Technical Glitch Lets Reporters Eavesdrop On Obama, Sarkozy 411
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that a technical glitch allowed reporters to listen in on a private conversation between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama, made in a backroom meeting at the G20 summit, treating listeners to a rare insight into the importance of personal relationships in international politics. 'I can't stand him any more,' said Mr. Sarkozy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 'He's a liar.' Mr. Obama replied: 'You're sick of him. I have to deal with him every day!' According to Reuters, the two presidents were apparently 'unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.' The reporters made 'a group decision... not to report the conversation as it was considered private and off-the-record,' but Arrets Sur Images, a French website that covers current affairs, got wind of the exchange and broke the story."
2 people agreeing is news? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
fanboys suck. good luck with your visibility.
Re: (Score:2)
we're not talking about Steve Jobs here... i think GP will remain visible (though i can't vouch for this post)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh wait its the Israeli guy their complaining about? Oh shit that is news... Never had a -5 before...
Acknowledging Netanyahu is a two-faced, backstabber is the news - but do keep in mind, he's only doing what the people behind him want and that % of the population of Israel has been in the majority and more bent than ever upon just taking the whole of Palestine from the Palestinians - their book says it was their's and after hundered of years they've decided to come back and claim it. Quite unapologetic, too.
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:4, Informative)
Sigh.
"And this is why we can't have nice things."
It's much, much more complicated than that. The "Palestinians" have had numerous opportunities for statehood from the early 1900's onwards. They've rejected peace option after peace option after peace option, beginning with several offerings from the British (who ruled the Manate of Palestine through 1947) and then launched an all-out war when the original UN partition plan was put into place.
This was AFTER they were already given the nation of Transjordan, into which no Jews were allowed to emigrate.
And of course, those who scream about "Palestinian refugees" ignore the fact that the stolen land intended to become the Nation of Palestine in 1948 was taken over, not by Israel, but by the nations of Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Iraq, and Egypt. The "Palestinians" were made "refugees" ON THEIR OWN LAND as a cynical political ploy by the Arab League and the Pan-Arabist factions, nothing more. And they still fail to acknowledge the number of Jews - at least twice the number of so-called "Palestinian refugees" - in Arab states in the years 1948-1955 who were kicked out, their houses and property confiscated, and forced to move "somewhere" (e.g. Israel) by those same Pan-Arabist forces and governments.
But you probably never did the slightest research into the subject. Because to you, it's all about "one side good, other side bad." The Jews have been kicked around and harassed by just about everyone for the past 2000 years. The "Palestinians" of the region have been abused by their so-called "brethren" the Arab Muslims, turned into a group of impoverished and locked-up people in one of the worst and most inhumane cynical political ploys I've ever seen. Meanwhile, the terrorist forces running the "refugee" region have attacked everyone they could find - tried to assassinate the leaders of Transjordan/Jordan numerous times, attacked the Egyptian government so often that the Egyptians said "fuck this" and put up a wall between themselves and Gaza a long time before the Israelis finally caught on to the wisdom of the idea, and of course waging a bloody-ass civil war in the south of Lebanon for the past two decades.
For my money? The Arabs - specifically, the Pan-Arabists, the fundamentalist Arab governments especially - are a bunch of fucking assholes. The leaders of the "Palestinian" movement? Likewise. The leaders of Israel? Probably assholes too, but they are tasked with an incredibly hard position, trying to keep a nation of a few million people safe from a group of hundreds of millions of assholes in nations like Iran who are told at Mosque once a week that the Jews will be "destroyed" in the apocalypse and that the Jews aren't even human. So I can cut them a little slack there.
Oh, and the people stuck in the middle - the few civilians in the "Palestinian territories", the civilians in Israel? Sucks to be them, on both sides.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now t
Re: (Score:3)
Eh, if every other surrounding neighborhood had a culture similar to my own, and felt so strongly about it that they were willing to go to war to try to throw that new incoming nationality out of my neighborhood, only failing because they weren't strong enough to succeed militarily...
I'd move to one of those surrounding neighborhoods.
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Similar culture"? Just because some of the people in the neighboring countries are of arabian descent too?
Syria has additionally to the Arabs Kurds, Cherkessians and Armenians, the president of Syria is neither muslim nor christian (like a percentage of the Palestinians), but Nusairian. Lebanon is half christian, half muslim, and in Lebanon, first several christian militias killed between 1000 and 1500 people in Karantina and then the Kata'ib (drusian militia) with the help from the israeli military police killed between 500 and 3000 palestinians in the both camps Sabra and Shatila. Jordan, where most palestinian refugees live, had several conflicts with Israel about water resources, and wishes nothing more than to get finally rid of the state-within-state refugee camps on its territory. 50% of Jordan's population are descendants from palestinian refugees, with most of them living in the both towns Amman and Zarqa (where more than 90% of the population are palestinian), and in the 10 remaining refugee camps. Basicly this means that native Jordanians and Palestinians never mixed - the native Jordanians own the land, and the Palestinians live in the towns and refugee camps.
The only place where palestinians are land owners and are also the majority are - tada! - the West Bank and Transjordan. And this is the territory Israel cuts through with its settlements, some of them legal (on "state owned" land), some of them illegal, but still protected by the Israelian army.
Re: (Score:3)
The leaders of the neighboring countries are providing lip service to the Palestinians, because they want at first the refugee problem solved - e.g. the palestinians out of their respective countries. Syria for instance is propping up Hezbollah, which is a shiite organisation, while most Palestinians are sunnite. Jordan had one civil war because of the Palestinians in the early 1970, which ended in a massacre in the Palestinian refugee camps and Yassir Arafat fleeing from Jordan to Libya, Lebanon had severa
Re: (Score:3)
That's what I was trying to explain to you. Why do you think for instance that Syria is in any way sharia-observing? Bashar al-Assad, the dictator of Syria is not even muslim. And at least 3500 people have died in the last months for not respecting his non-muslim ideas how to govern a state. I know, that this somehow collides with the easy world view, where arab = muslim = terrorist. Reality probably owes you an apology, but that's the way it is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's much, much more complicated than that
No this really isn't more complicated than that. If "God" hadn't awarded certain tract to a certain group of people this WOULD HAVE NEVER STARTED! Unfortunately "God" seemed to have awarded it to both and to each exclusivity. If religion wasn't fueling the difference between the sides it WOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED LONG AGO. Why doesn't this "God" take the time to end all this strife and suffering instead of dicking around superimposing himself on toast?
The main problem is religion and always has been. Los
Re: (Score:3)
and suddenly humans become reasonable.
You do realise this is humans we're talking about? We're never going to be reasonable!
Re: (Score:3)
I guess that proves you don't have to be religious to fall for overly simplistic answers to complex problems. Religion is part of the problem, but not the main problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, done.
Let's see...
Mao Zedong: ~60,000,000 dead of own citizens via genocide
Jozef Stalin: 23,000,000 dead of own citizens via genocide
Perhaps you left out a factor?
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
It suggests that even politicians loath politicians and find their company insufferable.
When Country B is carved from the heart of Country A, and Country B is admitted to the UN, but Country A cannot because they can't learn to be civil with being deprived of their homes, property and liberty. Further, Country B builds settlements in the remaining occupied lands of Country A, despite it being viewed universally as an illegal act. So after a lot of tit for tat and really never getting anywhere with peace talks, Country A decides to press its case for recognition in the same forum which recognises Country B. Country B and its bigger mate, Country C, both get all excited and claim this would not be a good thing and not in the interests of peace talks (which haven't yielded anything in about 30 years.) Country A gets recognised by UNESCO, overwhelmingly and Country B is apoplectic, while its mate, Country C, claims this was a grave error and withdraws its tuppence of support for UNESCO. Country B strikes back by authorising even more settlements in occupied territories claimed by Country A.
Honestly. Country B and its leader would normally be shunned and subject to many and various sanctions sponsored by Country C, but only if it were any other country in the world, or so it seems. The situation is preposterous and the logic is broken. Sarkozy identified the elephant in the room. Even Obama recognised how problematic it can be. When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?
Probably never, because any acknowledgment of Israel's dirty deeds is equivalent to anti semitism and means you like Hitler.
--Jeremy
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's right. Some of us have evolved beyond such primitive territorial quarrels. We tend to get annoyed at the societies that are still shedding blood over imaginary lines on a piece of paper.
Israel, on the other hand, is still living in the past, fighting a tired old war where the only way it could ever end is by having one side completely genocide the other. Winner gets a mound of dirt covered in the rotting dead flesh of their vanquished enemies. Israel vs Palestine, Iran vs Iraq, Sudan vs South Sudan... Brother vs brother. If they can't put in the effort to bury their grandparents' feuds for the greater good, then why should we be putting any effort into helping them ?
If I were Sarkozy, well I'd probably kill myself for being such a turd. But if I were any other UN member leader, I'd tell the Israeli PM to go fuck himself. We have enough irresponsible leaders in the developed world, we don't need to recruit the morally bankrupt ones.
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea, trying to portray Israel as a villain only works in a vacumn....
People B left their land for a variety of reasons during Roman times. People A (The ones who stayed behind and are provably very close genetic relatives of People B) continued living there under various foreign rulers for over a thousand years during which they abandoned the religion they shared with people B in favor of Christianity and later Islam. People B come back, after over a thousand years, decide they want 'their land' back, drive people A into concentration camps where they live in squalor and misery. Meanwhile people B live a good life financed by the tax dollars from their good friend country C who also provides them with high tech weapons free of charge.
White-washing Israel works best in a right wing, christian conservative or jewish zionist delusion.
Re: (Score:3)
Saying "sorry we have a law against that" is not a valid reason by itself for doing what the US is doing.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Agreeing he's an ass is different than an unchallenged assertion a foreign leader is a liar. That's potentially very serious. What's he lying about? Was he lying when he said didn't like frog legs for dinner, or lying when he said he wouldn't build more settlements?
Just because they think he's an ass doesn't mean their policy goals don't align. Charles De Gaul worked very hard to be a major PITA for the allies, but that was what he needed to do.
This is bad from both sides of the political spectrum too,
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm Canadian too, and I have no idea what you mean when you say "We really hate the French".
Perhaps you shouldn't speak for a whole nation, when you're merely speaking for yourself, or your peer group?
I grew up in Southern Ontario, in a small community without a single Quebecer or French person around for hundreds of miles. I now live in Quebec, and (clearly) have no problem with "the french". I moved here because I live in the Capital region, and I can get an acre of land, 20 minutes from downtown Ottawa, surrounded by farmland, for 1/2 the price of a home on the Ontario side!
I do have issues with *some* french people, but I also have issues with *some* people from a broad spectrum of society.
I think what you really hate are 1) mostly quebec politicians and 2) dumbasses that happen to be french.
Suck it up buddy. #1 and #2 exist in every culture group, and language group, and genetic group, worldwide. ;)
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
This, I'm from western Canada and am seriously thinking about moving to Quebec. Better weather, cheaper real-estate, cuter girls, better food, nicer architecture.
Of course, I'd have to learn better language than my current cereal-box grade french.
Quite a few folks here have a fairly strong dislike for quebec... They have probably never been there, though, so it's hardly an informed decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Better weather? Where are you from, Yellowknife?
Re: (Score:2)
There are many areas of Quebec that are very unilingual friendly. I live in an area that has almost a 50%/50% split of english/french language, and it is very rare to go to a store where you can't get service in english.
Of course, by some odd and strange course of events, this is also the poorest municipality in Quebec. :P
Re: (Score:2)
You're going against the flow. Quebec is the leach on the RoC (Rest of Canada). Albertans pay $4,000 per taxpayer per year into the equalization fund, and Quebec sucks out $1,200 per capita (not per taxpayer) from that same fund, because Quebec has spent a generation destroying their economic base.
It's debt is much higher than any other province, and its tax rates are nuts - someone earning minimum wage pays more in provincial taxes than someone making $50k in Alberta.
That's what happens when you pass
Re: (Score:2)
It's my understanding that if a Canadian hates you, you mysteriously end up in the middle of an Ice Hockey brawl with no protective gear.
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course! They've got to train the student doctors on something^Wsomeone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreeing he's an ass is different than an unchallenged assertion a foreign leader is a liar. That's potentially very serious. What's he lying about? Was he lying when he said didn't like frog legs for dinner, or lying when he said he wouldn't build more settlements?
The second one, if you have read any news.
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, everybody is supposed to love and support Israel. At least if you are a US politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:4, Interesting)
That same thing happened on 1942 between Hitler and Mannerheim... in that case, it was national radio worker luck that the recorder was on same cabin where they were talking.
It is only recording where Hitler is speaking in privat. Not even Hitlers bodyguard recognized Hitler on it by first as the voice is calm and rational.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-24880.html [militaryphotos.net]
http://www.ww2f.com/wwii-general/10807-conversation-between-mannerheim-hitler.html [ww2f.com]
Re:2 people agreeing is news? (Score:4, Interesting)
The real news that everyone seems to be missing is the part where Obama says, "I have to talk to him every day."
Why is the President of a country as large and powerful as the US talking to the leader of Israel that often? (I'm sure he didn't mean literally every day, but obviously more than once or twice a week)
Re: (Score:3)
I think he said deal with him, not talk to him. That doesn't necessarily involve personal contact on a daily basis, but might just mean having to consider his potential reaction when making decisions or dealing with fallout from his issues.
Well.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Other news organizations conspire to hide what happened, Fox will delight in showing what happened.
Bias all around. Did you expect anything else?
Until reality sets in (Score:3)
Fox news has made hardly any mention of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fox news has made hardly any mention of it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/08/white-house-silent-on-conversation-with-french-president-dissing-israeli-prime/ [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
But it isn't the "Obama hates Israel"-fest one tends to associate with Fox News. How unexpectedly civil of them. But we'll see if that continues.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
...and NPR had a mention of it today in Morning Edition.
Let's not let facts get in the way of Quila's faith-based belief that all news orgs are equally biased.
Re: (Score:2)
You prefer the news orgs that chose not to report news because it was embarrassing to a politician they like? Doesn't that scare you a bit?
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh PLEASE. There is bias that get into a story,even through the best efforts to keep it out, then there is fox news. Upper management literally tells it's people what to say. The espouse to the public that they are a 'News' site, but in court that claim that's onl;ty gfor an hour ro to.
There is a reason there is no Fox News in Canada.
FOX news isn't biased, it's a shill.
Just like the movie Naked Gun with Leslie Nieson (Score:5, Funny)
In the movie, he was on a panel of some press conference and after he spoke, he forgot to take off his wireless microphone and headed off the mensroom whereby the sounds of his visit were broadcast over the PA system.
The scene [youtube.com]
It's safe for work.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually did exactly that to an actor once at my community college, opps.
It's very easy to forget to mute a channel on an audio mixer when you often have dozens of them.
Re: (Score:2)
In the movie, he was on a panel of some press conference and after he spoke, he forgot to take off his wireless microphone and headed off the mensroom whereby the sounds of his visit were broadcast over the PA system.
The scene [youtube.com]
It's safe for work.
And you've never seen (or heard) anyone on a mobile phone in the bathroom? I'm quite stunned every time I hear someone on their phone in there, like in airports or even at work.
Glitch? (Score:2, Insightful)
Was this a glitch or was this done on purpose, by the way?
Also this shows the insanity - Obama says Netanyahu is a liar (as if Obama or Sarcozy are not liars), and all of these liars are up there, dealing the cards of nations.
Do you trust any of these people? If you do - you are insane.
Obama will start a war with Iran. Any other candidate will except for two: Ron Paul (and Gary Johnson probably wouldn't either).
It's tiring that all these liars are on top and making all these decisions for nations and econom
Re:Glitch? (Score:5, Informative)
Mr. Sarkozy: 'I can't stand him any more. He's a liar.'
Mr. Obama replied: 'You're sick of him. I have to deal with him every day!'
Re: (Score:2)
There was no 'glitch' either.
The reporters were told, not to switch on their microphones until told so, but they obviously gave a fuck about that.
Re:Glitch? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's politics - we'll never know!
The BBC article suggests that reporters were told not to plug headsets into the translation reception devices and, of course, did so anyway.
Another article (Dutch) suggests that reporters were given the devices and told that they would receive headsets later - some decided to plug in their own (didn't want to wait? didn't want to use other headphones? who knows).
Regardless, it was apparent that all of the reporters were getting the French translation of the discussion that took place (according to the Dutch article).
Which of course implies that not only were the microphones in that office open, but translators were active at that time to translate that which was discussed into French.
What actually transpired? Well, who cares, really.
At least two world leaders are now somewhat on the record as to their disdain of Netanyahu. On the other hand, that disdain doesn't matter. Berlusconi is still in office (for now, announced he's leaving in 2 weeks) despite having grossly insulted world leaders of pretty much every nation. If they can't even really deal with him, what hope would they have of dealing with the Israelis? If they even wanted to.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that nobody really gives a shit what an Italian PM thinks on international matters, but people weigh the words of the US President with great care, and France still has sufficient influence in the world that the opinions of its President are still quite important.
Re: (Score:2)
He will go into war with Iran. He won't allow Congress to declare anything, he will just go into that war.
He now believes he is a King, no less. He abuses the executive order (he is not using it, he is abusing it for things it is not meant to be used). He is completely corrupted by the power, he is a war monger.
Re: (Score:2)
Not before the US election. He wouldn't risk alienating his core voters. He could claim humanitarian reasons for Libya and used NATO as a shield, but that wouldn't be possible with Iran. There's no humanitarian cause (at this time) and NATO won't risk a confrontation with Russia.
There's a much more plausible explanation: The US public are sick of wars and Obama can now put his opponents on the line. What would they do about Iran if they won? (If they say "nothing", then they lose the Jewish American vote -
Re: (Score:2)
So the website that leaks.. (Score:3)
soon will lose its access to major credit cards right?
Re: (Score:2)
soon will lose its access to major credit cards right?
The American and French governments don't have that sort of influence. You're thinking of their corporate masters.
Re: (Score:3)
They're all liars and they all suck (Score:2)
It's just not polite to say it. Just last night they did this bit on House where the guy goes through a litany of truths about the guys fantasizing about having sex with the hot female doctor. Everybody knows it. It's just not polite to say it. Blah, blah, blah.
Ha (Score:5, Funny)
President Obama should be fine with it, he does support warrantless wiretapping, that's essentially what heppend here.
Re:Glitch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Journalism becomes espionage when leaders expect privacy and technology is applied to eavesdrop.
Journalism becomes nothing but PR when journalists don't report a story because they overheard something that 'was considered private and off-the-record'.
Re:Glitch? (Score:5, Interesting)
Journalism becomes nothing but PR when journalists don't report a story because they overheard something that 'was considered private and off-the-record'.
Disagree strongly, and I have worked as a journalist. A journalist is not a spy. Also, a journalist has a duty to determine what is news and what is simply information that has not been publicly disclosed. I'm sure there are lots of people who would like to know where Nancy Pelosi is on her menstrual cycle every time she makes a speech of votes in Congress, but this type of information simply isn't "fit to print," as the New York Times motto goes.
And speaking of the Times, here is a passage from that paper's journalistic ethics policy: [nytco.com]
27. Staff members and others on assignment for us must obey the law in the gathering of news. They may not break into buildings, homes, apartments or offices. They may not purloin data, documents or other property, including such electronic property as databases and e-mail or voice-mail messages. They may not tap telephones, invade computer files or otherwise eavesdrop electronically on news sources. In the case of government orders or court directives to disclose a confidential source, journalists will consult with the newsroom management and the legal department on the application of this paragraph.
(emphasis mine)
Trust me, you are far better off when responsible journalists develop sources in a fair, honest, professional manner, rather than resorting to tabloid tactics. A journalist who blasts the slightest gaffe in 72-point headlines will quickly cease to hear anything at all.
It's like the beat cop who hauls everybody down to the precinct for the slightest infraction, versus the one who lets folks slide for the occasional open container or vandalism charge. Of the two, the one with the "zero tolerance policy" is going to have a much tougher time doing his job when something really important comes along.
Re: (Score:2)
Congrats on outing yourself as a hack. Hope it was worth it.
Nice strawmen, btw.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet Netanyahu very much appreciated that little exchange being published. Cui bono? I'll give you a hint, it isn't us.
Re:Glitch? (Score:5, Insightful)
"What someone doesn't want you to publish is journalism; all else is publicity. "
I find that statement to be pretty naïve. Good journalism is synonymous with good judgment.
In this case, even assuming that Obama's and Sarkozy's statements were genuine, they obviously seemed to be personal opinions and had little relevance to actual foreign policy. What if Obama was simply lying about his opinion of Netanyahu to amuse and placate Sarkozy? What's the public benefit to reporting such pleasantries?
But more importantly, how can you be so sure what the administration "doesn't want you to publish"? What if the statement was meant to be overheard, and even leaked, as a red herring to put pressure on Netanyahu during some upcoming talk? Then the journalist is simply being duped into acting as an indirect mouthpiece of the administration.
Good journalists don't just print stuff because they think they overheard it. That's why they're called "journalists" and not "tattle-tales."
Re:Glitch? (Score:5, Informative)
The Reporters were told not to turn their headsets on until the show began. (Probably a bit silly in that Sarkosky/Obama should have turned their microphones off until they wished to be heard). As the conversation was meant to be private it would have been a serious violation (as in crime under french law) for anyone in attendance that was a French journalist to report on the content of what they illicitly overheard. So a tabloid that wasn't in attendence caught wind of the conversation and reported it. I'd expect that criminal charges will be leveled against whoever peeped.
But the point here is that under French law (privacy of conversation) they COULDN'T report on what they overheard (or they could be arrested) because they broke the conference rule by turning on their headsets early.
That's the little bit you won't hear in any of the US reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
I wholeheartedly agree. In theory.
In practice, getting things done is probably incompatible with continuously being on the air.
Re: (Score:2)
Diplomacy often requires tact, but just as often requires that a measure of privacy be afforded for negotiations. Can you imagine attempting to negotiate changes to your mortgage on the sidewalk? Can you imagine negotiating some difficult decision with your spouse in front of your entire extended family?
Re:more leaks is good (Score:4, Interesting)
None of what these people do should be secret. They shouldn't be allowed anywhere without a number of cameras and microphones on them always and everything should always be transmitted out to the public.
It becomes impossible to have effective negotiations if each side must worry about how every sentence will sound to their constituencies. Americans would have flipped had they known that Kennedy agreed to remove some obsolete missile installations in Italy and Turkey to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis [wikipedia.org], yet by doing so he avoided the very real possibility of nuclear holocaust. Just a thought...
Re: (Score:2)
Cameras everywhere idea requires them *everywhere* (Score:2)
I hope you realise that any such toilet exception would lead to the bulk of the G20 summit being conducted in the mens toilets. Leaving Germany, Brazil, Argentina and Australia to strike up a bizarre alliance in the women's toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think people are tired of constantly getting the sausage. They should stop eating it.
Re: (Score:2)
umad? looking up someone's comment history because you ran out of argument here and now?
Re: (Score:2)
Politics, specifically foreign policy, is a dirty that sometimes needs to be done in private.
That is exactly why politics should never be done in private.
If you need to do it in private you're doing something wrong.
Which is why I always masturbate on the bus.
Re:Israel is running out of allies... (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a huge difference between being anti semetic and being anti zionist. The Palestinians being ethnically cleansed by Israel are also semetic. Sarkozy was not wrong (in this case).
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ethnically cleansed my ass. They're jordanian, with a mix of egyptian and syrian.
Re: (Score:2)
The people of that region yes used to be residents of the nations in question at one time. That doesn't change the fact that they are ethnically Semitic. Apparently you are under the wrong assumption that Semitic = Jewish. It doesn't, in general Semitic means a descendant of Abraham and Arabs (almost all Palestinians are of Arab descent) are descendants of Abraham.
Now it's true that if you killed every Palestinian you wouldn't have wiped out an entire ethnic group, but ethnic cleansing is by definition tryi
Re:Israel is running out of allies... (Score:5, Informative)
Jewish is not an ethnicity. Semitic is the ethnicity Jews derive from. Arabs are also Semitic. I'm not even sure how you went off on this tangent, as you appear to be arguing that Jewish is a separate ethnicity, its not, it's a religion not ethnic origin. Jews and Arabs are from the same ethnic group, the only real difference between the groups is the religion, which has nothing to do with genetic ethnicity. Palestinians aren't ethnically Jewish because Jewish isn't an ethnicity.
That would be like saying anglo-saxons are ethnically Christian. It's nonsense. You appear to need to study what ethnicity is and how ethnic groups are divided. Let me give you a hint, it's not dictated by the religion they choose.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm German with a mix of Swedish and Norewgian but damn if anybody is bulldozing my house because of something my brother did.
Re:Israel is running out of allies... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's possible to dislike their PM without wanting them destroyed. I disliked Bush, but it didn't make me unamerican.
Moreover, this is two politicians talking. Why do we assume that they were being honest with each other?
Re: (Score:2)
We're only pretending to support them, but antisemitism is rising and we have a president who thinks his life would be a lot easier if Israel didn't exist. Guess our loyalty doesn't run very deep.
Were you operating on the misconception that our 'loyalty' to any of our allies is particularly deep(or that of any of our allies to us)?
Re: (Score:2)
The Israeli government is not losing support because they are Jews. They are losing support because of their actions.
We have a President who thinks his life would be a lot easier if the Israeli government would stop pissing off the international community with shit like the settlements. Then he wouldn't have to tell his ambassadors to exercise their Security Council veto every time the Israeli government engages in an international faux pas.
Regarding your last point, however, I'm inc
Re: (Score:2)
Oh crap, do you think there hasn't been any US President since Israel's foundation that hasn't probably muttered similar words? I'll wager it's pretty tame compared to what some Presidents have said.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)
No, Obama does not speak to him every day.
Do you know what "hyperbole" is? Do you know that "deal with" is not equivalent to "speak with"? Do you know that the Congress is the primary internal-facing Federal body in the US? Do you know that the President is the primary external-facing power in the US? Do you realize that foreign policy IS an affair of the US? Do you believe everything you read in a Slashdot summary, or for that matter, on the Internet at all?
I don't think you really understand how the presidency operates at all. Or journalists, or politics, or...
Re: (Score:2)
"Do you know that the Congress is the primary internal-facing Federal body in the US? Do you know that the President is the primary external-facing power in the US?"
I did not know that. In fact, I think you just made that up right now to buttress your point. The Constitution gives the Congress plenty of power over foreign affairs. Likewise, the President has plenty of authority over domestic affairs.
Simple really (Score:2)
The sad part is that Israel has the only rational leadership in the region, they also a flash point to Obama and Co. need to keep tabs on them and to try and keep nudging them one direction.
The problem is, Obama has never liked them and now its going to be real hard to play nice. Israel won't listen and it has been apparent early on that your only as good for the Administration as to your ability to listen and do what they think should be done. Its a classic textbook ignorance of reality, thinking that just
Re:Simple really (Score:4, Insightful)
They have rational leadership? Is that why apparently everyone thinks he's an asshole? Wouldn't a rational leader try to gain the trust of important world leaders? Is that why he can't establish peace even with the most powerful nation on Earth on his side? And by what definition is a theocracy a form of rational leadership?
A lot of the leadership in the middle east was installed by the U.S. I mean, I think it's kind of hypocritical for the U.S. to put an insane restaurant owner in charge of Afghanistan and then complain about a lack of rational leadership.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The answer to that is simple. The voting bloc Israel represents is huge. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy - in fact, I'm certain that there isn't - but politics is very us-vs-them and Obama has no interest in being one of "them". He wants strategic ambiguity and anything that could be deemed a slight or an insult would break that ambiguity.
Even in this case, he was reluctant to say anything overt. His brief statement had the air of plausible denial over its meaning. It may let him claim to both camps tha
Re: (Score:3)
Er... Mohammed tried to join forces with the Jews in his day because of the belief that Arabs and Jews shared common descent from Abraham. The Jews told him to fuck off.
I'm very definitely not a fan of the Israeli government, but let's not forget history entirely.
Re: (Score:3)
are you for real? (Score:5, Insightful)
While you're at it, you conveniently leave out Joe Biden's visit to Israel and what a slap in the face to the US that was!
You're either extremely ignorant, or extremely biased. The end result is the same.
The big question is, why is there a dislike of Netanyahu? Nothing happens without reason.