who invited Nitlessyahoo, a democrat?SuperJail Warden wrote:
I think the prime minister of Israel giving a speech in front of congress is a repulsive thing to do. I hope it starts a trend of democrats no longer reflexively supporting God's chosen people's right to do whatever they want.
I think you misunderstood me. The republicans invited BN in order to spite the President. I hope this causes Democrats to reconsider their support for Israel due to their injection into our domestic politics in such a partisan way.Steve-0 wrote:
who invited Nitlessyahoo, a democrat?SuperJail Warden wrote:
I think the prime minister of Israel giving a speech in front of congress is a repulsive thing to do. I hope it starts a trend of democrats no longer reflexively supporting God's chosen people's right to do whatever they want.
who asked the PM of a foreign country to rail against the affordable care act?
who is being second guessed by the idiots whom elected him third inline to succession?
the fuck?
Over 100 leaders or dignitaries have addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress over the years. Is it repulsive since it was Bibi?SuperJail Warden wrote:
I think the prime minister of Israel giving a speech in front of congress is a repulsive thing to do. I hope it starts a trend of democrats no longer reflexively supporting God's chosen people's right to do whatever they want.
Cybargs wrote:
It's very common for foreign heads of government/state to make speeches at legislature.
The difference between this and other times, the other foreign leaders didn't come with the disapproval of the president or have a high profile running dispute with our leaders.CC-Marley wrote:
Over 100 leaders or dignitaries have addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress over the years. Is it repulsive since it was Bibi?SuperJail Warden wrote:
I think the prime minister of Israel giving a speech in front of congress is a repulsive thing to do. I hope it starts a trend of democrats no longer reflexively supporting God's chosen people's right to do whatever they want.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic … rael-at-unWhile the world remains fixated on the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, the Obama administration is facing another foreign policy showdown in the United Nations Security Council.
The administration has signaled that it might abandon the decades-long U.S. policy of protecting Israel at the UN and back a Security Council resolution laying out terms for a two-state solution to the almost 67-year-old dispute between the Jewish state and the Palestinians.
Robert Malley, the Middle East director for President Barack Obama’s National Security Council, told at least one European nation two weeks ago that the administration is more willing than it has ever been to work on a Security Council resolution defining the parameters for a Mideast peace agreement, according to a report on the conversation to superiors by a Washington-based European diplomat. A copy of the report was viewed by Bloomberg News.
If there was some sort of new policy direction and plan that has bipartisan support as well as being logically sound, then yes.DesertFox- wrote:
Why is it unthinkable to reassess our unquestioning support of another country? For how much pandering the US does to Israel, what exactly are we getting out of it?
To me it looks more like Obama is trying to establish a legacy regarding the Middle East. Iran nuclear agreement, pushing for a two-state solution. These are good things. Everything should be constantly evaluated and refreshed according to current information and zeitgeist. Foreign policy is no different. There should be a two-state solution and the main driving force preventing that is AIPAC and other lobbying groups in the United States. This should have happened long ago. Not supporting a two state solution because it represents a change in foreign policy direction is the dumbest possible argument against it.SuperJail Warden wrote:
If there was some sort of new policy direction and plan that has bipartisan support as well as being logically sound, then yes.DesertFox- wrote:
Why is it unthinkable to reassess our unquestioning support of another country? For how much pandering the US does to Israel, what exactly are we getting out of it?
Otherwise, this just looks like Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu not getting along and will lead to unfortunate outcomes that will be fixed next election.
The occupied areas of Palestine are largely poor due to the conditions they are subject to by the occupying forces. It's more of an indictment of Israeli government/military treatment than the Palestinian population. You know that though.SuperJail Warden wrote:
How many Arab states aren't dysfunctional and poor? Even the rich gulf states are dysfunctional in their own ways. Palestinians are used to getting bombed every few years and are some of the poorest people in the middle east.
Why is the two state solution better than the three state?
what is this addressing? What are you replying to? Or are you just making a general statement? Sorry, I wasn't paying attention when anyone was stating that the arab countries cared so much about Palestinians or about expelling jews from Arab countries.Cybargs wrote:
If the arab countries care so much about the Palestinians, why do they keep them in refugee camps for half a century? Why haven't they allowed the Palestinians to become citizens?
I don't see people bitch and moaning about how every arab country expelled half a million jews after the creation of israel.
Republicans are suddenly very pro Israel because they smell all the money available from disgruntled zionists fed up with the pro Palestinian positions newly adopted by the Democrat base. Jews always voted democrat until Bush jr. Now they're split. See: Sheldon Adelsonpirana6 wrote:
Israel buys zillions of dollars worth of military equipment/contracts/etc. We get money but it's sorta behind the scenes so not many people know that's the main reason we support them.
Yeah I noticed that. It was really weird to have such a huge shift and so suddenly.Jay wrote:
Republicans are suddenly very pro Israel because they smell all the money available from disgruntled zionists fed up with the pro Palestinian positions newly adopted by the Democrat base. Jews always voted democrat until Bush jr. Now they're split. See: Sheldon Adelsonpirana6 wrote:
Israel buys zillions of dollars worth of military equipment/contracts/etc. We get money but it's sorta behind the scenes so not many people know that's the main reason we support them.
there's always been underlying support for Israel from a chunk of the Rupub base, specifically the moral majority dumbos like Pat Robertson.Jay wrote:
Republicans are suddenly very pro Israel because they smell all the money available from disgruntled zionists fed up with the pro Palestinian positions newly adopted by the Democrat base. Jews always voted democrat until Bush jr. Now they're split. See: Sheldon Adelsonpirana6 wrote:
Israel buys zillions of dollars worth of military equipment/contracts/etc. We get money but it's sorta behind the scenes so not many people know that's the main reason we support them.