Netanyahu must go, it's as simple as that

[bemildred]

The head of the Home Front Command, Maj. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg, warns: The probability and danger of an all-out war have increased. "Israel has discovered new and dangerous weapons in Gaza," he says, summing up the poem by saying: We can expect a radical Islamic winter. On the other hand, Amos Gilad, who was once known as a doomsayer, says the opposite: Our situation has never been better.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak recently met with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Jordan and tried to convince him not to go to the United Nations. We have to try to reach an agreement, you have a lot to lose, we can do great things, count on me, said Barak, adding the words "look me in the eye." During his first term as defense minister Barak used to boast that he saw "the whites of the enemy's eyes," and ended up very badly.

Abbas does not suffer from myopia. Maybe he saw the whites of Barak's eyes and maybe not. Barak has already made an international name for himself as a blowhard. His version of the same conversation is that he didn't hear new proposals, but only warnings. Barak doesn't even know how to lie. In that area Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is more convincing. And what he doesn't do, he makes his emissaries do.

While the experts on American affairs report a negative balance in relations with the United States and say that "we're not in its guts" - in other words, that we nauseate them - Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz announced on television that our relations with Washington have never been better. How does he know? Does he work for the CIA?

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-must-go-it-s-as-simple-as-that-1.383396

[aquart]

1. That is Israel's business.

[azurnoir]

3. and the author of the piece Yoel Marcus is what Chinese? n/t

[Purveyor]

4. LOL ! eom

[Violet_Crumble]

6. How dare Israelis have an opinion, especially one that's negative about Netanyahu! n/t

[LeftishBrit]

5. This is an Israeli writer, writing for an Israeli newspaper

And not a far-left writer, either - probably pretty close to the Israeli political centre.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. Makes me wonder why the US still protects Israel in the UN...

From the article: 'There's a limit to the lies that the U.S. administration is willing to swallow. And it's no coincidence that they chose this moment to reveal former Secretary of State Robert Gates' description of Bibi Netanyahu: "a liar," "not only ungrateful, but also endangering his country by refusing to grapple with Israel's growing isolation." Even if the administration casts a veto at the United Nations, the sound of President Barack Obama gritting his teeth will be heard from the North Pole to the South Pole.'

Gritting teeth while vetoing Palestinian statehood shows if there is a limit to the lies the US administration is willing to swallow, the line is so far off in the distance it may never be reached...

[bemildred]

7. Makes me wonder, push comes to shove, which side we will take.

Turkey is a different matter, on a number of counts, from other states in the region, no least being in NATO.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Israel, hands down

Turkey has no constituency in the US, most people believe it to be a Muslim nation only slightly better than Iran. Armenia and the Kurds are not helping in that regards.

NATO support does not include aggressive action and NATO recognizes the blockade.

[bemildred]

11. Whatever you say, Sir. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Then 'most people' would be incredibly stupid and ignorant...

'Only slightly better than Iran'?? 'A Muslim nation'?? That level of ignorance from most people would strongly indicate that they'd have no idea at all, and probably care even less, about the Armenians and Kurds...

[oberliner]

14. Turkey is definitely a Muslim nation

The population is 98 percent Muslim and the prime minister repeatedly uses the phrase Muslim nation when describing Turkey.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. It's a secular state. It disturbs me when Americans focus on what religion people are...

Mainly due to the anti-Muslim sentiment in the US. No-one who's aware of Turkey's history could say with a straight face that Turkey is anything but a secular state...

[oberliner]

20. Turkey is a Muslim nation

It is shocking that anyone could think otherwise.

I am not even sure if you are disputing this fact with your reference to it being a secular state.

From Reuters:

Obama to visit Turkey, first trip to Muslim nation

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/07/us-turkey-usa-idUSTRE5260IP20090307

From Al-Jazeera

Al Jazeera's Nazanine Moshiri, reporting from the Somali capital, said Erdogan has called the disaster a "litmus test" for all humanity.

"Erdogan would say he is here to help a fellow Muslim country," he said.

"He spoke of how the West hasn't helped Somalia and it's up to Muslim countries to contribute.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/08/201181985954902402.html

[Violet_Crumble]

21. Are you disputing that Turkey is a secular state?

Because I've explained clearly what the problem is with Americans calling it a Muslim nation that's nearly as bad as Iran. I can try and explain it in more detail if that'd help...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. One of the concerns is that its secularism seems to be weakening

is coming across clearly in the M$M which reinforces the perception I articulated earlier.

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Well, the MSM is full of shit, as usual...

Turkey has some long-standing safeguards built in that protect the secular nature of the state. There have been attempts in the past by Islamist groups to get into political positions of power, but the parties are banned due to the Constitution barring religion from being involved in the political process. There's a ban on all religious apparel (including headscarves) in schools and the public sector. I remember reading not too long ago of a politician who was booed when she turned up wearing a headscarf. While Erdogan has criticised the severity of the restrictions on religion introduced by Ataturk and said he favours a limited allowance of religion in government, I doubt it could be done without changing the Constitution, and that particular part of the Constitution can't be amended.

[oberliner]

40. I'm disputing that the two are mutually exclusive

There is no reason why one cannot call Turkey both a Muslim nation and a secular state.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. I'd also dispute that. Turkey's an excellent example of it, imo...

It's the use of 'Muslim nation' in the post I initially replied to where it's used in the same sentence as saying Turkey's only slightly better than Iran.

'most people believe it to be a Muslim nation only slightly better than Iran.'

In that sentence, 'Muslim nation' does have a negative connotation, as 'most people' do tend to see a Muslim nation and a secular state as being exclusive. It's the comparison to Iran that's the real problem, imo. If that actually is what most people believe, then they're very ignorant...

[Ken Burch]

27. Why do you insist on using the phrase "Muslim nation" as if saying that, in and of itself

automatically discredits whatever nation of which it is said?

I never figured YOU for one of those "all Muslims are evil" types, Obes.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Why do you assume it is a pejorative, especially in this context?

[Ken Burch]

33. In a sense, precisely because of the context

It shouldn't matter that Turkey is Muslim when we're discussing the question of breaking the blockade against Gaza. It's not as if that's the only reason the Turks did this...it's equally likely that it was simply a question of being repelled by the idea of using the immiseration of a powerless civilian population in the name of "crushing Hamas".

The Turks would have done the same thing if their country had a Christian majority, a Buddhist majority, an athiest majority, or even if they all bowed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Why was it necessary for the other poster to keep using the phrase "a Muslim country" over and over and over again, as if that phrase was an argument all by itself?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. In the context of those posts, that it is perceived by Americans as a muslim country similar to Iraq

it was perfectly appropriate and not any kind of slur.

[LeftishBrit]

39. To interrupt here...

I don't think that saying Iran is a 'Muslim nation' is the problem. The problem was the idea that it was 'only slightly better than Iran'. That may have been just caricaturing American perceptions; but at any rate, it is not true. It is not a theocracy and most governments have insisted firmly on state secularism, though there are political debates as to the degree. There are some flaws in its democracy, mostly related to nationalism rather than religion - e.g. criminalization of 'defaming the state' - but it is *nothing* like Iran; and I know a number of people from both countries.

[King_David]

36. What Rubbish

`The Turks would have done the same thing if their country had a Christian majority, a Buddhist majority, an athiest majority, or even if they all bowed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. `

Where do you get this from?


`The polarization became especially evident in the 1980s as a new generation of educated but religiously motivated local leaders emerged to challenge the dominance of the secularized political elite. These new leaders have been assertively proud of Turkey's Islamic heritage and generally have been successful at adapting familiar religious idioms to describe dissatisfaction with various government policies. By their own example of piety, prayer, and political activism, they have helped to spark a revival of Islamic observance in Turkey. By 1994 slogans promising that a return to Islam would cure economic ills and solve the problems of bureaucratic inefficiencies had enough general appeal to enable avowed religious candidates to win mayoral elections in Istanbul and Ankara, the country's two largest cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Turkey

[Ken Burch]

37. That had nothing to do with the flotilla that tried to bring aid to Gaza

What I meant was that THAT would have happened no matter what the religions majority in Turkey was, or even if Turkey had no religion at all. The issue was a human response to an injustice...the deliberate and completely unjustified immiseration of the ordinary people of Gaza(an immiseration that was never going to cause a revolt against Hamas, as the Israeli government knew from the beginning).

[King_David]

43. Turkish charity that sent aid convoy to Gaza ‘has links to terrorism’

The Turkish charity at the centre of the raid by Israeli forces on an aid vessel in the Mediterranean was under intense scrutiny last night over its alleged links with militant organisations.

Despite their claims to be an entirely peaceful organisation, The Foundation for Human Rights, Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH) has a history of involvement in Islamic extremism around the world and has been linked with an attempted bombing of an airport in the US.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7142977.ece

[King_David]

35. Because just like Israel is a Jewish Nation

Turkey is a Muslim nation.

Both are Secular.

PERIOD !

[oberliner]

41. It doesn't discredit anything

I see nothing negative about calling Turkey a Muslim nation. This phrase is used widely in this respect, including by the PM of Turkey himself.

Where you got anything about Muslims being evil is beyond me.

No such sentiment was even remotely implied in any way.

[Ken Burch]

44. I guess it was the fact that you repeated the phrase in several posts

that made my "Spidey Sense" start tingling.

Is the fact that Turkey identifies as "Muslim" of any relevance at all here? Are you assuming that that self-identity is the only possible reason it could have launched the flotilla? A sense of outrage at the immiseration of innocent civilians(by the blockade)wouldn't have been motivation enough, in your view?

If nothing else, doesn't the presence of many non-Muslims on the flotilla proof in and of itself that Turkey being Muslim had nothing to do with this?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Pretty much

If Israeli policy gets set by State, basically the long term government mandarins, then Israel is in for a hard go. If it is set on a popular basis, they will be fine.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. Let's hope that the population smartens up a fair bit, then...

I don't hold out any great hope for it given what I've read here about the Tealiban and the support they get, but depending on what government rules, the wiser ones discard the populist swill and get more pragmatic...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Very doubtful...here or anywhere else

THe key will be if its the people or the mandarins making the decisions. In the US, that is always an interesting question. Its something that rarely comes up in European nations

[bemildred]

8. See, this kind of thing:

U.S. and Turkey launch new effort to combat global terrorism

New effort, dubbed the Global Counterterrorism Forum, will bring together 'traditional allies, emerging powers and Muslim-majority countries,' says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-and-turkey-launch-new-effort-to-combat-global-terrorism-1.383587

The new anti-Iran radars, the old attachments, I don't think we are really ready to give up being friends with Turkey. It's one of those weeks when I am glad I am not part of the government foreign policy apparatus.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. This is the least sympathetic to Israel administration the US has had in a long time

It is not clear is Obama will be gritting his teeth or not. He tends to weathercock.

While historically there is strong anti Israel sentiment at State, most US pols support Israel and will continue to for the foreseeable future. I expect the next administration to be more pro Israel, regardless of party.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. If that's the least sympathetic, I'd hate to see what sympathetic is...

What exactly has the Obama administration done or said that makes them the least sympathetic administration in a long time?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. How soon you forget Bush II

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I haven't forgotten, but what has the Obama admin done that makes them the least sympathetic? n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. They have been engaging and pressuing Israel at a level not seen before

People at State are ecstatic. Bush and to a lesser extent Clinton were much more towards carte blanche towards the Israelis

[azurnoir]

26. and Israel has responded with an up thrust finger while

receiving more money from the US than ever before your predictions about the 'next administration' an implication that Obama will lose due his Israel policies are laughable at best IMO

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. They are indeed being recalcitrant, but that too is SOP for the relationship

They attacked the USS Liberty and got away with it, so what are a few more settlements...

I was making no prediction about the duration of the Obama administration. At the present time I believe that the pendulum will swing toward Israel whomever is the next president, whenever they get elected, whichever party they are from. Sorry if that was not clear enough for you.

[azurnoir]

31. My point was that it has never 'swung away' from Israel

sorry if that was not clear to you and by 2012 we will be looking at a much different picture in all of the ME and how that picture will look has not yet been determined

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. I can accept your view about that

While I think it is clear that the Obama administration is less supportive of Israel than prior ones (relative position), I also would agree that the US has not crossed over to the anti Israel side (absolute position).

My prediction about the US swinging back may indeed be premature, but it is what I see at this point.

[azurnoir]

25. Obama has used the UNSC veto in Israel's favor and is promising to do it a second time also Obama

has given Israel more money than Bush, is it that he dared to suggest that the 1967 lines would be a good place to start? or that the settlements were wrong? or is it something else? but rest assured many commentators agree with you especially those in JPost and on Fox News

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. So does the Dept of State

Obama is clearly laying more pressure on Israel than Bush or previous presidents. Nothing wrong with that in the slightest. More public arguments less support in some areas. Also much less of a carte blanche. Again, nothing wrong with it.

Are you claiming he is being more accommodating towards Israel than Bush II?

[Ken Burch]

46. And Obama realizes that no good came to anyone in the Middle East, INCLUDING ISRAEL

From Bush II's "Tzipi and Bibi are infallible" policy. Everything that the Israeli government did that Bush II supported made everything worse...every expanded settlement...every collective crackdown on Palestinians...ultimately, even the Wall, which has made it nearly impossible for ordinary Palestinians to have day-to-day direct human contact with Israelis...a state of affairs that has achieved nothing but making Hamas propaganda harder to discredit.

Why SHOULD Obama have continued Bush's unquestioning endorsement of everything every Israeli government did in the name of "security"?

[Ken Burch]

45. If this administration is less sypathetic to the Israeli government

it's simply because there's little reason to be sympathetic to that government. Israel's government is not persecuted. It isn't helpless. And no one can seriously argue anymore that Netanyahu, Barak and Lieberman have no alternative but to be doing what they are doing.

All it is is a state that is holding land in the West Bank that it has no right to hold. There's simply no reason for the U.S. to back the Israeli government without question anymore. Israel needs neither the Occupation nor the settlements to survive. And it doesn't need to make a Palestinian state non-contiguous(and therefore automatically doomed to failure)by demanding "land swaps" that would make it impossible for Palestinians to get from one part of their state to another without having to be harassed by the IDF.

You've got to accept the fact that Israel's leaders are NOT infallible. And that what they're doing is neither necessary NOR effective. If the Occupation, the settlements, the Wall and the Siege of Gaza actually worked, there wouldn't be any armed resistance to the status quo. The fact that armed resistance goes on proves that the hard line is a failure. Can't you see that by now?