Obama Interferes in Israeli Elections

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

You’re okay with a US President trying to throw an Israeli election? Okay. But you didn’t answer what you’d think about an Israeli PM trying to throw a US election.

[/quote]

My opinion on this, I think is shared by Bismark, and that TPTB have decided and will no longer tolerate Netanyahu playing partisan politics in attempt to change the outcome. In this case, I’m OK with Obama’s meddling.

You can call it throwing an election all you want, but the Israeli population will decide who to vote for.

Siding with a foreign leader versus your democratically elected President.

42

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

You’re okay with a US President trying to throw an Israeli election? Okay. But you didn’t answer what you’d think about an Israeli PM trying to throw a US election.

[/quote]

My opinion on this, I think is shared by Bismark, and that TPTB have decided and will no longer tolerate Netanyahu playing partisan politics in attempt to change the outcome. In this case, I’m OK with Obama’s meddling.

You can call it throwing an election all you want, but the Israeli population will decide who to vote for.

Siding with a foreign leader versus your democratically elected President.

[/quote]

I’m a nationalist not a cheer leader for the government.

43

And you know full well that if an Israeli PM did what Obama is doing in the US, under any circumstances, the entire country would be up in arms and people would be talking about the Jews or “Zionists” controlling the government and so on. There would be an absolute shitstorm.

44

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
And you know full well that if an Israeli PM did what Obama is doing in the US, under any circumstances, the entire country would be up in arms and people would be talking about the Jews or “Zionists” controlling the government and so on. There would be an absolute shitstorm.[/quote]

I would pay to see one of the more colorful news personalities rant poetically about your hypothetical scenario.

45

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

You’re okay with a US President trying to throw an Israeli election? Okay. But you didn’t answer what you’d think about an Israeli PM trying to throw a US election.

[/quote]

My opinion on this, I think is shared by Bismark, and that TPTB have decided and will no longer tolerate Netanyahu playing partisan politics in attempt to change the outcome. In this case, I’m OK with Obama’s meddling.

You can call it throwing an election all you want, but the Israeli population will decide who to vote for.

Siding with a foreign leader versus your democratically elected President.

[/quote]

So, by your logic, you would have no problem with a large influx of foreign moneys and expertise by a foreign power to influence the 2016 presidential race? The votes will still be cast by Americans, after all.

I find it vexing that you can harangue Netanyahu for partisan politics while an American president is engaging in definitionally partisan politics.

46

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

So, by your logic, you would have no problem with a large influx of foreign moneys and expertise by a foreign power to influence the 2016 presidential race? The votes will still be cast by Americans, after all.

I find it vexing that you can harangue Netanyahu for partisan politics while an American president is engaging in definitionally partisan politics.

[/quote]

AIPAC does this all the time. They figured out the loopholes.

Yeah but he won the election. That means he gets to run the show until the next one.

I also believe in American Exceptionalism, which means we get to do things nobody else can do.

47

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

So, by your logic, you would have no problem with a large influx of foreign moneys and expertise by a foreign power to influence the 2016 presidential race? The votes will still be cast by Americans, after all.

I find it vexing that you can harangue Netanyahu for partisan politics while an American president is engaging in definitionally partisan politics.

[/quote]

AIPAC does this all the time. They figured out the loopholes.

Yeah but he won the election. That means he gets to run the show until the next one.

I also believe in American Exceptionalism, which means we get to do things nobody else can do.
[/quote]

Including critiquing partisan politics and then engaging in it, I see. So be it. But let no future Democrat bemoan regime change then.

EDITED.

48

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

Including critiquing partisan politics and then engaging in it, I see. So be it. But let no future Democrat bemoan regime change then.

EDITED. [/quote]

I’m not a Democrat and I don’t see how I’m engaging in partisan politics.

Let’s not forget that there was a military coup in Egypt and a color revolution in Ukraine under Obama. Under international law, the US is not supposed to not recognize a government that was coup’ed but we do.

Carter and ZBig were the one’s who initiated the backing of the Muhajideen in Afghanistan against the Communist government, more regime change there.

Kennedy and LBJ were attempting regime change from Vietnam, to Cuba, and into our southern hemisphere.

Bibi has one main antagonistic to worry about, the US has his and all the rest of them, including bigger fish to fry at the moment.

49

The main reason that many countries in the world hate the US is because we fuck with their leadership and try to put people in charge who will do what we want. Obama doesn’t want to be allies with Israel any more so he’s fucking with their election in a pretty obvious way. That’ll get folks over there pretty pissed at the US either way the election turns out. It’s a giant middle finger to Bibi. If he wins, he’ll positively HATE Obama and probably do or say some things that our fearless leader will “take offense at” and use as an excuse to cut aid or somehow weaken the alliance. If Bibi loses, and it’s perceived that the US is even partially responsible, there will be a pretty serious faction in Israel that will be “Fuck the USA”… Either way, Obama wins: he will weaken the relationship with Israel.

He will continue to provide aid and comfort to Israel’s natural enemies, Palestine and Iran. He will not put troops on the ground to fight Isis, leaving Iraq and Syria to devolve into a cesspool of anarchy. It will become a PERFECT breeding ground for terrorists. Sooner or later those fuckers will succeed in hitting us in a major way at which time the government will put into action long term plans that will make the Patriot Act look like the Bill of Rights…

This is a long term plan about creating an opportunity so that the government can strip our rights and our freedoms on permanent basis. Think about it. What other reason could he have for doing this? The Media and the left is not challenging him at all. The GOP (Boehner and McConnell) aren’t doing SHIT… What’s the endgame? It HAS to be a power grab. That’s the only thing this fascist, muslim-loving progressive piece of shit knows how to do.

50

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

Including critiquing partisan politics and then engaging in it, I see. So be it. But let no future Democrat bemoan regime change then.

EDITED. [/quote]

I’m not a Democrat and I don’t see how I’m engaging in partisan politics.

Let’s not forget that there was a military coup in Egypt and a color revolution in Ukraine under Obama. Under international law, the US is not supposed to not recognize a government that was coup’ed but we do.

Carter and ZBig were the one’s who initiated the backing of the Muhajideen in Afghanistan against the Communist government, more regime change there.

Kennedy and LBJ were attempting regime change from Vietnam, to Cuba, and into our southern hemisphere.

Bibi has one main antagonistic to worry about, the US has his and all the rest of them, including bigger fish to fry at the moment.

[/quote]

Obama is engaging in partisanship, not you specifically.
What’s more, so what if America has more problems to worry about than the Middle East?For Netanyahu, a mistake here could be the end of their safety in the region altogether. Obama does not have the same amount of chips on the table here.

I am aware that the US has engaged in regime change under the Truman doctrine for decades. Each act of regime change should be weighed on its merits. However, what is being done here is a mistake.

51

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The main reason that many countries in the world hate the US is because we fuck with their leadership and try to put people in charge who will do what we want. Obama doesn’t want to be allies with Israel any more so he’s fucking with their election in a pretty obvious way. That’ll get folks over there pretty pissed at the US either way the election turns out. It’s a giant middle finger to Bibi. If he wins, he’ll positively HATE Obama and probably do or say some things that our fearless leader will “take offense at” and use as an excuse to cut aid or somehow weaken the alliance. If Bibi loses, and it’s perceived that the US is even partially responsible, there will be a pretty serious faction in Israel that will be “Fuck the USA”… Either way, Obama wins: he will weaken the relationship with Israel.
[/quote]

Which is why I will say now, this is a terrible move. There is no outcome that results in a better position in the ME for the US. With foresight, hindsight, any type of sight, this will be a blunder.

52

For the record, I TRULY HOPE that I’m wrong. But view his actions in the context of history… There’s nothing new under the sun. He wants chaos so that he can create opportunity - at OUR expense! What other POSSIBLE reason is there? His ACTIONS are not consistent with creating security or peace at home OR abroad. Every time he’s had the opportunity to help do something good, he has come up short (the Iran revolution in 09, for example) but then he’ll upset the balance power in Syria and Libya? And WITHDRAW from Iraq, leaving the vacuum for ISIS to fill?

No one is THAT stupid… He has an endgame: strengthen our enemies so that we are more fearful and allow the sheep among us to demand more “protection” that they will GLADLY exchange our RIGHTFUL LIBERTY for. Then they can take our guns, tax the dog shit out of us and create a third world UTOPIA where every one is dependent on the state, and no one has a chance in hell to challenge them. Those that do will be re-educated or simply “disapeared”. The pendulum is swinging the other way and is gaining momentum.

53

IMO, we will soon be putting troops back on the ground in the Middle East to fight ISIS. In fact, I think Rand Paul changed his stance and the matter and this year’s defense budget was just published with outlays for these. I forget the sums, but they weren’t much leading one commentator to conclude we may not be taking the threats as seriously as they deserve. We also blew the sequester amount and over spent by like 90 billion or so, it was something like 20%.

What scares me is not taking the threat of ISIS seriously, and part of the Casus Belli with Iran is their ability to close down the Strait effecting the flow of Saudi oil. IS has already attacked within the Saudi borders and much of it’s military is ideologically equipped to flip sides over to IS relatively quickly. Forget about the flow of oil, when Saudi Arabia erupts and it’s population deposes our friends the Saudi ruling family and becomes the next Iran, reliving the fall of the Shah in the early 1980’s. The new ruler just released some public works package on the order of 100’s of billions, effectively giving all state employees and the military a bonus equivalent to 3 months salary among other things. They did something similar during the Arab spring. This is not chump change, even for the Saudi’s. They are scared and trying to bribe their population, specifically their army and police forces.

The establishment is also scared of a revanchist Russian and China, trying to stake old claims giving perceived weakness on the state of the US, and given our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan this is not an unsafe bet. Lithuania and all the old Warsaw pact states are seriously concerned that if Putin wins in the Ukraine, he will not stop and continue to play his hand.

Bismark posted two good articles regarding the Iranian nuclear program arguing that we have at least a year until they are capable of fielding a nuclear weapon, in the worst case scenario. Sanctions are sanctions, but it’s enough time to give them a go and recruit a potential not enemy in the fight against ISIS and the stabilization of the middle East. The fact that they hate Israel is nothing new, and the Jews and Muslims will probably never get along.

Forget what the talking heads on the news are telling you, it’s generally all bullshit. There are some serious things going on generally unknown and undiscussed outside of DC and certain policy/defense circles.

54

[quote]theuofh wrote:

The establishment is also scared of a revanchist Russian and China, trying to stake old claims giving perceived weakness on the state of the US, and given our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan this is not an unsafe bet. Lithuania and all the old Warsaw pact states are seriously concerned that if Putin wins in the Ukraine, he will not stop and continue to play his hand. [/quote]

But we know that Russia can act like a state, we can hem Russia in as we have done before. Undermining Israeli politics does not alter the Russian situation by one angstrom. It may, in fact, make the ME much less secure in the short and medium term.

[quote]theuofh wrote:

Bismark posted two good articles regarding the Iranian nuclear program arguing that we have at least a year until they are capable of fielding a nuclear weapon, in the worst case scenario. Sanctions are sanctions, but it’s enough time to give them a go and recruit a potential not enemy in the fight against ISIS and the stabilization of the middle East. The fact that they hate Israel is nothing new, and the Jews and Muslims will probably never get along. [/quote]

Iran will not be a non-enemy. They are funding lunatics like ISIS. I have no reason to doubt Bismark’s analysis that the chances of a sneak out are low. But I ask you, what will an agreement with them achieve? Will they abide by anything they are asked to sign in the medium-long term?

[quote]theuofh wrote:
Forget what the talking heads on the news are telling you, it’s generally all bullshit. There are some serious things going on generally unknown and undiscussed outside of DC and certain policy/defense circles. [/quote]

All this may be the case. What does this act achieve? It is pissing off the one consistent military ally the US are likely to have in the region. What is gained?

EDIT: A few sources from Iranwatch:

55

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

All this may be the case. What does this act achieve? It is pissing off the one consistent military ally the US are likely to have in the region. What is gained?

[/quote]

Israel will never be that pissed off because like it or not they are as dependent on the US as NATO for their security.

This is big dog politics at play and Bibi is the smaller dog. The US won’t piss off Israel as much as Bibi has pissed off the US to receive this response.

I’d like to say that sovereign states and their officers should be the ultimate gentleman, but more often than not they act more like children. It’s kind of sad and embarrassing, but that’s politics.

56

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:

Since Bibi was just over here interfering in our political process, I think it’s only fair. He also showed up uninvited to Paris creating a bit of a diplomatic row.

Personally, I think he’s another extremely right wing whackjob and these guy’s tend to be better cheerleaders than accomplishers.

I’d like to see him out, and a more moderate party in place, every bit as and more capable of defending Israel and US interests, without the political circus.

That region is very close to blowing up and when it goes, I’d like to see it handled by the sane and reasonable. [/quote]

Well, preferences in Israeli prime ministership aside Bibi hasn’t come over here yet, so he hasn’t interfered. He was invited, big difference. The speech was scheduled for later this month. Also, Obama was informed before the decision was public, although in a partisan move that didn’t happen until the day before it went public. But regardless I’m not sure you can blame Bibi for that part.

That still in no way justifies putting campaign managers and strategists into a foreign ally’s sovereign elections and trying to directly meddle with the outcome.[/quote]

Consider this post “liked”. Well said.

57

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Bibi is Likud. He’s center right.

I very much like Bibi as a person, but he’s very much a moderate.

(Jewish Home is actually my party, and it is much more conservative.)

What this tells you is how left Obama is.

[/quote]

I got a little too far ahead of myself on the last comments.

Despite where he may fall on the political spectrum, what he has done is push for action on Iran hard for the past years, even verbally announcing a plans for a unilateral strike in April or so of 2013 if I remember correctly.

I remember watching the interview and he is a likeable guy with a good physical presence.

What he hasn’t done is learn how to take “No” for answer and continues to be a thorn in the side of this administration and other stakeholders, who have decided to go the negotiation route for the time being.

Sooner or later, the political BS has to end, and everybody needs to get on board to give things at least a chance to work out. There’s a time for debate but after a plan has to be decided on, the loser of the debate cannot be allowed to sabotage further efforts.

This is why I refer to him as a whackjob, and sadly he is not the only one on the political stage who displays this type of unreasonable and ill-dignified behavior.[/quote]

Iran and its proxies in the Muslim Brotherhood directly threaten Israel and have murdered many Israeli citizens. It’s easy to push “negotiation” when you yourself are not threatened.

But the reason Obama and Co push negotiation is that they do not want Israel to defend themselves and have thrown money and weapons to the Muslims Brotherhood to destroy Israel, albeit more slowly than they would like.
Granting privileges and “negotiations” to Iran in the face of its threats to Israel, and its lies about Iranian nuclear activities is simply stalling.

58

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:

All this may be the case. What does this act achieve? It is pissing off the one consistent military ally the US are likely to have in the region. What is gained?

[/quote]

I’d like to say that sovereign states and their officers should be the ultimate gentleman, but more often than not they act more like children. It’s kind of sad and embarrassing, but that’s politics. [/quote]

On that point, we have an accord.

59

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]Legalsteel wrote:
Obama thinks that the Iranian negotiations will work. His country doesn’t face an existential threat if they do not.

The same is not true of Netanyahu.

If I, as a Northern Irish Catholic, was told that the UVF were developing a nuclear weapon, negotiation would be fairly low on my priority list as well. [/quote]

Bibi has a really clever ad running now. I found it with translations.

To help you understand the pun, the Hebrew word for “carpet” is just a soft vowel away from the word for “territories.”

And, yes, “babysitter” is Heblish.[/quote]

Loved the ad!!:slight_smile:

60

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote] Mufasa wrote:

How exactly are a bunch of Political Hacks going to place Israel in jeopardy? Are Israel’s Politics and it’s Strong will to survive that fragile? (I think not).

[/quote]

This is pretty silly even for you mufasa. All countries have laws regarding campaign financing and foreign influence in domestic politics. They have these laws for a reason. It’s not a question of anything goes because their politics should be “strong enough”. Foreign countries should not be trying to throw the elections of another country. And that is exactly why the Obama administration is doing. My question above is open to you or anyone else:

What would you think if Bibi Netanyahu’s campaign staff and advisers fly to the US, bypassed US campaign laws and actively campaigned to throw a US election?[/quote]

Obama received some foreign donations for his election campaign, notably
Illegal donations from Palestinians: Illegal Obama donors: Middle Eastern Arabs

Palis also set up a phone bank and rang random Americans to tell them to vote for Obama. Are those commenters who think Obama’s conduct is OK fine with that too?