Obama snubbed Netanyahu for dinner with Michelle and the girls, Israelis claim

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ratcals
 


Thank YOU!


Those were my thoughts on the whole bail out for dinner thing, Im glad someone beat me to it.

I rarely saw my father for dinner growing up, why? Because he had a job to do and was a man about it. He instilled the same work ethics in me. There are SOME reasons to bail on someone, sure. But, "sorry Mr. Leader of one of our best allies who just flew all the way from Israel, gotta go listen to my wife and kids tell stories of where the dog crapped today." Simply does not cut it in any job. You say "we'll stay here all night till we come to a conclusion and you do whatever it takes. Maybe just maybe, if Obama showed this man respect, it would be reciprocated. This bullying nonsense only works on the playground.

I see everyones point about how they think this was a smart move, but in my eyes, they might as well just whip out rulers and see who's male genitalia is bigger. Thats all this adds up to for me. Its wasting tax payers time.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by WhiteDevil013]




posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by WhiteDevil013
 


But that's not what it was about.

If you read the article, you'd see that Obama met him and then he presented Netyhoo with a list of 13 demands that needed to be met in order to resolve the issues.

Netty didn't like it and stalled and faffed, Obama wasn't having any of it and didn't want to waste his time playing the "who-backs-down-first" game so excused himself and went for dinner, saying, "If you need me let me know".



But Mr Obama was less inclined to be so conciliatory. He immediately presented Mr Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. Key among those demands was a previously-made call to halt all new settlement construction in east Jerusalem. When the Israeli prime minister stalled, Mr Obama rose from his seat declaring: "I'm going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls." As he left, Mr Netanyahu was told to consider the error of his ways. "I'm still around," Mr Obama is quoted by Israel's Yediot Ahronot newspaper as having said. "Let me know if there is anything new."


It wasn't about who's got bigger willies at all. It was about principle. And too right as well. Why should Obama waste his time pandering to Netty? Netty's put himself and the US in a bad situation, Obama gave a list of ways to resolve it.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chance321
What a bumbling fool we have for a president. I thought obama was supposed to be this great orator? He don't get his way he stomps out to have dinner with the family? This is a real great way to treat a US ally.


Actually he is acting like a real president! Israel is in a big need of a reality check and Obama will make sure they get one.

Now lets all hope that Obama then makes sure Israel take responsibility for there injustice and crimes...



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
An even better way would be to pull all U.S aid and support and let them do what they want without involving us.


I like the way you think!!! Yes the US should do that!



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retrovertigo
Nicely done Barry
Way to put that Zionist Bibi back in his box...

The way Israel has treated the US, Britain, Australia and its so called other "allies" of late has been disgusting...

First we have those murderers from Mossad using forged passports belonging to the nations of their so called "allies"...Then we have more illegal settlement building in East Jerusalem, announced just as the US vice-president visits Israel to try and get the peace process back on track...

Now the US, Australia and other countries need to man up and follow the UK's lead and start expelling Israeli "diplomats"...Start with their spies, and if they don't smarten up and play ball, start expelling senior consular staff, then the ambassador/consul...

Or maybe Michelle simply forgot Bibi was coming and cooked a nice roast shoulder of pork for dinner ? Dont think Bibi would like that


[edit on 25-3-2010 by Retrovertigo]


Dont forget that Dubai Reaffirmed a Policy to Refus Entry to Israelis!!


www.israelnationalnews.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


That might be, but pressure from the military might also be a reason:


Did Petraeus briefing set stage for U.S.-Israel spat?

Mark Perry, writing in Foreign Policy, reports that American anger at Israel’s position on settlements is driven at least in part by military concerns. By Perry’s account — a version that Pentagon and administration sources seem to be confirming rather than challenging — the change dates back to a January briefing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by a team from CENTCOM, or Central Command, the command responsible for a region from the Middle East east to Pakistan and Kazahkstan.

“The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue. The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned (Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael) Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM’s mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that (U.S. special envoy George) Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) “too old, too slow … and too late.”
The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue; which is why the briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus’s instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. “Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling,” a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. “America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding.”

As Perry tells it, that briefing set the stage for Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to Jerusalem; the announcement on the day of Biden’s arrival that 1,600 new apartments would be built in East Jerusalem was not the major cause of the breach, but rather the straw that broke the back of an already overstrained camel.

“But no one was more outraged than Biden who, according to the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, engaged in a private, and angry, exchange with the Israeli Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, what Biden told Netanyahu reflected the importance the administration attached to Petraeus’s Mullen briefing: “This is starting to get dangerous for us,” Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.” Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: “The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel’s actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism.” The message couldn’t be plainer: Israel’s intransigence could cost American lives.

That’s fascinating in a number of ways:
1.) As Perry notes, the stance that Petraeus took is not merely strategic but political in nature, stretching the bounds of his role. Furthermore, the general is not an impetuous sort. He thinks things through very carefully, so he no doubt understood fully the gravity of the message he was sending. That’s also why the White House in turn has taken it so seriously.
2.) “The message couldn’t be plainer: Israel’s intransigence could cost American lives.” That’s the core of the issue. Cast in those terms, the debate becomes much more difficult for the current Israeli government and for those in this country who defend Israel’s pro-settlement policies. And the fact that this message is coming from the U.S. military only compounds its impact.
3.) Reading between the lines of Perry’s piece and its later clarifications, there was a clear decision at high levels, apparently from within the Pentagon, to make this story public. If so, the leak was itself a policy decision, an effort by the military to throw itself publicly behind both the Petraeus warning and the sterner line taken in response by the Obama administration.
UPDATE: In prepared testimony before Congress today, Petraeus essentially confirmed the Foreign Policy report. Addressing what he called the “major drivers of instability, inter-state tensions, and conflict … (that) can serve as root causes of instability or as obstacles to security,” the very first one he listed was:

“Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.”

Petraeus also pointed out that progress in Middle East peace talks could seriously weaken the power of Iran:

“A credible U.S. effort on Arab-Israeli issues that provides regional governments and populations a way to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the disputes would undercut Iran’s policy of militant “resistance,” which the Iranian regime and insurgent groups have been free to exploit. Additionally, progress on the Israel-Syria peace track could disrupt Iran’s lines of support to Hamas and Hizballah…. As such, progress toward resolving the political disputes in the Levant, particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict, is a major concern for CENTCOM.”


source

Although the military is not ought to get politically involved, it is good to see that there are actually still powerful people left who do want to act in the interest of the American people, rather than that of Israel.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by noonebutme
 



But the Obamanation doesn't get to impose demands on another country. Put them forward as proposals then let's negotiate. Can't very well negotiate if you're not in the room.

I guess he's figuring he is not able to cram policy down the rest of the world's throat as easily as he can ours.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ratcals

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Surely people should respect Obama as a family man. I imagine trying to negotiate with someone like Netanyahu, who claims right to build on area, because they have been there for 3,000 years, must be a difficult.


NO, NO, NO. As a 23 year Air Force veteran I am going to invoke one of the three AF core values- SEVICE BEFORE SELF. This was not an example of that core value. He is the POTUS (sad, but true) and he has a job to do. Dinner with family can wait.

I put my family second on numerous occasions and my job was no where near as important.

Edited for spelling stupidity.


[edit on 25-3-2010 by ratcals]


I understand what you are saying, country before self like Obama did for the Health care reform, but in this case its just Benjamin Netanyahu so its no biggy, family should come first and it did!


[edit on 25-3-2010 by Moonguy]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
This is one of the few things he's done that I like.

Yeah, Obama will show you just who you control....that's why they don't like him, they can't control him.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by hadriana]





Lets see you want peace in the middle east right? Many people let there personal feelings cloud there judgement. You disagree with Israel so you don't want Obama to work as hard as he can for peace and show respect? Think about it.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Go Obama. First time I have ever said that.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 


Obviously this wasn't done solely so Obama could have dinner with his family.

It was a direct snub of the kind Israel usually reserves for its allies when displeased, i.e with Biden over the settlements and with the Turkish FM a few weeks ago by deputy FM Ayalon, who specifically demeaned his guest as a result of Turkish crictisim of Israeli policy, and a T.V show depicting Israeli soldiers carrying out war crimes.

Is Obama and his administration actually going to do something here? My hopes are actually rising that Israel is going to be forced to begin serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

I fear i may be to naive in this hope.






[edit on 25-3-2010 by Peruvianmonk]



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ratcals
 


True, however what Israel has and is doing is putting the US in a very bad position.

The US is trying to broker a peace deal, which I believe they are truly trying to do.

But what does Isreal do? Ignore the common courtesy protocols and build on the occupied land in a very sesntive area.

The move contrevenes everything the US is trying to prove they're fighting for in the eyes of the Palestinians. It makes the US look bad because it's a known fact they are allies so it simply diminishes the peace brokerage the US is trying to achieve.

Isreal isn't helping. So in this case, I'd say no - there is no negotiating. Israel is mucking about at the expense of the US efforts so I believe Obama is well within his right to issue the "demands" here.

hey - if Israel don't like it, just say "no" to all that wonderfully sweet US aid and support. However i somehow think they won't.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I wonder how this plays into the whole POTUS and FED are controlled by ZIONIST agenda theories. Good on Obama, Israel seems to be unreasonable and cares not how its policies effect relations around the world.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

Originally posted by hadriana
This is one of the few things he's done that I like.

Yeah, Obama will show you just who you control....that's why they don't like him, they can't control him.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by hadriana]





Lets see you want peace in the middle east right? Many people let there personal feelings cloud there judgement. You disagree with Israel so you don't want Obama to work as hard as he can for peace and show respect? Think about it.


Have you met many Israeli dudes???

Tell you what, they don't respect the same kind of respect we breed here...
It reminds me of Eastern European/Russian mannerisms, cold, stone like, would be taken as rude all around 9 x's out of 10 here. Obama might have gained some respect with that, it is very weird and I can't say cause I was not there. But I was bused some 25 miles as a kid into a school with many israelis and I had to learn a whole new mode
of interaction PDQ...



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteDevil013
reply to post by ratcals
 


Thank YOU!


Those were my thoughts on the whole bail out for dinner thing, Im glad someone beat me to it.

I rarely saw my father for dinner growing up, why? Because he had a job to do and was a man about it. He instilled the same work ethics in me. There are SOME reasons to bail on someone, sure. But, "sorry Mr. Leader of one of our best allies who just flew all the way from Israel, gotta go listen to my wife and kids tell stories of where the dog crapped today." Simply does not cut it in any job. You say "we'll stay here all night till we come to a conclusion and you do whatever it takes. Maybe just maybe, if Obama showed this man respect, it would be reciprocated. This bullying nonsense only works on the playground.

I see everyones point about how they think this was a smart move, but in my eyes, they might as well just whip out rulers and see who's male genitalia is bigger. Thats all this adds up to for me. Its wasting tax payers time.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by WhiteDevil013]


To bad you are missing something powerfull, THE MOST POWEFULL MOVE you can make is to WALK AWAY!!!!
It is the #1 rule in Sales or Negociations, havin been in sales for years I can tell you Obama knows how to play! and you dont my friend, you should learn from this and reajust your way of thinking, and if you dont..well I would love you to be my client! I could make lots and lots of profit off of you!...



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Surely people should respect Obama as a family man. I imagine trying to negotiate with someone like Netanyahu, who claims right to build on area, because they have been there for 3,000 years, must be a difficult.



Even if Obama felt this way this story shouldnt have gotten out like it has.

Heck the Chines have better maners when rebuffing publicly.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I am going to diagree with the way the President handled this meeting.
You can insult a person in private, he may even thank you for it, but you never insult in him public. What President Obama did was just plain rude, and inconsiderate of the leader of another country.
Peace in the middle east is one that requires delicate maneuvering, a point of give and take. It means that any one who would attempt to such has to give careful thought to what is said, and to look at the over all picture. The issue that is currently hitting Isreal is the settlements in east Jeuseleram, and if this goes south it is going to affect more than just the Isrealies and the Palistinians, it will affect all three of the Judaic religions, (Judiasm, Christianity, and Muslim).
Right now we need allies, and even if you do or do not agress with the policies of another country, you still follow protocal, no matter what. If negotiations were going no where, you suggest that the meeting be closed for the night and invite them back, that way you do not insult or leave a person with bad feelings about what occured. And the people of the middle east do not easily forget or forgive, if you consider the following, if something goes down where we have to be in that area, it would not surprise me if the Israelis just close the door on letting us do things, like fly over their country or go through what would be considered their territorial waters. There is also the aspect that they could turn around and start cancelling contracts with the USA, for military hardward, in favore of taking it up with other countries.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Obama supposedly loves his family, but he does not love them so much he is willing to commit a major diplomatic gaff just to eat dinner with them. Obama is smart enough to understand that as President of the United States, he is going to have to miss dinner with his family now and then.

My guess is that Obama's exit was a tactical move. For all we know, he may have went off to have a rendezvous with a mistress. Sometimes in the middle of a tense negotiation, you have to walk away from the table in order to drive a hard bargain.

Anybody who has been to the Middle East knows that negotiating a simple transaction like buying a trinket from a street vendor can be an emotionally heated and intense event. As an Israeli, Netanyahu has seen much harsher bargaining tactics than Obama leaving the room for an hour to eat dinner.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
How many children in Palestine can't have dinner with their families because they perished at the hands of Israel?



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
reply to post by CanadianDream420
 


That might be, but pressure from the military might also be a reason:


Did Petraeus briefing set stage for U.S.-Israel spat?

Mark Perry, writing in Foreign Policy, reports that American anger at Israel’s position on settlements is driven at least in part by military concerns.

“Insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace. The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the AOR. Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas.”

Petraeus also pointed out that progress in Middle East peace talks could seriously weaken the power of Iran:

“A credible U.S. effort on Arab-Israeli issues that provides regional governments and populations a way to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the disputes would undercut Iran’s policy of militant “resistance,” which the Iranian regime and insurgent groups have been free to exploit. Additionally, progress on the Israel-Syria peace track could disrupt Iran’s lines of support to Hamas and Hizballah…. As such, progress toward resolving the political disputes in the Levant, particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict, is a major concern for CENTCOM.”


source

Although the military is not ought to get politically involved, it is good to see that there are actually still powerful people left who do want to act in the interest of the American people, rather than that of Israel.



Oh this is some footsy here, thats all this is. But in that spirit maybe the Obama thing was just a cheep part of playing that game. Dis Israel get a little cheep cred could go a long way.

I personaly enjoyed the way Israel broke Hezbollah back a few years ago. Iran can play the pusher all it wants but if the bad boys of the Beqaa Valley got a tiger to go up against they wont be so easy for Iran to "exploit" and the sort of considerations the US is making can just be tossed out the _





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join