And yet, if he was allowed to run for a Third Term, most Americans would have voted for him.
Merry Christmas!
I don’t think he would have voted this way if Donald Trump had kept his mouth shut and not tried to dictate how he though Obama should voted. I get the feeling that the Donald’s unprecedented wading into to foreign policy before he is actually President is pissing Obama off.
Interesting times.
Yawn.
Maybe he would be so inclined, but I’m betting Michelle would say “You’re not seriously going to do something wrong because of that asshole?”
Yes, but Jewish Americans have a higher net worth and are more likely to be in positions of influence like politicians, business leaders, entertainment leaders, etc. So they will have more influence.
I think it was more of being pissed at Israel that they called Trump and asked him to weigh in on any impending vote despite his not actually being in office yet, undermining Obama’s authority these last few weeks. From Netanyahu’s embrace of Romney in 2012 to their sniping at Obama afterwards to this, Israel has only themselves to blame. They have acted like they have had a blank check with the U.S. (which, unfortunately, they largely have given the Israeli-Evangelical lobby), but any time a country (or, well, most of them) criticizes Israel for settlements that its own parliament don’t recognize as legal, they retreat back into claims of antisemitism against anyone who dares question them. And their squealing is all the more pathetic since the resolution is criticism only with no actual consequences (that Israel cannot refute since, again, it doesn’t officially recognize the settlements as legal either but doesn’t have the political will or principle to do something about them).
The abstention was a symbolic way of letting Israel know that, at least for this one vote, the U.S. won’t abandon the U.S.-Israel alliance by voting for it but the U.S. won’t get in the way of literally all of the other countries on the Security Council who did.
Your headline makes it sound like Obama was actually there, personally casting a vote.
“The food at this restaurant is terrible - and the bastards also skimp on the portions!”
Without looking it up, I thought the US’s position is that continued settlement building is wrong and to the extent the US is supposed to be a peace broker over there, it has to stop. Plus Bibi has been a petulant twat lately. This isn’t surprising to me at all. The US hasn’t been unilaterally supportive of every little thing Israel does, especially with Bibi in charge.
Certain people keep trying to frame it as the US being anti-Israel and anti-semitic, but it’s a pretty transparent and frankly childish tactic. American Jews are hardly a unified block on the issue.
Yeah, adaher is generally not a bad poster, but it’s amusing to think how this thread would have read if Obama had, in fact, followed his advice and opted to vote with the others in condemning the settlements! 
The only thing that would have satisfied the wingnuts would have been a flat-out veto, and then Obama would have been shat on from the other side, besides torpedoing US credibility as a mediator over the West Bank issue.
Here’s a novel concept, though I know it’s a hard one for right-wingers: How about deciding on what’s right, on what constitutes the best course of action in a complex and difficult situation, and just doing what makes sense?
As 'luci implied, Jewish Americans are pretty divided on the issue of West Bank settlements. They don’t represent a voting bloc on this issue - much less a funding bloc.
The US had long supported the two-state solution and the settlements are counterproductive to that, and that’s not an Obama or Democrat thing: Bush criticises settlements on Israel visit.
Yes, there are interesting times ahead with Bibi in charge of things in Israel, Putin in Russia, and the Orange Peril in the US. All we need now is for Kim Jong Un to develop fantastically powerful nuclear missiles.
If this helps make it clear that the majority of Israelis no longer pretend to want peace, only lebensraum, then that may be a good thing. If that leads to a single state with majority-rule democracy, that’s even better, even with an inevitable transitional apartheid phase.
I think most of us in the world, and many Jews too, are long past sick of this shit.
The Trump coalition: reactionary, clueless morons, nearly all of whom are too fucking lazy to read history, in-depth reporting, or anything more complex than a Dilbert cartoon.
Here comes Captain Amateur and the dingbat ideologues. Watch them step on their own dicks every single day. Goddamn, it’s no wonder Putin is practically salivating.
Plus the rise of nationalism in Europe. Interesting times indeed.
By “right-wingers”, do you mean folks like [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer (D-NY), [Senate Minority Whip] Steny Hoyer (D-MD), [ranking Democrat, Senate Foreign Relations Committee] Ben Cardin (D-MD), [ranking Democrat, House Foreign Relations Committee] Eliot Engel (D–NY), [Senator] Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and [Senator] Bob Casey (D-PA)?
If you want to argue in favor of Obama’s action that’s fine, but let’s not imply the anti side consists of nothing but “right wingers”.
Those would be the “some Democrats” part of the “Republicans and some Democrats” contingent that I mentioned here. Nothing I said was inaccurate.
Spin is generally not inaccurate. But it’s still spin.
If he voted for them, you’d scream. If he voted against them, you’d scream. When he abstains, you scream.
Whatever.
This is a bullshit accusation that I’ve tried to misrepresent something by “spinning” it. Cite what I misrepresented or stop making accusations.
Here’s an interesting survey done last year by Brookings on the overall sentiment across the US population of the West Bank settlements:
Overall, 31% recommend that the U.S. limits its opposition to words, 27% recommend that the U.S. do nothing, while 27% recommend economic sanctions, and 10% recommend taking more serious action. It is notable that among Democrats, more people (49%) recommend either imposing economic sanctions or taking more serious action, than those recommending doing nothing or limiting U.S. opposition towards (46%).
This shows that 68% are opposed to the settlements, and 27% recommend no US policy against them. Presumably some number among that 27% are actually in favor of them, but it’s certainly a minority.