|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:34 pm Post subject: Netanyahu admits on video he deceived US to destroy Oslo acc |
 |
|
To read the English transcript, click on the video to go to the YouTube page
NAZARETH // The contents of a secretly recorded video threaten to gravely embarrass not only Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister but also the US administration of Barack Obama.
The film was shot, apparently without Mr Netanyahu�s knowledge, nine years ago, when the government of Ariel Sharon had started reinvading the main cities of the West Bank to crush Palestinian resistance in the early stages of the second intifada.
At the time Mr Netanyahu had taken a short break from politics but was soon to join Mr Sharon�s government as finance minister.
On a visit to a home in the settlement of Ofra in the West Bank to pay condolences to the family of a man killed in a Palestinian shooting attack, he makes a series of unguarded admissions about his first period as prime minister, from 1996 to 1999.
Seated on a sofa in the house, he tells the family that he deceived the US president of the time, Bill Clinton, into believing he was helping implement the Oslo accords, the US-sponsored peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, by making minor withdrawals from the West Bank while actually entrenching the occupation. He boasts that he thereby destroyed the Oslo process.
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100718/FOREIGN/707179891/1135 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No surprises here. I wonder how his apologists will spin this?
| Quote: |
In the recording, Netanyahu described Bill Clinton - the former US president who helped to negotiate the accords - as "radically pro-Palestinian".
|
I can only imagine what he thinks of Obama. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| No surprises here. I wonder how his apologists will spin this? |
They'll attack the messenger, question if it is genuine, and claim it is OK because Arabs/Palestinians act worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 18, 2010 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What the US should do is funnel guns to the opposition. When that fails to remove Netanyahu, the US can build a wall around Israel and blockade.
Netanyahu makes Bush look balanced, reasonable, and conciliatory by comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
What the US should do is funnel guns to the opposition. When that fails to remove Netanyahu, the US can build a wall around Israel and blockade.
|
The Bizarro World eh.
Netanyahu will turn around and do similar to the US:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/max-blumenthal/29926/netanyahus-warning-to-america-palestinian-state-will-lead-to-second-mexico-in-u-s
| Quote: |
Netanyahu's Warning to America: Palestinian State Will Lead To "Second Mexico" In U.S.
"The United States is not exempt from this potential nightmare. In a decade or two the southwestern region of America is likely to be predominately Hispanic, mainly as a result of continuous emigration from Mexico. It is not inconceivable that in this community champions of the Palestinian Principle could emerge. These would demand not merely equality before the law, or naturalization, or even Spanish as a first language. Instead they would say that since they form a local majority in the territory (which was forcibly taken from Mexico in the war of 1848), they deserve a state of their own. 'But you already have a state -- it's called Mexico,' would come the response. 'You have every right to demand civil rights in the United States, but you have no right to demand a second Mexico.' This hypothetical exchange may sound far-fetched today. But it will not necessarily appear that way tomorrow, especially if the Palestinian Principle is allowed to continue to spread, which it surely will if a new Palestinian state comes into being." |
That should be read as a threat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/07/18/bibi-unmasked/
This article is better. |
Netanyahu is a shuyster and AIPAC as at the service of those who care about Israel first over America. They call them Israel firsters. Netanyahu relies heavily on them and born again Christians. He laughs at the US. Obama tried to pressure Israel some months ago, but recently looked subdued. He even seemed to talk as if America was Israel. One Aaron David Miller who is rather balanced and wants peace said that too often the US acts like Israel's lawyer, and when it does it can't have a balanced approach.
When Netanyahu says Bill Clinton is pro-Palestinian it means, he was opposing Israel's continued plans of Greater Israel and continued settlements and subjugation of the Palestinian. The Likud has been about expansionism without a doubt. I remember Ranaan Gissen saying that what Israel did is not different than whites did with Indians as if it say it was okay.
They make it possible for America to pursue inbalanced policies in the region, which has cost America so much in the region including hundreds of marines in Lebanon. Of course, it doesn't matter to sacrifice American money and treasure for Israel or Netanyahu.
In the Middle East, the US looks afraid of Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/07/18/bibi-unmasked/
This article is better. |
Yes it is.
| Quote: |
Take, for example, this new �Emergency Committee for Israel,� chaired by Bill Kristol, Christian nutball Gary Bauer, and Rachel Abrams, wife of neocon heavy-hitter Elliott Abrams, which is running ads in Pennsylvania against Democrat Joe Sestak. Sestak�s crime: insufficient subservience to the Lobby. As an article in Politico put it:
�The new committee declined to disclose its funding � as a 501(c)4 advocacy organization, it isn�t required to � but said it had raised enough to air its first ad, starting this week, on Fox and CNN and during a Philadelphia Phillies game. The ad attacks Sestak for signing a letter criticizing Israel�s blockade of Gaza while not signing a defense of Israel circulated by the group AIPAC, and for appearing at a fundraiser for the Council on American Islamic Relations, which it describes as an �anti-Israel organization the FBI called a �front-group for Hamas�.�
Of course the new committee refused to disclose its funding � for the simple reason that a good deal of the money that fuels the pro-Israel lobby in this country comes from overseas. This was true in the early days of AIPAC and its predecessor, as Grant Smith�s invaluable research has underscored, and there is little doubt this tradition is continued unto the present day, with such groups as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, JINSA, and the American �Friends of the IDF� having open links to the Israeli foreign ministry and the IDF leadership. Ostensibly �American� groups that subsidize Israeli settlements in the West Bank enjoy tax exempt status, while pro-Palestinian groups that try to operate similarly are shuttered and their supporters jailed as supporters of �terrorism.� Of the billions we send every year in �aid� to the Jewish state, a significant portion returns to us in the form of pro-Israel propaganda.
Legally, the �Emergency Committee� is not required to disclose its funding � but they ought to anyway. Unless, that is, they�re content to leave the impression Israel is directly intervening in American elections. Or maybe that�s precisely what they intend.
David Frum gleefully called the committee �The New In Your Face Israel Lobby.� As in-your-face as the anti-Americanism and outright contempt for Washington expressed in that candid video of Netanyahu. It�s as if they�re saying to this administration: �Go ahead and go after us. We dare you!� |
I threw that incredible Frum quote into google to find the source. The National Post. Bah. Why is Frum still employed? What is it with the media that tenure is the norm (see Dan Gross and his writings on economics for another example).
| Quote: |
Anew pro-Israel group has launched one of the hardest-hitting commercials of America�s 2010 campaign season. It will run in Pennsylvania, where Democrat Joe Sestak faces Republican Pat Toomey in a battle for the Senate seat formerly held by Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter.
Over images of masked gunmen and grainy footage of anti-Israel protests, a narrator�s voice demands: �Does Congressman Joe Sestak realize Israel is America�s ally?
�Sestak raised money for an anti-Israel organization the FBI called �a front-group for Hamas.� Sestak signed a letter accusing Israel of �collective punishment� for blockading Hamas in Gaza. Sestak refused to sign a bipartisan letter affirming U.S. support for Israel.
�Call Joe Sestak: Ask him to stand with Israel.�
That�s tough medicine, and a departure from the traditional behind-the-scenes advocacy of groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
The departure signals a coming shift in the American Jewish community. While most American Jews vote Democrat, those Jews most passionately involved with Israel have felt ever-increasing mistrust of Barack Obama, his administration and his party.
The anti-Sestak ad, for example, was produced by the newly launched Emergency Committee for Israel (EIC). The EIC is governed by a three-person board: Bill Kristol of Fox News and the Weekly Standard; Gary Bauer, a stalwart of the Christian Right; and Rachel Abrams, a writer married to former senior Bush administration official Elliott Abrams. It is raising funds from donors increasingly alienated from the Obama administration, not usually by any one single big thing, but by an accumulation of ominous signals and warnings of trouble to come.
Here is the trouble that these Obama-skeptics fear.
For months, the Obama administration has been nudging Israel and the Palestinian Authority toward a resumption of direct talks on Palestinian statehood. I won�t recapitulate here the reasons why the nudges have failed, but fail they have.
In the absence of direct talks, the administration (it�s widely believed) is developing a Plan B: a U.S. plan for an independent Palestinian state that will be imposed on Israel sometime after the mid-term elections, as long advocated by former Jimmy Carter national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.
And if Israel does not like the dictated settlement � well, its arm will have to be twisted.
The new pro-Israel advocacy group wants to act in advance of the crisis. It is anxious for indications of the intentions of current candidates.
The candidate targeted by the EIC�s first ad is a case in point. In 2007, then-congressman Sestak delivered a speech to a Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) fundraiser. (That�s the anti-Israel group referenced by the TV ad.) An extract from his speech:
�CAIR does such important and necessary work in a difficult environment to change such perceptions and wrongs � from racial profiling and civil rights to promoting justice and mutual understanding � at a time when it is challenging to be an American-Muslim and pass, for example, through an airport checkpoint. The Jewish people have passed through � and still confront � many of the same challenges, some so horrific that one gentle man was moved to write after visiting the horror of Auschwitz: �Forgive them not Father, for they knew what they did.� �
Equating airport checkpoints to the Holocaust at a CAIR fundraiser raised eyebrows among pro-Israel groups. So too did Sestak�s signing of a Jan. 21, 2009, letter urging a lifting of the Gaza blockade � just days after Israel had unilaterally ended its Operation Cast Lead operation in Gaza.
Does all of this add up to a profile of hostility to Israel? Not exactly. But it sure sends a significant message. Better to read those messages now, in advance, rather than wait to lobby and argue when it is too late.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/17/david-frum-the-new-in-your-face-israel-lobby/#ixzz0uAwNEoqF
|
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/war_escalates_between_right-wi.html
| Quote: |
A fascinating story out of Pennsylvania: The war is escalating big time between Dem Senate candidate Joe Sestak and Bill Kristol's new pro-Israel group, with the group increasing its ad buy slamming Sestak as soft on Israel and Sestak demanding that cable TV pull the spot on the grounds that it's a vicious smear.
MIchael Goldfarb, a spokesman for Kristol's Emergency Committee for Israel, which was modeled on Liz Cheney's "Keep America Safe," tells me the group is doubling the size of the buy it plunked down to run this new spot, which asks: "Does Congressman Joe Sestak understand Israel is America's ally?"
Separately, I've obtained a letter that the Sestak campaign has fired off to Comcast, blasting the cable carrier for running a spot that's "false, misleading and deceptive."
The crux of the ad's attack on Sestak: It hits him for signing a letter criticizing Israel's Gaza blockade, for refusing to sign an AIPAC letter defending Israel, and for "raising money" for a fundraiser for the Council on American Islamic Relations. The ad describes CAIR as an "anti-Israel organization the FBI called a 'front-group for Hamas," even though CAIR has repeatedly denied this and no charges were brought against the group.
The Sestak campaign initially blasted the ad and demanded that Comcast refrain from running it. Sestak's camp argued that it's highly misleading to claim he ever raised money for CAIR, because he'd only attended a CAIR event that was free of fundraising, and argued that the ad badly distorted other of Sestak's Israel-related positions.
But Kristol's group responded, and it appears Comcast is going to continue to run the ad. Also, the group's doubling of the ad buy means it will run on broadcast TV during this Friday's Phillies game.
Now Sestak is redoubling efforts to get the ad taken down. In the new letter to Comcast, the Sestak camp basically accuses Comcast of misleading its viewers. Sestak's campaign organized a press conference today in Philly where Jewish leaders will denounce the group's campaign against him.
The Sestak camp faces a familiar dilemma: Should it ignore the Kristol group's attacks, or should it aggressively rebut them, which risks drawing more media attention to the group's efforts? Sestak is opting for the latter, aggressive approach. We'll see where this goes. |
Any country that grants to Kristol significant authority is in trouble. Liz Cheney too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
Netanyahu will turn around and do similar to the US:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/max-blumenthal/29926/netanyahus-warning-to-america-palestinian-state-will-lead-to-second-mexico-in-u-s
| Quote: |
Netanyahu's Warning to America: Palestinian State Will Lead To "Second Mexico" In U.S.
"The United States is not exempt from this potential nightmare. In a decade or two the southwestern region of America is likely to be predominately Hispanic, mainly as a result of continuous emigration from Mexico. It is not inconceivable that in this community champions of the Palestinian Principle could emerge. These would demand not merely equality before the law, or naturalization, or even Spanish as a first language. Instead they would say that since they form a local majority in the territory (which was forcibly taken from Mexico in the war of 1848), they deserve a state of their own. 'But you already have a state -- it's called Mexico,' would come the response. 'You have every right to demand civil rights in the United States, but you have no right to demand a second Mexico.' This hypothetical exchange may sound far-fetched today. But it will not necessarily appear that way tomorrow, especially if the Palestinian Principle is allowed to continue to spread, which it surely will if a new Palestinian state comes into being." |
That should be read as a threat. |
Not smart. Talking about Mexico this way has started a war before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
http://www.mojvideo.com/video-feeling-the-hate-in-jerusalem-on-eve-of-obama-s-cairo-addres/aea441d039edf753afe0
^ Watch it. |
What Kristol and Goldfarb and others may use words like "keeping America safe". They hide behind the American label, but how truly objective are they when it comes to Israel? Do they really think about America's interests in balancing that of its relations with both Arabs and Israelis? No. They claim he did some fundraising. That means they have no problem with lying for the sake of supporting their cause. It's amazing how Kristol can look in the mirror after encouraging us to go to Iraq and having who knows how many dead American soldiers. American politicians shouldn't feel harassed by these guys. Let them do their jobs. They were elected. No one elected Kristol who cheerleaded a war that we are still paying for....
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/16/kristol-williams/
Here is clip of him from 2006. The guy shouldn't even show up in front of a mirror or TV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
