Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It all boils down to this: One nation needs the other much more than vice-versa. And one nation has been a much better ally to the other than vice-versa.
Sounds like a rather odd and dysfunctional relationship.
Couldn't figure out where the "snub" stuff came from in the title here, based on the provided link. It didn't match up with anything else I've read from multiple sources associated with the meeting in DC today.
So....I took a look at the link source, and now I understand, talk about your awful sources...
Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.
So, you have an Iranian news agency providing the perspective of the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu.
Just as a bit of a balance though, I thought the meeting disclosed a path for moving forward. Obama will either have specific and measurable progress in changing Iran's current nuclear path within the next six months, or have to admit that they aren't paying any attention to his sentiments. Likewise, Israel and the surrounding nations will have to have an integrated stepped process for both to move forward, or else they will be where they are today.
Couldn't figure out where the "snub" stuff came from in the title here, based on the provided link. It didn't match up with anything else I've read from multiple sources associated with the meeting in DC today.
So....I took a look at the link source, and now I understand, talk about your awful sources...
Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.
So, you have an Iranian news agency providing the perspective of the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu.
Just as a bit of a balance though, I thought the meeting disclosed a path for moving forward. Obama will either have specific and measurable progress in changing Iran's current nuclear path within the next six months, or have to admit that they aren't paying any attention to his sentiments. Likewise, Israel and the surrounding nations will have to have an integrated stepped process for both to move forward, or else they will be where they are today.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
I agree with both of your points - the nefarious source used by the starter of this thread and the your opinion of the meeting, although I think it could could have been somewhat more constructive. But there certainly was no "snub".
On the first point, the internet is vast and it's interesting how someone can always find a source to support an opinion. And readers can be fooled if they don't make the effort, as you did, to examine that source. Citing the English language mouthpiece of the Iranian regime as a source for an anti-Israel thread is a joke.
My favorite, source wars. Fox is great, no less filling, no MSNBC is great, no less filling. Your source sucks, mine is better, no yours sucks, mine is better...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA
Couldn't figure out where the "snub" stuff came from in the title here, based on the provided link. It didn't match up with anything else I've read from multiple sources associated with the meeting in DC today.
So....I took a look at the link source, and now I understand, talk about your awful sources...
Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.
So, you have an Iranian news agency providing the perspective of the meeting between Obama and Netanyahu.
Just as a bit of a balance though, I thought the meeting disclosed a path for moving forward. Obama will either have specific and measurable progress in changing Iran's current nuclear path within the next six months, or have to admit that they aren't paying any attention to his sentiments. Likewise, Israel and the surrounding nations will have to have an integrated stepped process for both to move forward, or else they will be where they are today.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
It wasn't a quote it as a 'snub' not a "snub". It was pointed at Netanyahu's repeated refusals to consider a two state solution in which the US has been pursing for many years.
Quote:
snub (snb)
tr.v. snubbed, snub·bing, snubs
1. To ignore or behave coldly toward; slight.
2. To dismiss, turn down, or frustrate the expectations of.
Sounds fairly accurate or at the very least, reasonable.
So, since it is an Iranian perspective on a meeting between the US and Israel and it can't possible be balanced and is as you say, awful, then any discussion between Israel and Iran that is reported by the Washington Post is what... awful and unbalanced?
Sorry but on its face what you have listed here is that since it is Iranian, it can't possibly be substantive? Ok, so what was reported in the article that was inaccurate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamontnow
I agree with both of your points - the nefarious source used by the starter of this thread and the your opinion of the meeting, although I think it could could have been somewhat more constructive. But there certainly was no "snub".
On the first point, the internet is vast and it's interesting how someone can always find a source to support an opinion. And readers can be fooled if they don't make the effort, as you did, to examine that source. Citing the English language mouthpiece of the Iranian regime as a source for an anti-Israel thread is a joke.
What is the 'opinion' that is being supported here? How are readers being "fooled"? For Christ sakes how the hell is this anti-Israel?
SOMEONE, ANYONE... EXPLAIN HOW ON GODS GREEN EARTH IS THIS THREAD ANTI-ISRAEL?
Please someone answer this because I'm beginning to think our members can't post any discussion of Israel that Lamontnow disagrees with without being called anti-Israel. Gets old Lamontnow
So now hilltopper is actually defending his use of the Iranian regime as a reliable source for his thread!
And, BTW, his second source is no less nefarious. It is the Alternate Information Center, a far left site with heavily slanted articles. In fact its mission statement describes the conflict as a "colonial" one caused by the "Israeli occupation-regime".
It's telling that he cavalierly brushes off the nature of these sources. Of course he would have preferred that they not be exposed. They make his points not credible.
Last edited by lamontnow; 05-18-2009 at 08:26 PM..
So now hilltopper is actually defending his use of the Iranian regime as a "reliable" source for his thread!
And, BTW, his second source is no less nefarious. It is the Alternate Information Center, a far left site with heavily slanted articles. In fact its mission statement describes the conflict as a "colonial" one caused by the "Israeli occupation-regime".
It's telling that he cavalierly brushes off the nature of these sources. Of course he would have preferred that they not be exposed. They make his points not credible.
First, do not attempt to hijack this thread by making it about sources of information. There is a premise clearly defined in the topic and since you choose to once again make this your personal crusade, try for just once to answer the flipping topic for a change, can you do this?
Quote:
back to the topic at hand. We have a couple points of contention as outlined in the OP.
1) The straining relationship between the Obama administration and the Knesset under Netanyahu due to:
a) Netanyahu's resistance in pursuing a two state solution which the United States has been trying to negotiate as long as it has been involved.
b) The US's denial of support to Israel for a military strike against Iran.
2) Mention of the Symington Amendment which prevents the United States from giving foreign aid to any nation that hasn't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, in this case Israel.
Do you have anything to say about the topic, if not, then move along.
Obama being a Muslim himself did not think twice about bowing down to this Earthly King, who with out our oil money is just another nobody. Obama is a transparent sellout.
Guess these photos show exactly how close GWB is to the Saudi "Royal Family." Kind of creepy, actually. One more reason why our continued support of Israel is necessary; there are corporate interests ( not just oil...the bin Ladens are in the construction business ) that override the welfare of several
countries in the Middle East; remember Sadat and Bhutto.
My favorite, source wars. Fox is great, no less filling, no MSNBC is great, no less filling. Your source sucks, mine is better, no yours sucks, mine is better...
It wasn't a quote it as a 'snub' not a "snub". It was pointed at Netanyahu's repeated refusals to consider a two state solution in which the US has been pursing for many years.
Sounds fairly accurate or at the very least, reasonable.
So, since it is an Iranian perspective on a meeting between the US and Israel and it can't possible be balanced and is as you say, awful, then any discussion between Israel and Iran that is reported by the Washington Post is what... awful and unbalanced?
Sorry but on its face what you have listed here is that since it is Iranian, it can't possibly be substantive? Ok, so what was reported in the article that was inaccurate?
You can go ahead and get Iranian news as your source, be my guest. Specifying the source and questioning the objectivity, especially based upon the title, is a legitimate issue for one to highlight too.
However, despite your protestation, it wasn't a snub, as in refusing to meet with Obama. Rather it is a disagreement. I wouldn't say "Obama to snub Netanyahu" over Israel's sentiment towards Iran.
But if you like Iranian news as your source, be my guest. I'm sure they will provide you with a more sensationalized headline.
I'll stick with multiple articles in the Washington Post as a more objective source.
You can go ahead and get Iranian news as your source, be my guest. Specifying the source and questioning the objectivity, especially based upon the title, is a legitimate issue for one to highlight too.
However, despite your protestation, it wasn't a snub, as in refusing to meet with Obama. Rather it is a disagreement. I wouldn't say "Obama to snub Netanyahu" over Israel's sentiment towards Iran.
But if you like Iranian news as your source, be my guest. I'm sure they will provide you with a more sensationalized headline.
I'll stick with multiple articles in the Washington Post as a more objective source.
Well my protestation comes from familiar sentiments on "google it", elsewhere on the forum. The premise seemed pretty clear to me in the opening article from Press TV, that the 'snub' was Netanyahu entering into a meeting with the Obama administration from a position quoted by Ophir Akunis of the Israeli Knesset as, "will not make a commitment to Washington on the creation of a Palestinian state which would undoubtedly become a 'Hamastan'". The snub being Netanyahu's refusal to consider the US position on this matter. However, since Press TV is apparently irrelevant as a source, then I'll offer a piece I googled which is sourced from the Jerusalem Post on this very matter.
While Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is refusing to explicitly endorse a two-state solution to resolve the Palestinian conflict, participants at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference will this week be urging their elected representatives to press President Barack Obama for precisely that.
Again, a confirmation that Netanyahu entered into talks with the Obama administration under the premise that a two state solution wasn't going to be part of any deal Netanyahu was willing to make.
Adding to the tension between the Obama administration and Israel, as I was asserting in the OP, here is some insight from that liberal rag the New York Times.
Mr. Obama’s appointment of Gen. James L. Jones as his national security adviser — a man who has worked with Palestinians and Israelis to try to open up movement for Palestinians on the ground and who has sometimes irritated Israeli military officials — could foreshadow friction between the Obama administration and the Israeli government, several Middle East experts said
In addition to his National Security adviser, the appointment of George J. Mitchell as Mr. Obama’s special envoy to the region; Mr. Mitchell, who helped negotiate peace in Northern Ireland, has already hinted privately that the administration may have to look for ways to include Hamas, in some fashion, in a unity Palestinian government.
From these appointments and Obama's current position on Iran and Netanyahu's extreme right wing militant position, there is clearly growing tensions and concern by both parties in these talks. It is not hard to fathom that Netanyahu is concerned that the US will depart from a position it has held for two decades and along the sentiments of many American Jews towards a two state solution.
Thus far Obama has given into pressure over the Charles W. Freeman Jr. appointment, as well as having had to distance himself from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley for their criticisms of Israeli policy. Again, as I was asking in the OP, will Obama bow to pressure from various lobbyist in the US and pressure from Netanyahu over the Iranian issue or will Netanyahu prevail in convincing the US to back a military strike on Iran. Will Netanyahu's long held position on a two state solution be affront to the Obama administrations desire for a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli issue?
I guess I'm merely being redundant here as I'm stating my OP again, only using sources like the Jerusalem Post and NY Times, that may or may not qualify as acceptable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
