geek tragedy's Journal
Member since: Thu May 13, 2004, 11:50 AM
Number of posts: 66,516
Number of posts: 66,516
It's almost as if supporting Israel is a rightwing position...
NEW YORK — The difference between the proportion of Republicans and Democrats who sympathize with Israel over the Palestinians is the largest it has been in surveys dating to 1978, according to a new report.
While 74 percent of Republicans sympathize more with Israel than the Palestinians, the number is 33 percent for Democrats, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Jan. 4-9 and published Thursday.
Eleven percent of Republicans sympathize with the Palestinians over Israel, and 15 percent sympathize with neither, both sides or did not express a view. Among Democrats, those numbers were 31 percent and 35 percent, respectively.
The findings represent the first time in surveys conducted by Pew that Democrats were about as likely to sympathize with the Palestinians as with Israel. Among “liberal Democrats,” 38 percent of respondents sympathized more with the Palestinians while 26 percent sympathized more with Israel.
Israel +63 amongst Republicans, + 2 amongst Democrats
Posted by geek tragedy | Fri Jan 13, 2017, 12:57 AM (24 replies)
promotes the free flow of documents rather than ...
Posted by geek tragedy | Tue Jan 10, 2017, 09:24 PM (3 replies)
It appears he's acknowledged that the Rubicon has been crossed.
“The settlement issue has become a barrier to a two-state solution. Bibi says he that believes in two-state solution and yet his actions have consistently shown that if he’s pressured to approve more settlements he will do so, regardless of what he says of the importance of a two-state solution,” said Obama.
“If the notion is that unfettered support for Israel — or, more specifically, support for the Netanyahu government’s policies, no matter what they are, no matter how inimical they may be to the prospects for peace — if that what’s qualifies as a good friend, then I think that we will see a worsening situation over time,” Obama said. “Because the truth is that this won’t get solved unless the Israeli people and the Palestinians want to solve it.”
He warned that the “prospects for peace are fading away… in small increments,” in part because of the West Banks settlements eroding the possibility of a viable future Palestinian state alongside a Jewish one.
Asked if Netanyahu could look forward to having a friend in the White House when Trump comes to power, Obama said: “He had a good friend, just Bibi did not always recognize it.”
“He had a good friend in the last eight years,” Obama added.
Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon responded to the Obama interview by saying that “Despite the close cooperation between Israel and the United States during the years of the Obama administration, it is unfortunate that this presidency will be remembered for the disturbing sight of the Security Council members applauding as the anti-Israel resolution was adopted.
“The fact that Israel was left on its own in the Security Council by President Obama cannot be changed.”
Israel will get the enabler it always wanted in Trump, as the friend it rejected leaves office in 10 days.. Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by geek tragedy | Tue Jan 10, 2017, 06:13 PM (0 replies)
Obama viewed as more anti-Israel than Putin, an ally of Assad and Iran.
The monthly Israel Democracy Institute and Tel Aviv University Peace Index found that 69 percent of Jewish Israelis believe the attitude toward Israel of the incoming president will be “very friendly” or “moderately friendly,” with that number rising to 74% among the Arab public.
Fifty-seven percent of Jewish Israelis said Obama has been “moderately unfriendly” or “not friendly at all,” with only 11% or Arab Israelis sharing that belief. Conversely, 22% of the Jewish public said the outgoing president had been friendly while 64% or Arab Israelis said the same.
Asked, “In the wake of the Security Council’s resolution, in your opinion, should or should not Israel cease construction in the territories?” some 62% of the Jewish public replied that building should continue and 71% of Jewish respondents said that under the Trump administration Israel will be able to keep building in the settlements. In the Arab public that rate was even higher, at 81%.
The latest poll of 600 respondents — 500 Jewish and 100 Arab — also looked into the public’s position on the attitude toward Israel of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The prevailing opinion (41%) is that his attitude to Israel is neutral, with 26% of respondents saying his attitude toward Israel is unfriendly and 19% describing it as friendly. Among the Arab Israeli respondents, however, 55% said they regard Putin as a friend of Israel.
The settlements and Israel are one and the same now. Israelis have made it pretty clear--if you oppose the settlements and expanding them, you're no friend of Israel.
The Obama approach to Israel has proven to be a political as well as a policy failure. If one wants credit for supporting Israel, one has to sound like Trump from now on. If one isn't willing to be like Trump, then they're going to be considered anti-Israel.
Vladimir Putin is more popular inside Israel than is Barack Obama. Think about that, American liberals.
Posted by geek tragedy | Tue Jan 10, 2017, 11:03 AM (11 replies)
Source: Raw Story
Captain Peter Rose, head of the 94th Precinct which covers Greenpoint, said he wishes the department could do more to help victims, but he added it really becomes a balancing act for the investigators.
"Some of them were Tinder, some of them were hookup sites, some of them were actually coworkers," he said before insisting the department is relatively unconcerned about the dramatic increase in rape and attempted rape in the neighborhood.
"It's not a trend that we're too worried about because out of 13 , only two were true stranger rapes," Rose said. At a Community Council meeting Wednesday night, Rose expanded on what types of rape he believes "are the troubling ones," concluding that people who participate in stranger rapes as opposed to acquaintance rape have "like, no moral standards."
" not total abomination rapes where strangers are being dragged off the streets," Rose told the meeting, according to DNAinfo. "If theres a true stranger rape, a random guy picks up a stranger off the street, those are the troubling ones. That person has, like, no moral standards."
Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/nypd-captain-not-too-worried-about-spikes-in-rapes-because-they-werent-true-stranger-rape/
The spirit of Todd Akin lives on.
Posted by geek tragedy | Fri Jan 6, 2017, 03:31 PM (21 replies)
AIPAC/DC Establishment vs the Trumpers on whether to pretend the two-state solution is viable and to also pretend settlements aren't a causal factor in its demise. AIPAC has the upper hand thus far.
In one corner is the mainstream pro-Israel community, combining leftists and centrists and led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, seeking to preserve two states as a viable outcome for Israel and the Palestinians.
In the other is a deeply conservative and often Orthodox minority of the American Jewish community that includes figures who are close to President-elect Donald Trump. They want the two-state solution declared dead in order to pave the way for Israel to annex portions of the West Bank it still controls.
The winner in Round 1: AIPAC.
The Republican leadership of the incoming US House of Representatives has scheduled a vote for Thursday on the resolution being backed by the lobby. Reps. Ed Royce, R-California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the committee’s senior Democrat, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-New York, are the sponsors.
The other resolution, brought out by Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Florida — the House deputy majority whip and a member of Trump’s transition team — is in limbo awaiting consideration by the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The two-state outcome appears high in the Royce-Engel resolution, in the second paragraph: “Whereas the United States has long supported a negotiated settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution with the democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a demilitarized, democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security.”
That resolution calls on the United States to seek the repeal or alteration of the Security Council resolution, so that “it is no longer one-sided and anti-Israel.”
But don’t count out the other side. Trump has nominated as ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who has been a major donor to the settlement movement, and named as his top official dealing with international relations Jason Greenblatt, who has said that settlements are not an impediment to peace. The family of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has donated to settlements.
Posted by geek tragedy | Wed Jan 4, 2017, 12:36 AM (6 replies)
So where were you till now, Mr. Secretary? Why the sudden decision to come out now with a fire and brimstone speech against Israel’s government, the settlements, Palestinian incitement, etc., when these words come too little, too late? Is that what’s going to stop the Regulation Law? Yes, Mr. Secretary, your words served as a painful reminder for those of us living here in Israel of where this country is heading. But might not your timing and that of the US administration be based on personal motives, like taking revenge on Netanyahu, rather than on concerns for the future relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Because if not, why did you hold off until the your words weren’t worth the paper they were written on?
The Israeli public hasn’t exactly been moving to the left in recent years, and its support for a two-state solution has declined. Most Israelis are on the right, and support Netanyahu’s policies — that is, not to withdraw from Judea and Samaria and enable the establishment of a Palestinian state. As for the Palestinian public, 65% hold that the two-state solution is irrelevant in view of construction in the settlements (according to a survey by Khalil Shikaki). The number of settlers in the West Bank (not including East Jerusalem) is estimated at around 400,000. You’re absolutely right, Mr. Kerry. Some Israeli government ministers, such as Naftali Bennett, say openly that the two-state solution is over — with all the implications that carries for the vision of a democratic Jewish state. Netanyahu prefers to sell us stories about how he still supports this solution.
But in 2004, Mr. Kerry, a two-state solution was still alive — battered, wounded, dying perhaps, but somehow it had survived the intifada, despite the brutal terrorism and violence. Twelve years later, the two-state solution is dead. It is no longer realistic. It’s over. Because of Israel, because of the Palestinians, and, yes, because of a US administration that preferred to deal with Iran and not to push the parties to engage in serious peace negotiations. Settlements became a huge obstacle to such a solution. So, too, the Hamas regime in Gaza and the Palestinian public’s growing hatred of Israel.
If you tried to convene a group of Israeli and Palestinian journalists today, in Jerusalem or anywhere else, it’s doubtful you’d succeed because so many of our Palestinian colleagues are now boycotting Israeli journalists. Maybe it’s time to try and think of a different creative solution to the conflict. Two-states is no longer a realistic option, and one state evidently will not work here.
"What were you hoping to accomplish" seems to be a very pertinent question.
Posted by geek tragedy | Sat Dec 31, 2016, 11:35 AM (8 replies)
“Kerry’s speech was very disturbing for so many reasons,” Oren told The Times of Israel. “It is disturbing that this is the point to which US foreign policy has fallen. It’s sad, tragic and dangerous. We don’t need this relationship. We don’t need this America.”
He elaborated: “The US-Israel relationship is vital for us, for the region and I believe for the world, but we need an America whose strength and commitment to its allies is unquestioned.”
They don't value our friendship, they value our unquestioning servitude.
Trump will be the most popular US President ever in Israel. Meanwhile, they view Barack Obama as an enemy.
Posted by geek tragedy | Thu Dec 29, 2016, 06:22 PM (9 replies)
For 24 years, the United States under Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama insulated Israel from an international community that since 1967 has sought to exact consequences for its continued presence in disputed lands. After the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, those three administrations considered the isolation of the Jewish state at the United Nations to be counterproductive to encouraging Israel to take bold steps for peace.
But with a couple of notable exceptions – Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s pullout from Gaza and a patch of the West Bank in 2005, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2010 settlement freeze – Israeli settlement expansion continued unabated in that period, despite widening cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. By 2004, George W. Bush had effectively recognized the large settlement blocs bordering 1967 Israel as “realities on the ground” and suggested that the Palestinians would be compensated for the territory with land swaps.
Obama’s apparent message to the world on Friday is that incentives did not work in slowing settlement expansion. The carrot having wilted, the president reintroduced the stick.
Obama administration officials have said plainly that the expansion of settlements absent a peace process led to the decision to abstain. Samantha Power, the U.S. envoy to the United Nations, in her explanation of the abstention, listed the considerations that made the administration hesitate to allow the resolution – chief among them the historic anti-Israel bias at the United Nations and Palestinian intransigence. But she also noted that since the Oslo Accords, the settler population has increased by 355,000.
As much as the language in the resolution has stirred cries of “unprecedented” in Israel and in some pro-Israel precincts in the United States, it is broadly consistent with resolutions that the United States allowed from 1967 at least through the end of Jimmy Carter’s presidency in January 1981.
Last week’s resolution reaffirmed “that the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity,” and constituted a “flagrant violation” of international law. Resolution 465, passed in March 1980 under Carter with a U.S. vote in favor, determined that “all measures” that would change the physical or demographic character of the occupied lands, including Jerusalem, “have no legal validity” and are a “flagrant violation” of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It further called on countries to “distinguish” between Israel and the West Bank.
Under the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, the council did not explicitly reject settlements as illegal, but referred to earlier resolutions that did so while continuing to assail the occupation as untenable. Resolution 605, passed under Reagan with a U.S. abstention in 1987, “recalled” Resolution 465 passed under Carter and said the council was “gravely concerned and alarmed by the deterioration” in the territories. Under George H.W. Bush, Security Council resolutions consistently decried the “deteriorating” situation and admonished Israel for its “violation” of Geneva conventions.
All they have left is Trump.
Posted by geek tragedy | Wed Dec 28, 2016, 09:58 AM (9 replies)
Israel has a solitary vote in the United Nations General Assembly, and no vote at all at the United Nations Security Council. Israel was annihilated in the Security Council vote on Friday that demanded an end to all settlement activity and that designated all the land that Israel captured from Jordan in the 1967 war, which includes the Temple Mount and the Western Wall, as “occupied Palestinian territory.” The prime minister’s hope is that he can stave off further, and still more devastating, potential diplomatic defeat at the hands of the outgoing Obama administration via a mixture of pleas, threats and boycotts. On the horizon, he sees the incoming administration of Donald J. Trump. For Netanyahu, it cannot arrive soon enough.
There can be little doubt, however, that a number of very recent moves by Netanyahu made that abstention — that decision by Obama, for the first time in his presidency, to allow an anti-Israel resolution to pass at the Security Council — more likely.
Obama’s UN envoy, Samantha Power, cited in her post-vote address the prime minister’s recent delighted public claim that his government is “more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history.” More specifically, she referenced the current legislative moves in Israel to retroactively legalize dozens of West Bank settlement outposts — legislation that Israel’s own attorney general warns is in breach of international law, and that Netanyahu had himself previously opposed.
Outrage aside, however, the failed pre-vote diplomatic maneuvering by Netanyahu gives credence to those of his critics who argue that he has entered panic mode. For all the serenity and confidence he exudes in his public appearances, and for all that he is appeasing parts of his right-wing constituency — a critical imperative for retaining power — his tactics on Thursday were a mess, and he now seems to be deepening the damage.
But the inconvenient truth is that while 14 nations supported Resolution 2334, and the US chose not to oppose it, those 14 are not all enemies of Israel, far from it, and the United States certainly isn’t. The Czech Republic and Panama might, just might, have voted no, or abstained, but basically the entire world rejects the legality of the settlement enterprise. And much of that world, as Netanyahu has in the recent past enthusiastically highlighted, either broadly supports Israel or is moving in that direction.
Bibi thought accelerating the one-state solution would be consequence-free just because his new best friend will be US President, and that he could bully the rest of the world with the same success as Trump has enjoyed.
Posted by geek tragedy | Wed Dec 28, 2016, 01:43 AM (3 replies)