Obama Proves He's a Closet Muslim -- Screws Israel with Abstention

Believe me, I live in Europe. They will blame everything and everyone for their problems but themselves. The state that Europe is in now... They have brought it on themselves. Not Bush and not the Iraq war.
You know the guy that wants everyone to like him and therefore nobody respects him? That was the US for the past 8 years.
This is the same European weak approach that brought all of the really big wars of the 20st century.
In international relations there are 2 major approaches. One is called the 'Liberal' approach that is based on a belief that human interactions is a case of the mutual benefits. This was the case in the Europ zone and this is Obama approach. The other major approach is called- the 'realistic' approach.
That is the approach that is assuming a darvinistic political world. A country is an entity that its whole essence is survival. It is a power based approach. In order to survive you have to gain power. There are many different aspects of power that I will not get into them. But the point is that the Obama's and the Europeans are speaking a completely different language than the rest of the world. Their assumptions of what drives people are inherently false and is based on their own experience living in a civilised Western world.
Putin speaks the same language that the rest of the world speaks, and that is why he is way ahead of the US and Europe on his quest to reclaim a superpower position in the political world.
To get back to the subject of peace.
It is much harder to achieve than war and it is not based on mutual benefits but on potential losses.
You have to be extremely strong to achieve peace. To get allies is not always about mutual interests, but on being strong enough that the potential loss of not cooperating will not worth it.
That is how Obama lost Egypt. That is how for some strange reason, after attacking Turkey and collaborating with its enemies, Turkey is begging Putin to be his ally.
You are underestimating those sand castles and overestimating the western world power in the long run.
The world is shifting and a lot of it was due to the vacuum of leadership that Obama has left behind.
I am not a Trump supporter nor Democratic or Republican supporter.
I am a US supporter. The stronger the US will be the better off this world will be, that much we've learned in the past 80 years.
I don't know if Trump will embrace that role or choose an even more isolisation policy. We will have to see about that, but he can't do much worst than Obama.

 

Nivos, I don't know if I agree fully with your position, but I appreciate reading it nonetheless. It's an interesting perspective.

 

Thanks.
The great thing about this board is that you can have discussions with people from all over the world, even from rival countries and still find at least one common thing: We are all Rockets fans
That is why it is so important to keep the conversation constructive and not go down to the spitting fights we always end up finding ourselves in.
I find some great stuff here sometimes from very interesting people, even if I don't always agree with them.

 

I'm enjoying the back and forth between Invisible Fan and Nivos myself, Durvasa. I don't entirely agree with either one of them, but because they are both making real efforts to have a civil discussion about important topics, it's a nice change from what has become the "usual" around here and a pleasure to read. I have my own problems with aspects of the President's foreign policy over the last 8 years (and have said so here from time to time), but am far from disagreeing with all of it, as some knee-jerk members here are apt to do. Actually, kudos to the 3 of you.

 

This is biggest load of bullshit I have seen in a while...the irony is hilarious... I can't even begin to say anything. Bibi should stick to teaching with cartoon drawings. I mean sure...if you ignore that somebody living on private land deserves their holdings taken away by some settler that probably migrated from Russia or easter Europe you may just be able to pitch the idea to some zealots. Its astonishing how low we have set the bar. Is asking for a stop to FURTHER expansion wrong?

To all the proponents of what Bibi is saying, if you back this, you have no problem bulldozing all private Palest. held land at this very moment. Sure that might sound more insensitive and mean, but that's the end game and where this is going. The precedent that this is ok should make you perfectly ok with that.

 

Netanyahu is right, you are wrong. You are offering nothing but low-level insults.

 

The river of irony is flowing. If you're going to support an illogical notion, doing it an illogical fashion is the best way to do it. You are wrong, I am right. Get over it with your insults about slinging low-level insults.

 

Go Israel! Go Netanyahu!

 

So true.

 

What a gross lie. It's the other way around. Most Israelis want to expel Palestinians. In fact the settlement building is at the expense of Palestinians - they are forced from their homes - it is Israel conducting ethnic cleansing here. Not that Palestinians wouldn't do the same if given the chance, but this video is utter B.S.

 

These are the types of vidoes or narratives that I don't understand how you, as an educated man, can upload as some kind of support to your narrative.
Those guys are religious fanatics that are waiting for the masaiach and for the Gog vemagog. The big final war that will bring the Masaiach and only the 'True believers' will survive.
These are the kind of people you want to support your ideas? Or is it because they are Jews and you are trying to show that not all Jews supports the existence of Israel?
I just don't understand why people instead of sticking to logical arguments, and there are definitely many logical arguments to both sides here, are going to those kind of places?

 

Again, most of those lands that the settlers are living on are not private lands. Those are lands taken from Jordan, yes, but not privately owned by individuals. Private lands of Palastinians are registered in taboo and if settlers try to build on them they are being expelled by the Israeli military.
Netanyahu is full of bullshit, and his government is controlled by the extreme right that do not support any notion of peace.
But you can make that argument by sticking to facts.
It's not about 'stealing the Land'. That's a stupid notion and childish argument.
It's about a choice of a government of a military control on a civilian population, it's about aiming towards a minority rules over one country that will make it impossible to maintain the 2 principles that the country was built upon: Jewish AND Democratic.
Netanyahu is a political animal. He has no ideology. He is weak and he is a survivalist.
He uses now this phrase of 'ethnic cleansing' as a spin towards the 'Ethnic Cleansing' narrative that the extreme left stupidly portrayed.
The more the extreme left will push towards an ideology and unlogical ideas, the more the fanatics and even the center-right will be pushed towards a no resolution state of mind.

 

I don't see how these videos from Exiled are any different than the ridiculous claim that Israel is stopping ethnic cleansing by kicking Palestinians out of their homes.

 

maybe I should 've used Chomsky or Enstian's takes on Israel, but Atw can't comprehend such intellectual arguments

It's common beliefs among religious vs. secular nationalist Jews : king of David kingdom or else.but
I wouldn't call them fanatic (which comes as a surprise that you described them this way) I used to think so but the more I know about them the more I'm convinced they are a devoted believers who're peaceful -spiritual & the scapegoat or Shiva in hindsight of the larger Jewish population when things gets ugly. Among abrahamic religions followers , almost every sector has their own flavour of saviour coming at end of days , the main difference ,Christian Anglican or Khuminist 12th sector believe in the possibility of artificial acceleration to this process.btw , I see daily 4-5 new Jews , many of them are (secular or partly religious )&( voluntarily chosen to live in the West) and they're either against state of Israel or don't want their loved one to be in such place

 

Nivos, and this really applies to almost anyone who attempts make an accurate assessment of foreign policy from an outsider perspective who doesn't recieve daily top secret intelligence breifings, don't you think you are falling victim to the Dunning-Krugger effect?

You make claims of Obama leading from behind and his policy is a disaster but the extent of your nuance is just listing platitudes of regions that are hot spots? Can you with nuance explain what Obama OUGHT to have done to not have the appearance of 'leading from behind'? I understand that this question is almost impossible to answer as you do not have a constant stream of intelligence breifings but that kinda proves my point that it's all conjecture and speaking out of your ass?

The only thing I can go by now is that I don't have to hear sad violin music with Geroge Stephanopoulos reading off a list of servicemen that were KIA for the week every ****ing Sunday on 'This Week'. And to me that's a huge ****ing win.

 

I'll ignore the 'speaking out of your ass' thing but the point made on the post is valid. It is very easy and unfair to point at failures in hindsight and say- 'He should have done that or that'. There is no way to know the details that drove decisions, but you can try and understand the rational.
Obama, and no one can argue that, took a passive approach on the events in the middle East. I think the biggest failure was Egypt and his failure to understand the outcome of the "Arab Spring". He failed to support his largest ally in the middle East and collapsed the stability of the middle east.
The pulling out of Iraq like a bandage I can definitely understand although most sensible people knew this is exactly what will happen. But that was the biggest point on his foreign affairs campaign when he got elected so he merely followed on his promises. Not blaming him on that, but there were much better ways to do it.
Obama was very passive, even if you want, with his approach towards the Israeli government. It was not "leading from behind". It was just "Not leading".
Sorry, I'm not trying to hate on Obama, just looking at the results of his 8 years on office in the perspective of an outsider.

 

Those guys are Neturey Karta . They are waiting for the 3rd temple to be built until they can return to Israel, according to the prophecy in the bible. If you don't want to call them fanatics go ahead. For me every one that is calling for a religious law is fanatic, and I dont care if they are Muslims, Jews or Christians.
Chomsky is a different kind of fanatic, although he makes much more sense and talking as an Atheist, not as a Jew.
As for the Jews in the states and the rest of the world. A huge majority of them supports Israel's right to exist, but it doesn't come without conflicts.
Most of the Jews in the states are what you guys are calling 'liberals'.
So for them its hard to explain how can it be a Jewish And democratic society.
But the fact is that Israel was build on secular foundation and it's Jewish heritage. It is built as a social society, in many places, like the Kibbutz I grew up in, even closer to communist/atheist ideas. But still maintain its strong connection to what it means being a Jew.
Some of the American Jews are apologetic. They are not comfortable or accustomed to what it feels like to be proud of your heritage. To stop apologising about the fact that you survived, and you are who you are because you fought for it, not just because you survived.
The fact is, that like it or not, Israel does exist, and you can't erase it.
So not the Neturey Karta nor Chomsky, can make any meaningful difference.

 

This is the part where I ask for nuance to better understand your paradigm.

Obama took a 'passive' approach... Please elaborate. Do you mean he didn't deploy battalion level Victor(infantry) units? What does that mean exactly? Because I guess the Bush administration went with an 'active' approach correct? Did that turn out well?

Elaborate with nuance how Obama 'failed' to support his largest ally. I don't get this part.

And 'pulling out of Iraq like a bandage'? What does that mean. Give some nuance. In reality he pulled out of Iraq like a status of forces agreement that was signed by the previous administration existed. That's how he pulled out of Iraq... I'm confused at what you are explicitly referring to.

Again, sorry to be harsh but when someone makes assertive declrative statements such as 'Obama's foreign policy is disastrous' I expect more nuance than platitudes if I expect to be swayed.