the wrong thing.

But his message was correct. And furthermore you used this an example to argue that Obama has been less supportive of Israel than other Presidents, and I completely reject that statement.

I dont think Obama has been especially positive on Israel, and worse so in terms of his rhetoric. That said, Congressman Steve Israel, who heads up the DCCC (controls a lot of the financial strings), is about as strong a supporter of Israel as you will find, and is probably as close to Obama as anyone in DC outside of perhaps Biden, in terms of elected.

Obama is not that supportive of the current Israeli government. Neither am I.

Tim look at your original post here - Obama pledged to defend Israel militarily, no?

I'm saying that his policies have been contradictory to his pronouncements in 2008 and 2012.

 

[Koya]

I don't believe Kerry "obviously said the wrong thing." I would never have used the word Apartheid- thats a pejorative term and sure to create trouble- but Kwerys message was substantively correct.

Tim, you just said he used a pejorative term sure to create trouble - and it did. I'd call that the wrong thing.

But his message was correct. And furthermore you used this an example to argue that Obama has been less supportive of Israel than other Presidents, and I completely reject that statement.

I dont think Obama has been especially positive on Israel, and worse so in terms of his rhetoric. That said, Congressman Steve Israel, who heads up the DCCC (controls a lot of the financial strings), is about as strong a supporter of Israel as you will find, and is probably as close to Obama as anyone in DC outside of perhaps Biden, in terms of elected.

Obama is not that supportive of the current Israeli government. Neither am I.

Different between being supportive of Israel and being supportive of its Gov't. I'm not a fan of its gov't either, but Obama has made missteps, especially publicly, on the subject

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Obama gave a long speech at AIPAC supporting Israel- "I have Israel's back!" He repeated it today in a meeting with Netanyahu. Netanyahu said Israel would do what it needs to do to maintain its security. Does this mean war? Bombing of Iran? I don't know, but I'm still skeptical. I think this is a lot of tough talk. But we'll see. Obama has proven to be a great friend of Israel, and I'm very happy about this.

This is what Mrs. Clinton and Obama said in the 2008 debate:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you [extend our deterrent to Israel]?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama…Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, and that has to be one of our top priorities. And I will make it one of our top priorities when I’m president of the United States.

I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians where we are laying out very clearly for them, here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats towards Israel. I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we’ve got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is.

Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

SENATOR OBAMA: As I’ve said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

Sounds like a pledge to me.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe Kerry "obviously said the wrong thing." I would never have used the word Apartheid- thats a pejorative term and sure to create trouble- but Kwerys message was substantively correct.

Tim, you just said he used a pejorative term sure to create trouble - and it did. I'd call that the wrong thing.

But his message was correct. And furthermore you used this an example to argue that Obama has been less supportive of Israel than other Presidents, and I completely reject that statement.

I said this before, but even taking the statement as you and CBA have put forth (you're likely right there)...

I still have a problem with him suggesting that Israel will become an Apartheid state - that's obviously a false alternative, almost a threat to Israel indicating they must become racist to survive. It's absurd and really just plays into the hands of people who clearly hate Jewish people and Israel itself in Palestine and the Arab states. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong all over.

This is what Obama said before about teh A-word:

Theres no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesnt advance that goal, Obama said. Its emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and its not what I believe.

That's what should be said now, by Kerry and by Obama. Using this word has only played into the hands of enemies of Israel.

I don't disagree, but I think you are overstating it. Everyone, especially many of my fellow Jews, tend to be way too sensitive when it comes to this issue. Israel's enemies are already convinced that it is a racist state; so are most of the world's progressives. These same people despise the USA as well. Nothing we say or do is going to increase their hatred and resentment- its pretty much maxed out already.

 

[timschochet]

As far as pledging to support Israel in case of an attack- Obama has repeated the same rhetoric as all past Presidents since Harry Truman. But the truth is that we have never needed to defend Israel militarily, and I strongly doubt we ever will.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I don't believe Kerry "obviously said the wrong thing." I would never have used the word Apartheid- thats a pejorative term and sure to create trouble- but Kwerys message was substantively correct.

Tim, you just said he used a pejorative term sure to create trouble - and it did. I'd call that the wrong thing.

But his message was correct. And furthermore you used this an example to argue that Obama has been less supportive of Israel than other Presidents, and I completely reject that statement.

I said this before, but even taking the statement as you and CBA have put forth (you're likely right there)...

I still have a problem with him suggesting that Israel will become an Apartheid state - that's obviously a false alternative, almost a threat to Israel indicating they must become racist to survive. It's absurd and really just plays into the hands of people who clearly hate Jewish people and Israel itself in Palestine and the Arab states. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong all over.

This is what Obama said before about teh A-word:

Theres no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesnt advance that goal, Obama said. Its emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and its not what I believe.

That's what should be said now, by Kerry and by Obama. Using this word has only played into the hands of enemies of Israel.

I don't disagree, but I think you are overstating it. Everyone, especially many of my fellow Jews, tend to be way too sensitive when it comes to this issue. Israel's enemies are already convinced that it is a racist state; so are most of the world's progressives. These same people despise the USA as well. Nothing we say or do is going to increase their hatred and resentment- its pretty much maxed out already.

Ha - you don't think they have some cause to be... uh... "too sensitive" on the issue?

I mean there's history and then there's that 11 mile wide border they're defending there.