Whats the Israeli military budget to US aid ratio?
Does the King David Hotel count?
Damn, and I thought my work was done.
You are injecting the words violence and bloodshed as a synonym for terrorism. I’m sure you didn’t intend to change the words in an effort to “shift the goalposts” but you did. Violence and bloodshed do not become synonymous with terrorism just because it helps your argument.
9/11 killed 3000 people, that was terrorism. WWII results in almost 100 million deaths, including massacres and genocide. WWII is not generally considered terrorism.
Thunder? What thunder? I asked the Venezuela question in post 223. You even replied to it in post 225 by saying that Israel has little to nothing to do with terrorism in the middle east (one of the silliest statements I have ever read, especially considering we are not talking only about terrorism in the middle east). So, yeah, no goalpost moving?
You said this before. Are you saying that the only terrorism that can be attributed to Israel is the terrorism that is directed against Israel? Are you saying that the other terrorism coming out of that region are not the direct or indirect result of the arab israeli conflict?
No, but aren’t they are a big part of it?
And did this loathing exist at these fever pitches before zionism?
OK, so? I don’t recall saying that all conflict in the middle east is the result of zionism. You keep putting words in my mouth.
Yeah I agree that was a bad way to end the Ottoman empire but I don’t hear quite as much about terrorism between 1919 and 1948.
Wait, the creation of the state of Israel was part of the carving up of the Ottoman Empire? I thought that was done after WWI not WWII.
Zionism as an issue considerably predates the creation of the state of Israel. In fact, it predates WW1, but it was the break-up of Ottoman Empire and its absorbtion in part by european imperialists (formost the Brits) which really created the issues we know and love today. Read up on the Balfour Declaration.
Here? Perhaps. Out there, and in Romney’s circle of advisers? Possibly not.
I wonder, though… Will Mitt be tempted to say something like, “As president, I guarantee that I will support our Israeli allies and a non-nuclear Iran, with troops if necessary”? Would he? I can’t imagine he would, but given today’s events, I do wonder…
Yeah, I get that Bibi is attempting to put the squeeze on the US to declare a foreign policy point that would be favourable to his position. Obviously, if he has any brains, he will realize that the fact this is an election year must figure into his chances of affecting US policy. What I don’t get is how this amounts to an attack, malice, abuse etc. directed specifically at Obama.
Implied, yes. But I saw, at least in the NYT article, a lot of dancing. I was more wondering, would/will Mitt Romney say outright, “I will go to war with Iran,” and with what caveats afterwards?
Well then, call it “his Administration,” which amounts to the same thing – it was actually Clinton’s refusal to meet his ‘demands’ that apparently set him off. As for “attack” etc, he is, just as the NTY article says, “inserted himself into the most contentious foreign policy issue of the American presidential campaign on Tuesday, criticizing the Obama administration for refusing to set clear “red lines” on Iran’s nuclear progress that would prompt the United States to undertake a military strike.”
Which, as you may agree, leaves Obama in a rather awkward spot. He acquiesces to the ‘demand’ and can be criticized for being soft/easily persuaded on FP, or, as he has just done, refuse to do so, and be called to the mat for not supporting the US’s number one ally.
In any event, do you not see a problem with foreign heads of State openly injecting themselves into US presidential elections?
Given what he’s hinted at thus far, I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. Would you?
*caveats, I’d think, would probably come in terms of the very “red lines” (deadlines) Netanyahu speaks of.
Heavens forbid that politicians make political comments around political events for politicians who are supposed to take a stance on political issues. Your outrage is rational.
Obviously this is a big problem in general and you can point to another post you’ve made on the Dope in your decade+ worth of posting in which you’ve bemoaned global politicians making comments about America before an election.
You’ll provide such a cite immediately, naturally.
‘Foreign heads of state should not attempt to influence US foreign policy during a contentious election’ is one thing (admittedly unrealistic - I mean, why should they not?). ‘A foreign head of state maliciously attacked and heaped disrespect on Obama’ is quite another. I just thought there was something I was missing that pointed to the latter.
Because, obviously, if that happens then the electorate might be able to make up their minds about an issue which the candidates take positions on. As if that’ somehow the point of an election, or something. Red’s objection is principled.