US fuming over Israeli criticism of Kerry

[Peacetrain]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-fuming-over-israeli-criticism-kerry-154747943--politics.html

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Obama administration officials were fuming Monday over a torrent of Israeli criticism of Secretary of State John Kerry's latest bid to secure a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.
In unusually harsh language, officials said the criticism of Kerry could put the relationship between the U.S. and Israel in jeopardy. They also said the personal attacks on Kerry crossed a line and were particularly disappointing at a time of active conflict."

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. With friends like Israel....

[Peacetrain]

2. I think things are about to get very interesting.. ...

[BillZBubb]

7. Agreed. Why anyone believes Israel is our friend is beyond me.

We give them money, we arm them, we cover for them in the UN and in the international community. We sacrifice our morals in doing so. And they give us????

[Marr]

65. They give us a toe hold in the area so we can die/kill for the oil industry more efficiently.

If we ever manage to really move over to clean energy, Israel is going to be in a truly horrible position.

[BillZBubb]

68. Some may think that, but I think just the opposite.

Our subservience to Israel destroys any goodwill we might have with the countries in the region where the oil actually exists. We could do a lot better than a toe hold without the Israeli albatross around our neck.

[Bettie]

122. DING DING DING! WE have a winner!

This is exactly correct!

[abelenkpe]

79. We really need to move over to clean sustainable energy

Are we supposed to keep polluting the f out of the planet for what? Profit? Foreign policy?

[840high]

101. They are our only

friends in that region.

[Aerows]

103. If you consider it friendly

to mock a nation's politicians, say they lay out a "terrorrist's demands" because they are trying to help treaty a peace accord.

That's about as friendly as a cactus with a porcupine giving you a hug.

[mylye2222]

118. K&R. for u.

US should bid FAREWELL to Israël as an ally.

[BillZBubb]

106. What the heck does that mean? Our only friends...

How are they our friends? That's the whole point. They are not. You can't answer what they ever do for us by saying "they are our only friends". Their "friendship" brings us NO tangible benefits and many tangible headaches.

Jordan has actually been a far better friend to the US than Israel. Qatar too. Maybe even Turkey since they are in NATO.

[840high]

110. You're right about Jordan and Quatar.

Turkey I'm not sure about.

[BillZBubb]

5. Exactly.

Or they will craft the letter and never deliver it.

[conservaphobe]

4. That's like someone being behind on the cable bill

And calling to complain about the service.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Seriously, Obama needs to start sending someone else to broker stuff with

Israel. Not because Kerry isn't up to the task, but because there's just too much distrust and anger now for him to be an effective negotiator.

[BillZBubb]

8. Yes, that's right we must appease Israel at all costs.

And if they don't like the next negotiator, we should change him too? You want to give Israel veto power over the negotiator???? Are you serious????

[TwilightGardener]

12. They didn't want him to come and negotiate anything to begin with, remember.

There's some bad blood because of the peace process collapse, which is not necessarily Kerry's fault, but the focus should be on finding a solution, not on WHO is brokering it. Maybe Rice, maybe an undersecretary at State, it doesn't really matter.

[BillZBubb]

19. So your logic is "They didn't want him to come negotiate anything" so ...

we should send someone of their liking to negotiate what they didn't want to negotiate? WOW.

[TwilightGardener]

24. IF we send someone, it should be someone that they agree to--we can't impose

ourselves too much on this. Don't want to wreck our relationships or make things worse.

[geek tragedy]

26. Anyone to the left of Shelly Adelson is

unacceptable to that crew.

[stranger81]

33. That's the point.

There would be no negotiator that Israel would agree to that Hamas would also agree to. We have to send someone, and Kerry, as SOS, has the most potential influence.

[BillZBubb]

31. So we give them aid, we give them weapons but we can't decide our negotiator?

We can't send our top diplomat, the Secretary of State of the United States? To ingrate Israel? You cannot be serious.

[TwilightGardener]

34. For a while last year, we didn't really have diplomatic relations with Egypt.

Despite all the aid we've given them. They didn't like our ambassador. It happens. Money and weapons MAY buy some influence and cooperation, it doesn't make these countries our puppets.

[Calista241]

70. Remember the term "political capital"

Well, it applies to diplomats and foreign governments also. Kerry, by trying to get a ceasefire and failing, does drastic damage to himself.

Don't ask my why it's like this, I think it sounds dumb, but it is the way it works.

[mylye2222]

113. Kerry didnt damage himself .

They acted like the Swift boat liars of 2004 wiyh him ..almost from the beginning

[awoke_in_2003]

38. They don't want to negotiate period...

they want Gaza and only pretend to negotiate to keep the rest of the world at bay.

[malaise]

47. Precisely

You nailed it.

[mylye2222]

9. Really? It would delight the RW both there and in US

and Kerry would be seen as discredited.

[TwilightGardener]

16. He wouldn't be discredited--it's just that there may be too much personal

involvement by Kerry at this point to be effective on this particular issue.

[mylye2222]

20. You got me at some point.

Kerry's reaction at Gaza crimes seemed like a reminiscence of Kerry-the-young-anti-war-in-Vietnam-activist.
Beautiful, human, and sad in some way, alltogether.

[freshwest]

112. And that's who they need talking to them. The Israelis can handle the truth. They'll live.

Obama, Kerry, Reid and Rice are warning them the world has changed and they must adapt.

That's what a true friend does, not flatter and let someone destroy themselves. Which is what Israel is doing.

'Beautiful, human, and sad in some way, altogether' shows Kerry is the best man for this task. Thanks for that astute description.

[BillZBubb]

21. In other words Kerry finally understands what the Israelis are up to...

so we'd better send someone else who won't call them on it!

[mylye2222]

27. You do mean that Kerry's acting

sometime too much emotionnaly? Thats a point, and this all stuff very complicated. Should we keep him there, knowing that he can first-hand undertand the need of Gazaians? Or should wee send someone, thant can have more emotional distance, but therefore would act like a cold, caculator diplomat? Geez, how difficult.......

[Aerows]

96. I don't think I would want anyone

that didn't react "emotionally" to death and destruction negotiating a damn thing.

[geek tragedy]

11. He needs to stop sending people.

Israel doesn't respect us, neither do the Palestinians.

[TwilightGardener]

14. I'd hate to see us not a part of the proceedings, but you may have a point.

The US isn't going to be the hero here, because neither side seems to want to compromise.

[geek tragedy]

15. We really don't have a constructive role to play imo. nt

[stranger81]

35. That very well may be. We are the primary benefactor and supporter of one of the two parties

at the table. By definition, we are not an "honest broker." I would think any country but Iran, Turkey, Qatar, or Great Britain would be a more impartial -- and more respected -- mediator than the U.S.

[blm]

94. That's just it - Kerry is the MOST honest broker for these talks and Israel knows it.

They are trying to work the corporate media refs here in the US, the same way Bushes do. The same way Clintons do. Planted stories.

[freshwest]

115. You stated the big picture, good.

[Aerows]

102. Israel doesn't respect us

sums it up, gt. Palestinians have no reason to respect us. The country, however, that we fund that has universal health care and a fine standard of living due to our donations, needs to take a look at why our partnership is to be disdained the second we disagree with their government's actions.

[sabrina 1]

22. And we should worry about a foreign nation's 'anger' at our President (yes, I've been following

the Israeli's 'distrust' of President Obama for quite some time, not to mention Netanyahu's attempt to interfere in OUR ELECTIONS by coming here to 'work' for Romney who THEY decided would be 'better for Israel'. WTF? AND his SOS? Explain why any American should worry about the criticism of any foreign nation of our President and his SOS when they are attempting to negotiate peace with a country that WE GIVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to every year? You have this backwards, Israel's far right wing government has not been elected to any position in the US government.

Let them take it or leave it, Kerry IS the US SOS. Unbelievable. But it's good to see all this out in the open at last.

[bravenak]

28. You've been a bright light at the end of the tunnel on this.

I read the comments sections of the Israeli press. The citizens seem to dislike us intensely.

[stranger81]

36. Fuck 'em.

Don't like us -- don't rely on our money like a teenager begging from daddy.

[bravenak]

43. It's kinda insulting isn't it?

The give us our way and then shut up attitude makes me sick inside. Harming themselves in the long run. I think we may be at a turning point where we have to stop blindly supporting people who really don't like or respect us in the slightest. I hate being treated like an idiot by rightwingers. Likud is not awesome. At all.

[stranger81]

46. I couldn't agree more.

I just can't envision, at the moment, who is going to stand up in status quo Washington and start putting daylight between our foreign policy and Israel's. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that not a single member on the hill was able to bring themselves to vote against uncritical support for Israel's current campaign in Gaza. It's going to take something big to make any shift in policy possible.

[bravenak]

48. I think that us democrats who do not like killing are going to have to shoulder the burden.

We have to scare our own senators and congressmen with primaries. We have to elect doves not hawks. They work for us, not Israel. It's time they figured that out.

[stranger81]

51. I think that's the only possible avenue for change.

No one else is going to do it, I don't think. Though I must confess I don't know Rand Paul or the libertarians' position on the current conflict. They might be inclined to have a run at it as well, but it won't be initiated by any mainstream Republican or Democrat.

[bravenak]

57. I agree very seldom with libertarians so i haven't looked much.

Usually they do not want US involvement or money going to that crap. They're more isolationists.
We can do it without them if they don't want to act right. It can be done and we better do something. This is not working.

[cpwm17]

64. Rand Paul sucks, big time.

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/18/rand_pauls_craven_new_pander_why_hes_swung_wildly_on_israel_again/

In the last few months, Paul has swung wildly on the issue, becoming even more hawkish than AIPAC. The man who once advocated cutting all aid to Israel now supports an aid hike, and instead wants to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority. Yet Paul’s “Stand with Israel Act” is opposed by AIPAC as too extreme, though it’s backed by the far-right Zionist Organization of America.

On Friday he supported a Senate resolution backing Israel that passed by unanimous consent in the wake of the lamentable ground strike in Gaza – while arguing it didn’t go far enough. “I want more teeth in this,” he told The Hill, urging the Senate to take up his bill de-funding the Palestinian Authority.

There may be no better sign that Paul is running for president in 2016 than his craven flip-flop on Israel. But his transformation has been so extreme that it suggests Paul and his allies harbor a cartoonish view of pro-Israel political power.

Here's what Rand Paul wrote concerning his support for Israel: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381726/tragedy-israel-rand-paul

[freshwest]

114. We don't need anyone carrying a torch for the racist, misogynist, theocratic Pauls.

The broken clocks won't cut it on a progressive board:

http://www.timwise.org/2012/01/of-broken-clocks-presidential-candidates-and-the-confusion-of-certain-white-liberals/

This is Democratic Underground, not The Daily Paul nor is it for Libertarian Republicans like Rand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Republican

Violating the DU Terms of Service gets people banned:

Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

Just the facts, nothing more.

[cpwm17]

119. I think you misunderstood?

I was severely criticizing him for his bad positions.

[freshwest]

121. Oops, that sounded wrong. Agreeing with you and glad for what you posted.

But I have read three 'You should listen to what to Ron and Rand said on Israel, be more open' posts in three days. I don't alert but they should know we don't need them to figure it out.

What you posted is proof of that. Sorry about the way my post read, I plead sleep deprivation.

[cpwm17]

124. Thank you for that reply

I figured it was something like that. This subject is upsetting and I see where you are coming from.

[Tarheel_Dem]

82. Rand Paul still sucks, and would be chopped off at the knees if he truly has national ambitions. No

"viable" candidate for President will do what you're calling for. Not only would they sink their own candidacy, but it would affect downticket races as well. Kerry's being criticized from the right (unfairly), both at home and abroad.

[stranger81]

49. I should also add, though, that you have to take the online comments sections with a grain of salt.

Just as is the case in the U.S., the most prolific and vocal commenters are probably going to be the right-wing nutcases. I'm hopeful that they don't represent a broad cross section of Israeli opinion. I realize the Israeli right wing has been more extreme during this cycle in terms of its reaction to the Israeli left -- sounds like even physical attacks on leftists are not uncommon at the moment -- but I don't know that that means there are more of them now than before. I've certainly been encouraged by the brave and poignant antiwar protests in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Some of our braver I/P members who live there are participating in those, and should be roundly applauded for their efforts.

[bravenak]

59. I think most of the jerks are rightwingers.

We have some awesome Israeli's in IP who just want to live in peace with their neighbors. I love them and appreciate getting the perspective of people in the know.

[regnaD kciN]

104. That's what I think Israeli leaders ought to be (but aren't) worried about...

For many, many years, the U.S.'s attitude toward the I/P conflict has been driven by generations who have a direct personal memory of the Holocaust and its aftermath. It was understandable for people with that experience to see the struggle simplistically in terms of a continuation of European anti-Semites' centuries-long efforts to "exterminate the Jews," and their own sense of indirect responsibility for such horrors caused the vast majority to unquestionably support Israel as a way to make up for the guilt they themselves felt they bore over the actions of their ancestors or distant relatives overseas.

The thing is, such a situation was never going to last forever, and there are signs the American electorate may be reaching a "tipping point" between those with a direct emotional connection to Israel because of the Shoah, and a younger generation who see the Holocaust, however awful, as an event well in the past, which doesn't have much of a bearing on their lives or America's best interests. Similarly, the new generation of American voters may be less-likely to see Israelis as the victims of Auschwitz or Dachau, and more as a heavily-armed, militaristic nation bullying and mistreating a powerless, predominantly-civilian adversary. The fact that a recent poll indicated that a majority of American voters under 50 opposed Israel's war on Gaza, while those over 50 strongly supported it, gives an indication to the situation in which Israel finds itself -- as time goes on, the latter group is going to shrink while the former will grow. (Especially concerning should be the demographic fact that much of the evangelical Christian vote that has been a reliable voice in favor of unquestioning support of Israel is part of the older group.) Certainly, the tone has changed notably, at least in my experience: while previous outbreaks of violence in the region met with only token opposition, and from a small minority heavily-invested in the pro-Palestinian side of the conflict, I'm seeing more and more people I know, people who have not been long time members of the "Peace Now" movement or other such groups, being much more willing to harshly criticize what they see as Israeli violations of human rights in recent weeks. How soon will the anger and disgust at the specific incidents of shelling of Gaza civilians, for many, harden into an overall attitude of anger or disgust toward the state of Israel? How soon before more and more people start asking why we are wasting our tax dollars on propping up such a government? And, while this would be unthinkable beforehand, how long before this new generation of voters decides that we should simply cut the cord, and, if Israel doesn't survive, after their actions of the past few decades, so be it?

If I were one of the leaders of Israel, that would be the outcome I would most fear, and I would realize that it would be in my country's best interest, before that tipping point was past, to secure a just and lasting peace with my neighbors on the most favorable terms possible (which would have meant, long before this point, reaching a viable two-state solution with Abbas and the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority, undercutting Hamas' hardliners in the process). While it would be much harder today, such a solution is still not yet out of the realm of possibility. Sadly, I think the current Likud leadership is in denial over these demographic trends, and thinks that the unquestioningly pro-Israeli slant of the American electorate can be maintained in perpetuity, allowing Israel the license to act as it chooses for the foreseeable future. I fear they, and their country, may come to learn otherwise in the hardest way possible within the next decade or two.

[sabrina 1]

37. You too, bravenak. I too have been reading the Israeli press, and I remember Netanyahu coming

here to 'campaign' against Obama. They wanted Romney, who they felt would not be as interested in any peace negotiations as Obama would be.

As everyone knows, I have had differences of opinion with Obama on several issues, but every day, watching what is going on around the world, the aftermath of Republican's disastrous foreign policies, I am grateful that it is Obama and not Romney in the WH. We would be at war in Syria, in Ukraine and in this situation, not a single effort would be made to reign in Israel's far right warmongering government.

[bravenak]

40. Absolutely!

I always remind myself what Romney would do. Scares me to death. I just wish the killing could stop. Not too much to ask for, not in my opinion.

[alsame]

42. But they sure like

that Iron Dome we paid for.

[bravenak]

45. Sure do!!

And they like our equipment and money for war toys and our vote in the UN. We need to abstain in the next round. If we can't vote correctly, we shouldn't vote at all. One abstention and we'll have a partition plan and two state solution the next week.

[alsame]

50. That vote is always

such a disgrace. We puff out our chest and claim to be a champion of human rights all over the planet and yet we are always the single "no" vote for Israel. As if the rest of the world doesn't see our hypocrisy and our willingness to defend war crimes.

[bravenak]

52. +1

We are the best hypocrites though. Exceptional.

[TwilightGardener]

32. The only focus now should be getting a lasting ceasefire. If the US can't come up with

a way to do that, whether with the SoS or other officials, then we should step back for a little bit.

[sabrina 1]

41. We should cut off all foreign aid and leave Israel to its own devices, I have a feeling that would

get them to the 'table' pretty quickly. If not, then let them solve their own problems. They have been insulting this president and his decisions, now his SOS, for way too long without any consequences. It makes the US look weak and it's past time to put a stop to it. Not sure what we owe Israel at this point. If they don't like what we are doing for them, let them find someone else who will back them up the way this country has.

[Moostache]

90. Only is by "step back" you mean tell Israel they are on their own...

The message to them should be brutal and honest at this point and that is this - 3 Jewish lives do not give you license to start carpet bombing Gaza and razing the Palestinians into the Stone Age (again), nor does it equate to Israel telling the US ANYTHING about ambassadors, envoys or negotiations.

Don't like those terms?
I bet you that ISIS or some other group that literally wants to blast you into the sea might be more amenable to killing Jews with US arms than having Jews kill Arabs with US arms. US support of Israel is 90%+ of our problem with terrorists. End the support of the Jewish state and the hate well for Americans gets bone dry in a hurry, evaporating into the desert air like a mirage...

Don't like it? Tough shit.
Deal with our terms, deal with our SOS, deal fairly with the Palestinians or deal with the business end of the gun that you so freely wield in the region now...

[KoKo]

58. Was watching Bloomberg Business Report this a.m. And one of the anchors

said "Administration is going to be distancing themselves from John Kerry"....I thought WHAT?

I couldn't think of any reason for Obama to distance himself from Kerry...until this post about Israel being upset with Kerry. "Bloomberg Business".....well that figures. They got the "Talking Point" out there to the Wall St. crowd to set the tone for today's news cycle.

[sabrina 1]

63. Amazing isn't it? The arrogance, that some tiny foreign country could actually believe, and they

have good reason to sadly, that they can influence OUR PRESIDENT'S decisions on who should represent him on foreign policy.

Let's hope their hopes are dashed for once and Obama does the exact opposite which should send them a message that they do not run US foreign policy. It's simply SHAMEFUL they have been allowed to get away with attacking the 'hand that feeds them' for so long.

[KoKo]

66. I posted a reply above...

to a poster who was suggesting Kerry be replaced by someone else at State.

I wondered if the poster was suggesting Nuland. I could see this being in the wind. Force Kerry to give Nuland a chance to broker a deal. I hope not...but, Given all the crazy out there Netanyahu and Lieberman might swoon over that.... After the "cookies for Ukraine" and her Bio...she's someone they would trust. This is just creative speculation because I hope that Obama defends Kerry and shuts this stuff down from Israel.

I know you are well aware of her bio...but, I'm just posting it to refresh my own memory as to her position at State.

=========
Victoria Jane Nuland is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the United States Department of State. Nuland is the daughter of Yale bioethics and medicine professor Sherwin B. Nuland, whose original surname was Nudelman. Victoria’s paternal grandfather was Meyer Nudelman from a family of Jewish immigrants who came to New York City from the Russian Empire.

[sabrina 1]

71. Very insightful Koko. I had forgotten she was the assistant SOS. Of course that's what they want, no

creative speculation at all, a very astute observation imo. Let's HOPE, although our history on this doesn't give me much hope, that Obama does nothing of the kind.

Airc, she is married to a Neocon also. Definitely would be more acceptable to Netanyahoo. What is WRONG with Democrats appointing people like her, the very people we wanted to remove from power, to a position like this?

[mylye2222]

78. Yep, Nuland is married to Kagan.

And I heard sh'es ultra pro- Israel. Not the solution...

Remplacing JK by Nuland? what those speculations? Fire Kerry from the negociation ? NOO WAY!

[muriel_volestrangler]

97. Nuland is Asst Sec for a different area; for the Near East, it's Anne Patterson

who was US Ambassador to Egypt from 2011 to 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_W._Patterson

[KoKo]

98. I did wonder about State Dept. Protocol...and

you are correct that the "Middle Eastern" Asst. Sec. should have priority. She has more experience than Nuland...but I wonder if Kerry couldn't just do a "Needs" and put someone in a diplomatic situation when "extreme measures" are needed.

It would be hard to over ride Anne Patterson...but then these are extreme times and nothing seems to "go by the books" these days, anywhere.. There's always the "opportunity."

=====

Anne W. Patterson

Anne Woods Patterson (born 1949) is an American diplomat and career Foreign Service Officer. She currently serves as the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs. She previously served as United States Ambassador to Egypt until 2013 and as United States Ambassador to Pakistan from July 2007 to October 2010.[1]
Biography

Patterson was born in Fort Smith, Arkansas. She attended The Hockaday School in Dallas, Texas. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree from Wellesley College and attended graduate school at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for one year. Patterson is married to David R. Patterson, a retired Foreign Service officer. The couple have two children.[4]
Career

Patterson entered the Foreign Service in 1973.[4]

She served as a US State Department Economic Officer and Counselor to Saudi Arabia from 1984 to 1988 and then as a Political Counselor at the United States Mission to the United Nations in Geneva from 1988 to 1991.[4]

Patterson served as State Department Director for the Andean Countries from 1991 to 1993. She served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs from 1993 to 1996.[4]
Patterson with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani

Patterson served as United States Ambassador to El Salvador from 1997 to 2000, and then as United States Ambassador to Colombia from 2000 to 2003.[4] While ambassador to Colombia, Patterson and U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone were the alleged targets of a failed bomb plot while on an official visit to the Colombian town of Barrancabermeja.[5] From 2003 to 2004 Patterson served as Deputy Inspector General of the US State Department.[4]

In August 2004, Patterson was appointed Deputy U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Patterson became acting Permanent Representative to the United Nations after John Danforth resigned, effective January 20, 2005. An extended delay in the confirmation of John R. Bolton by the Senate (ending when Bolton assumed the position on August 1, 2005, after a recess appointment) caused Patterson to serve as interim permanent representative longer than expected.[6]

Patterson became Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs on November 28, 2005, serving until May 2007. President George W. Bush appointed Patterson as the United States Ambassador to Pakistan after Ryan Crocker left that post to become Ambassador to Iraq. She served in Pakistan between July 2007 and October 2010.[3]

In May 2011 U.S. President Obama nominated Patterson to be the U.S. Ambassador to Egypt.[7] On June 30, 2011, the United States Senate confirmed Patterson by unanimous consent to be the United States Ambassador to Egypt.[8]

During the protests that ousted Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi from power on July 3, 2013 Patterson was singled out specially by the protesters for being too close to Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.[9]

On August 1, 2013, Patterson was nominated to serve as the assistant secretary of state in the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, which oversees the Middle East. Secretary of State John Kerry has recommended that Robert S. Ford serve as the next American ambassador to Egypt.[10]

[Marr]

67. Here's an idea. Don't "negotiate" at all.

Israel's existence depends on US support. If they want to formulate their own foreign policy, they should purchase their own military.

[LiberalArkie]

88. I think a skin head white supremist (sp) might be an interesting negotiator

[geek tragedy]

10. If there exists more egregious ingrates

anywhere on the planet, I don't know of them.

[GeorgeGist]

13. Let them eat Koch.

[mylye2222]

18. Or Issa!!!!! LOL

It will maybe calm down his " Impeach Obama" or " Benghazi" obsessions!!!!

[Swede Atlanta]

17. I've said this for years.....

we should turn off the checks to Israel. Once the money and arms stop flowing from Israel they will realize they are a small two-bit Middle Eastern country surrounded by enemies.

If they are smart they will learn to negotiate in good faith and settle their differences with their neighbors to protect Israel because the U.S. isn't sending them any more patriot missiles unless they pay for them out of their own money.

If they are arrogant as they usually are they will spend the next 2 decades fighting with their enemies. As Iran and others arm their enemies they will be left to their own devices. They will be responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of their own citizens.

Israel is nothing special. Israel was given to the Jews as an apology after the Holocaust. Creation of Israel thew Palestinians off of lands that had been theirs for generations. They thew the Palestinians into camps so that the Jews from the diaspora could pour into the newly established land of Israel. I would have thought the Jews would have thought about the implications of creating "camps" and throwing people into them solely because they were Arab/Palestinian. But I guess when you get the international community to just give you a country its like...hey what's not to like about this?

I support Israel's right to exist but I don't want another penny of my tax dollars to go to them. Let them do this on their own. They are so arrogant. When the checks stop they will have time to think twice. Fuck Bibi!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

23. This needs to be its own post! Everybody needs to read this, my dear Swede Atlanta!

Well said. I agree with everything you've said here.

I want to give your post a K&R!

[BillZBubb]

25. No money, no weapons and NO covering for Israel in the UN.

That would actually get a real peace process started, not the phony stall and scuttle technique the Israelis always use.

[sabrina 1]

30. We would only have to threaten that to force them to start getting along with their neighbors.

Anyone who cares about Israel knows that they cannot depend on this country's support forever. See our record of how we dispose of 'allies' after we have no more use for them.

If Israel has anyone other than these far right wing warmongers who are HARMING that country, they need to get them into power as fast as possible.

Meantime the response to their 'we're not happy with Kerry and Obama' garbage, should be, 'we're SO unhappy with Netanyahu and his gang of war mongers we are considering cutting off all foreign aid to you all'.

See how upset they were about the cancellation of flights to protect American citizens? And we caved. THAT is what has to end, this tiny country who has received more support from Democrats, NOT Repubs (just a decade ago Repubs were calling for cutting off Israel) since its inception than anyone else in the world, has zero right to attack this President, which is what they are doing, and have been doing. They wanted Romney, remember?

[stranger81]

39. ^^THIS^^

[alsame]

53. Yes. nt

[ballyhoo]

54. Speakin' to the choir here...

[easychoice]

75. Hows about we quit arming them period?!?

And blockade them and seize their funds and declare them a terrorist state?
Who they gonna run to? The Rothschilds?
Declare them a Terrorist State.

[Bettie]

123. Agree 100%

Very well said!

[steve2470]

29. for some reason your link doesn't work...nvm works now

Must have been a Yahoo problem, tried with 3 browsers.

[Peacetrain]

55. Steve, I just hit the link and it went through

Sorry about that.. its a pretty short article.. I would have put the whole thing up, but I remember we are limited to three paragraphs in re-posting a link.. its originally from AP

[steve2470]

56. yea it's no problem, I'm sure it was a Yahoo problem

I was just trying to be helpful, as always

[Peacetrain]

60. I found a link from ABC new

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-fuming-israeli-criticism-kerry-24741808

[Buns_of_Fire]

92. (From the ABC article):

As Kerry returned from the region over the weekend, Israeli media commentators leveled almost nonstop criticism of his attempts to bring Qatar and Turkey — two countries viewed by Israel as strong Hamas supporters — into the cease-fire negotiations. Kerry was also accused of abandoning some of Israel's key demands during the negotiations, including demilitarizing Gaza.

Well, duh. If an opponent is being recalcitrant, it seems to me that bringing in some of their so-called "supporters" might help nudge them into being a little more flexible during the negotiations. Am I wrong?

Thumbing their nose at their biggest benefactor again. At this point, I'm all for the US to tell Bibi and the Knesset to start funding their own damned wars from now on.

[freshwest]

116. Thought it was four or five paragraphs...

[Peacetrain]

120. Could be.. I thought it was three..but it has been a while

since they first put that rule in.. so erring on the side of caution

[4now]

44. These are our friends?

We give them 3 billion dollars in military aid each year and every US politician bends over backwards to give Israel anything that it wants and this is how they repay us.

[ReRe]

84. I thought it wsa more like $11 billion/yr? n/t

[dilby]

62. Get back to me when a Government Official says something bad about him.

Not when some TV talking heads or Newspaper columnist talk trash about him. Seriously why are US Officials even giving some columnists opinion peace in a newspaper any type of attention.

[Rex]

69. They made personal attacks on Kerry?

Yeah that crosses the line, he was there to HELP them and was on their SIDE!

[mylye2222]

72. Yes..Press was labelling him an alien, a traitor etc.....

[Rex]

74. ...

[oberliner]

83. No

In fact an Israeli government spokesmen has said the opposite.

It's just right-wing op-ed writers going off.

[Rex]

85. Do you know which one?

I'd like to see what they wrote firsthand.

[mylye2222]

87. Haaretz, the Times of Israel....

check in Google News.

[Rex]

89. Thanks.

Will do.

[geek tragedy]

99. "very senior officials" in the Israeli government called John Kerry a terrorist

while hiding like the cowards they are behind anonymity.

While talking to a liberal paper.

But over the weekend, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry ruined everything. Very senior officials in Jerusalem described the proposal that Kerry put on the table as a “strategic terrorist attack.” His decision to go hand in hand with Qatar and Turkey, and formulate a framework amazingly similar to the Hamas framework, was catastrophic. It put wind in the sails of Hamas’ political leader Khaled Meshal, allowed the Hamas extremists to overcome the Hamas moderates, and gave renewed life to the weakened regional alliance of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Rex]

111. Thanks that is what I was wondering about.

[potone]

73. I've got an idea.

If they don't like John Kerry, how about we send Jimmy Carter to negotiate with them? I'm sure that the Israeli government would LOVE that

[freshwest]

117. LOL!

[onecaliberal]

76. We need to stop arming them, stop sending them billions

Of dollars they use to kill and ruin peoples lives. Let them fend for themselves.

[hughee99]

77. Hold on, are they "fuming" over something an Israeli official said?

It sounds from the article like the comments all came from the Israeli media.

[Rex]

86. So is it RWing media from Isreal?

Or is it here in America?

[mylye2222]

91. From Israel.

But relayed by America's RW press.

[DRoseDARs]

80. "Officials said the criticism ... could put the relationship ... in jeopardy."

AHAHAHA, no it won't! Israel butchered children playing on the beach, didn't do jackshit to the relationship. Someone said mean things about Sec. Kerry? STOP THE PRESSES, BREAKING HARD!

Please.

[Scootaloo]

81. Too bad they refuse to "fume" over all the Palestinian lives destroyed

The Palestinian territory occupied.
The Palestinian homes destroyed.
The Palestinian infrastructure ruined.
The Palestinian children beaten and jailed.

Letting all that pass with platitudes about "Israel is defending itself!" yet putting on the brakes because Israel's press and MK's say mean things about the Secretary of State, is a perfect example of where priorities really are.

[L0oniX]

93. Quick way to get put on the -no fly- list.

[ReRe]

95. "Obama administration officials were fuming..."

... I interpret this as "President Obama could be heard across the street in Lafayette Park as he went off in reaction to how Israel has been treating his SOS, John Kerry." We need to reduce foreign aid to Israel, once and for all, and cut it out completely if they can't get a God-fearing real live adult human being to deal with in there, instead of asp Bibi Netanyahu. [I tried to find my pic of HRC looking down her nose at Bibi a couple years ago when she was on a visit to Israel, but couldn't find it.]

[KoKo]

100. Believe it or not "RT" reported "Cease Fire" didn't fail because of Kerry

Last edited Mon Jul 28, 2014, 08:07 PM - Edit history (1)

They showed clip of Kerry saying there really wasn't an agreement in place and that Israel had hit back at him...but, he said he had confirmation from Israel that NO AGREEMENT had been MADE so it was NOT a FAILURE.

So, I think Obama got on the phone and chewed BiBi out...to make sure that Kerry is not blamed for the failure of the Cease Fire because the negotiations couldn't get that far.

"Bloomberg Business" said early this morning that "John Kerry is coming under attack from US Administration for Failure to negotiate a "Cease Fire." Just remember WHO OWNS "Bloomberg Business." I couldn't believe they'd attack Kerry saying Obama was under pressure to dump him.

I'm not a big fan of Kerry...but, I thought Israeli Newspapers Trashing of him and "Bloomberg News" following the BiBi Talking Points was so OTT it was disgusting.

[ReRe]

107. I would not want Kerry's job...

... He probably hasn't had ANY sleep in days. Dealing with Bibi on a daily basis would make me pull my hair out. Then you have the bunch on the other side, who are no better. Meanwhile, innocents of all ages are being terrorized & slaughtered in Gaza.

Bloomberg 'Crock' News was just doing the little divide and conquer trick. I didn't hear their story repeated by any other news source. Did you? (Other than Israeli newspapers.)

[Marrah_G]

105. Stop sending them money. Period.

Congress keeps telling me we are broke.

[Caretha]

108. Officials said....

blah blah blah....could put the relationship between the U.S. and Israel in jeopardy.

It is about fucking time. And I could care less if it is over Israel's criticism of the SOS.

Israel & my relationship has been in jeopardy for a much much longer time than now.

Might have started with the attack on the Liberty, come to think of it.

[DisgustedTX]

109. What other gifts will the Israelis provide? Another 2008 financial crisis?

The gall of these ingrates. Stand on your own without daddy to protect you while you invoke the same atrocities on another people for which you expect eternal sympathy.