Article

2011-02-17 Israel-Palestine-Jordan

U.S. to Rebuke Israel in Security Council

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Beavis 2011-02-17 05:51|| || Front Page|| [11128 views ] Top

#1 The current administration is rapidly approaching the point where Israel may reduce, restrict, or possibly terminate intelligence sharing in the region. These people have no idea where they are heading.

Posted by Besoeker 2011-02-17 08:03|| 2011-02-17 08:03|| Front Page Top

#2 Properly the headline should say: "Obama and Democrats to Rebuke Israel in Security Council".

This is to be clear that while they may be able to speak "in the name of the U.S.", they do not speak "for the U.S."

Posted by Anonymoose 2011-02-17 08:45|| 2011-02-17 08:45|| Front Page Top

#3 This is to be clear that while they may be able to speak "in the name of the U.S.", they do not speak "for the U.S."

I think the administration speaks for a narrow ideological driven minority that is part of the "Hate America" crowd.

Posted by JohnQC 2011-02-17 10:23|| 2011-02-17 10:23|| Front Page Top

#4 Another datapoint in the "is Obama trying to destroy the US" question.

Thought experiment:

1) Assume O is trying to destroy the US

2) List everything he would do differently than he already has.

3) if the list from step 2 is null, you have your answer.

Posted by Mercutio 2011-02-17 10:47|| 2011-02-17 10:47|| Front Page Top

#5 The US has done this before. If there is some arab unrest, the US does a rebuke and it allows for the arab leaders to direct anger. It is an old play that the US and Israel and the ME has been doing for a while.

However, this time I feel things are different. The anger has already blown up and you can't defuse a bomb that has already gone off. The best thing to do would be to call for reforms while making sure this statement goes away, or just vote present. To officially rebuke Israel will give more weight to the view that Israel is truly standing alone and without its best ally. Not good for peace in the ME.

Posted by DarthVader 2011-02-17 11:52|| 2011-02-17 11:52|| Front Page Top

#6 #4 I've been posting that question for some time now.

Posted by Hellfish 2011-02-17 12:25|| 2011-02-17 12:25|| Front Page Top

#7 It seems we support no one and oppose only al Qaeda and the Taliban, and only when they turn sectarian.

Posted by Hank 2011-02-17 14:44|| 2011-02-17 14:44|| Front Page Top

#8 This is meant as a way to spin supporters of Israel by saying, "look our smart diplomacy prevented a vote on a resolution condemning Israel" while spinning opponents of Israel by saying, "look our smart diplomacy is accomplishing a real change in the US position on settlements."

I doubt it will fool 25% of either group.

Posted by Lord Garth 2011-02-17 18:23|| 2011-02-17 18:23|| Front Page Top

#9 This is too clever by half, said Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY). Instead of doing the correct and principled thing and vetoing an inappropriate and wrong resolution, they now have opened the door to more and more anti-Israeli efforts coming to the floor of the U.N. The correct venue for discussions about settlements and the other aspects of a peace plan is at the negotiating table. Period. Democrats are busting him, too.

Posted by Deacon Blues 2011-02-17 19:09|| 2011-02-17 19:09|| Front Page Top

23:52 gorb
23:45 gorb
23:43 gorb
23:12 swksvolFF
23:03 swksvolFF
22:57 Barbara Skolaut
22:48 trailing wife
22:41 Barbara Skolaut
22:26 Pappy
22:24 Pappy
22:10 Pappy
22:06 Pappy
22:03 Eric Jablow
22:03 Procopius2k
21:52 Frank G
21:51 Frank G
21:47 Bobby
21:37 Frank G
21:17 Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division
21:16 trailing wife
21:14 trailing wife
20:51 swksvolFF
20:48 crosspatch
20:26 Frank G