US President Barack Obama has issued a stern ultimatum to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

A widely predicted crisis between Israel and the United States upon Benjamin Netanyahu taking office as prime minister finally erupted this weekend.

U.S. President Barack Obama did not hold back in condemning the humiliation caused to Joe Biden with the Israeli announcement of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem during what was supposed to be the vice president’s friendly visit to Israel.

Instead of accepting Netanyahu’s partial apology and letting bygones be bygones, Obama issued a stern warning to the Israeli prime minister and is now demanding that he take “specific actions” to show he is “committed” to the U.S.-Israel relationship and to the peace process itself.

Washington did not reveal the contents of the ultimatum or the list of demands reportedly presented to Netanyahu.

This follows Israel’s Ambassador in Washington Michael Oren being summoned and reprimanded by the US State Department, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling Israel’s conduct “insulting.”

Updates (Israel time; most recent at top)?

9:36PM: I’ve always said that the only difference between Fatah and Hamas is the suits. But now it seems as though this may no longer be the case, if this photo of captured Hamashole Maher Odeh is anything to go by.

The mother of Maher Uda, a top Hamas commander arrested by Israel in the West Bank overnight, shows journalists a framed picture of her 47-year-old son in formal dress at the family's home in the village of Ein Yabrud near Ramallah on March 14, 2010. Uda, a senior commander in Hamas's armed wing in the occupied territory, has been arrested by the Israeli security services after more than a decade on the run, an Israeli military spokesman announced. Palestinian security official in the West Bank said his forces did not know of Uda's whereabouts because he had gone underground several years ago and said they had yet to determine where exactly he was arrested. AFP PHOTO/ABBAS MOMANI (Photo credit should read ABBAS MOMANI/AFP/Getty Images)

9:22PM: Sorry for the lack of updates today, but work and a lovely dinner with some pro-Israel Canadian bloggers got in the way of my blogging.

1:32PM: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem is displaying for the first time Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

1:16PM: A joint force of IDF, Shin Beit and police officers last night arrested Hamashole Maher Odeh, who headed a cell responsible for a number of deadly terror attacks including the Café Hillel bombing in Jerusalem and the suicide attack at the Zerifin junction hitchhikers’ station in 2003.

It should be noted he was arrested by the PA in 1998, but released shortly after.

Odeh has been wanted by Israel since the 1990s, and is considered one of the commanders of Hamas’ military wing in Ramallah – an organization that killed 70 Israelis during the second intifada.

The 47-year-old father of four, who was born in Ein-Yabrud, northeast of Ramallah, is one of the founders of the Hamas movement in the West Bank city. He began operating in the early 1990s, when he formed the Hamas cell in his village, which was responsible for kidnapping and interrogating Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel, and seeking weapons to use in terror attacks.

In 1998, he was questioned by the Palestinians security forces and spent several months in a Palestinian prison. After his release he became one of the organization’s most wanted men.

6:00AM: Further fallout from the Israeli announcement to build more houses in our own land: EU foreign policy chief said the EU might use its trade ties with Israel as leverage to pressure it into renewing peace talks with the palestinians (I purposely blogged this as an update, since I am not comfortable using That’s What Friends Are For when it comes to the Europeans).

Meanwhile, the Swedish Foreign Minister is still being a meatball head.

Swedish Foreign Minister, Carl Bildt, said that Israel’s announcement on building in east Jerusalem during United States Vice President Joe Biden’s visit last week was intentional and not coincidental.

82 thoughts on “The Day In Israel: Sunday Mar 14th, 2010”

  1. Gene in Arkansas

    … and my regrets to your PM for having to endure a lecture from the likes of Biden and Hillary! How humiliating for our country and yours. Please tell POTUS mind your own business.

  2. Of course, part of the problem is that for decades, Israel has been acting as though it stole the land from the "Palestinians." I mean, you don't repeatedly offer to "give back" land that you believe is yours. Does Israel really believe that it owns all of Jerusalem? Sometimes it's hard to tell.

    1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

      This is I think more true regarding American Jewry. Ever since Rabin and Peres adopted what were traditionally anti-Israel positions, the Jewish community in the U.S. has been confused.

      1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

        A bit late for that, unfortunately. Barbra Walters, I believe, asked Menachem Begin, "what about the Palestinians"? And he said: Which Palestinians? The Jewish Palestinians or the Arab Palestinians"? I don't think she liked that.

        1. Well when the propaganda gets repeated over and over and over, your brain cant help, but accept it. I wonder who was the first PM to switch though. We know now that Netanyahu does it. Did he back in 96? I only remember Barak and barely since I was 9 and they didnt teach us Israeli government in my afterschool Hebrew school.

  3. I think some of you are enjoying this too much. You just love to see what really are minor characters in the Netanyahu government purposely provoke an international incident with the Americans. I can only hope that Israels are growing very tired of this crowd and push for new elections. I would love to have been in the room in the White House when Ambassador Oren was called on the carpet. I would have Rahm there in the buff giving him the "Eric Massa treatment." Of course, Mr. Oren would have to strip to his skivies to get the full affect of the dressing down.

    1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

      Enjoying people not having anywhere to live? To you this is the big picture – to me this is individual people suffering, not to mention an insult and threat to our soverignty, both over our country and our capital.

      Obama and Hillary have clearly put themselves in the anti-Israel category in my book. Anyone who says we can't build in the New City because its on the wrong side of some imaginary line, can just go stuff themselves, and that includes you, too, Jim.

      1. I am starting to sour on Obama, although not yet in the Israel category. My criticism comes from his health care complete failure (even if this bill passes, it's still a pile of crap) as well as his continuing Bush's surveillance state policies, perhaps even going further than Bush. I'm also disappointed in his Cuba and Russia policies (the missile "defense" shield is a useless joke).

        Does Israel even have as much of a surveillance state as we do? I feel like you have more boots on the ground than cameras in the sky. I'm not sure which I would prefer though. But cameras are certainly more creepy and the young boy in me likes to see heavily armed soldiers and police walking around. I think I'd rather have a few troops in an airport than have to walk through a body scanner to be honest.

        1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

          Well, we have national ID cards, which you are theoretically supposed to carry all of the time, I think – although nobody really cares about that. I tell people that if the U.S. passed a law like here that you have to tell Interior when you move, there would be a revolution. But really, since you can't do anything anymore without a driver's license or something, it's not all that different anymore.

          When you go into some place, they ask if you have weapons and check your bags. The train station asks for ID sometimes, and there is a scanner, of course. I was in one bus station when they were blowing up abandoned parcels.

          The big thing is that you have a lot of young people in the military walking around armed. But the culture here is that it just makes you feel safer. You don't see patrols or anything like that.

          Look, we're at war. I think during WWII the U.S. had much stronger stuff than it does now, and there wasn't much complaint.

          1. Ron Paul was just on some show about Obama planning to bring back the National ID Card under the guise of fighting illegal immigration. They probably could force it through somehow. They got the Patriot Act through and cant repeal it. Either way, I oppose it here because I dont trust the US government to monitor me. I dont trust the UK either. But I would trust Israel for whatever reason.

        2. Obama's foreign policy is a complete catastrophe. Here's a longish review, ignoring the normal NK, AfPak, Iran, Israel discussions (I don't feel like hunting for links right now, but you can easily search yourself), note the consistency by which America gets rolled over:

          A) South America – following a coup** in Houndras, the Obama administration wanted to restore the former President. Instead Obama had to accept the new government, which is markedly less friendly (the US was booed during the inauguration of the new president). This is in a country which is much more dependent on America than Israel is (IIRC, 90% of their trade is with America). Nor did Obama get any respect from the South American Left – Chavez is still a douche, and nowadays a typical conspiracy theory is that America always planned for the coup to work, but had to feign opposition.

          ** Some people say it was a legal removal. I'm using the administration's terminology.

          B) Europe –
          1) There's has been an inexplicable spat between Obama and Britain. As far as I can tell, it started when Obama returned a bust of Churchill on the grounds his grandfather was somehow humiliated by British soldiers in Kenya… It then escalated (Obama not seeing Brown, not backing up Britain diplomatically. Some British newspapers are asking if the U.S. is still an ally, etc.). Note that the only country that is likely to be harmed by this spat is America, as this may have effects on British willingness to help with military forces…

          2) Obama's new missile defence plan is a joke. (almost) nobody noticed that in the case Iran does develop ICBMs, the administration intends to put ground-based interceptors in allied countries, starting with the same countries that were so rudely*** double-crossed**. The odds the Polish or Czechs or other countries will accept it then after being bitten once are not very high. Btw, the Russians are now pissed due to the alternative plan of using U.S. destroyers with SM-3s…

          ** e.g. http://www.slate.com/id/2228704/ . Maybe I'll write some other time on Kaplan's hacktitude re: missile defence…

          *** In a particularly inept manner I must add. This was leaked on the anniversary of Stalin's invasion to Poland.

          C)
          1) Obama's East Asia trip was widely panned as a disaster, with the Chinese exploiting it masterfully. Speaking of China, Obama initially refused to see the Dalai Lama, and eventually let him in via (literally) the back door of the WH…

          2) Obama's spats with the new Japanese government may have a long term effect. After all, the FDP didn't really have much of a foreign policy agenda, and are forming one after decades in opposition… After being bullied on Okinawa, they may well decide to adopt a more independent agenda.

          3) "engagement" has completely failed in Burma, with the new "elections" being meaningless.

          D) Africa: There hasn't been much action by Obama there, except on the area of Sudan. The "engagement" policy there is even more despicable than usual. The envoy (one General Gration, IIRC?) calls for giving "gold stars" and "cookies" to the genocidal regime. A 2010 (or was it 2011?) referendum is widely believed to grant South Sudan independence. If you follow the news reports, Khartoum has been building its army recently… Would Obama do anything if they invade South Sudan? I sincerely hope so, but I doubt it.

          I limited myself to the crises (and excluding commonly discussed topics), and as you can see, these don't reflect well on Obama.

          1. As Paula Abdul once said of being a judge on "American Idol": "This stuff is hard!" The same is true for being President of the United States. Grading on the George W. Bush curve, I'd give Obama a B+.

          2. Honduras was completely botched. Only the neocons thought that coup was legal. He should have immediately called up da Silva and Calderon and said "OK were goin in". The entire hemisphere would love America.

            Britain I havent read much about that, but it doesnt surprise me that there would be questions.

            There is no reason for a missile defense shield. Europe is under no threat from Iran whatsoever. NK and their cardboard missiles as I call them couldnt even hit south Korea if they DIDNT want to. The whole purpose of that "shield" is to piss off Russia.

            The Dalai Lama is another lie. I can show you pictures of what Tibet was like before China came in. He has managed to manipulate the world for 50 years into thinking his people are suddenly being oppressed. Ask yourself what would happen if Tibet were 'free'. Not that you are a Free Tibet type, but think about it. China is starting to flex itself, so what happened really shouldnt be a surprise.

            Not knowledgable enough on the Japanese or Burma issues beyond the major news.

            Africa I didnt even know that. I remember this girl back in 2008 who loved Obama because he was big on Darfur… South Sudan is supposed to have their independence referendum and what I've read indicates it might end up a puppet state, so I'd be skeptical of invasion threats. I'm curious if and why they would keep the name (South) Sudan though.

            I think Obama is trying to please everyone and what happens is he ended up pleasing no one. He would probably be better off if he just went proper liberal instead of this moderate/conservative path he has taken.

            1. I know very little about Honduras, not enough to make any proclamation regarding its history or government. What I do know is that Obama wanted to restore the previous president and failed miserably in spite of the country being totally dependent on America. As you said, completely botched.

              As for missile defence, the sites were meant to defend against ICBMs, and (even if very effective) had no way to stop the hundreds of Russian missiles. I think Russia was just trying to remind everyone who's boss.

              As for Tibet, regardless of position, should China dictate who will the American president meet?

              As for Sudan, I'm not sure the south will keep the name "South Sudan", but for now it's a good shorthand. See these about Gration:
              A) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti
              B) http://www.tnr.com/article/the-ingratiator
              C) http://allafrica.com/stories/201002181073.html
              ("Gration told Darfuris that: 1) the Government of Sudan (GoS) did not intend to kill the civilians in Darfur but rather the GoS was trying to kill the rebels and civilians were killed as collateral damage because the government planes were not armed with sophisticated, accurate weapons")
              D) http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/0

              I hate hate hate hate that Gration bastard.

              IMHO, Obama is not very experienced in politics and doesn't know how the world works, so he's easily fooled by advisors with agendas.

              1. On a slightly different note, I wonder if Israel could ever interfere if the Sudanese government would try to pull their genocide tricks again? After all, Israel is already suspected of bombing an Iranian arms convey there, and any Israeli plane which can make it to Iran can make it to Sudan. So the capability exists and the government there hates Israel anyway.

                Now Israel couldn't remove the government, but it can destroy the outdated tanks and planes, making this a much fairer fight. The world's attention after such a strike might also help.

                1. Unless that would somehow promote the defense of Israel, they would never do it. Israel is not the world police and the last thing they need is to be deposing governments that arent actively (or even passively) threatening them.

                  1. While you correctly describe the policy Israel will take, I wonder it's the smart (lets leave aside moral) choice. Countries that make trouble seem to be rewarded lately, and this can become an excellent spot for a demonstration (little risk, good PR) if Sudan oversteps (which is likely having gotten away with genocide).

              2. Obama didnt seem to have much interest in supporting the old government. I think this is actually a good example of where he is trying to please everyone. In this case, the neocons and the…not really sure how to label the other side. It's more complicated than left/socialist.

                No matter what they can do, they served no purpose at all. There was no active threat that called for them.

                Tibet-No, I think I misinterpreted what you wrote.

                Thanks for the articles.

                I really think it's more that he's trying to make everyone happy. It certainly may be that he's allowing other agendas to dominate and that shows the problems of having a "team of rivals". Honestly, I thought Hillary deserved nothing at all. etc etc

                1. As for missile defence, it's true there's no threat now. The point is that Iran is galloping ahead, and in that case America will need to put some systems. This will be much more difficult after this artless cancellation, especially since the plan is to ask the same countries…

                  Of course, if Obama does stop Iran, the cancellation would become a smart move, unfortunately there isn't much progress there.

                  1. Well i just dont see Iran threatening Europe. Maybe US or Israel, but we're far too out of range and Israel should be able to hold its own or be able to retaliate. Europe is practically enabling Iran to do what it wants, so they have no reason to shoot missiles. I also think that as a fundamentally ancient country, iran is less likely to go as far as shooting missiles around the world.

                    The missile defense just seems like a scheme by the neocons here to wag a middle finger at Russia.

    2. Ultimately, the issue is that Israel is not an American vassal state, and will not risk its security or its rights for nothing. Nor will Americans decide who will comprise the Israeli government.

      It is clear Obama has decided to bully Israel in an attempt to tie America closer to the Arab states. I fear he will only be rewarded with more instability in the Middle East. At the very least, he has made an Israeli strike on Iran much more likely.

    3. If this was some settlement in the West Bank, you might have a point, as even I have my issues with some of the settlements there.

      However, Jerusalem is not a settlement, it never was and it never will be. If we really want to get into "settlement" look at the Jordanian occupation…they purposefully brought in arabs and settled them there in an attempt to erase the fact that Jerusalem was first and and foremost, a Jewish city both demographically and spiritual.

      You usually are a smart cookie. But between this and your lack of understanding of how the peace process should work (with America backing off along with the rest of the world), you're falling into the category of one who has let the propaganda poison their mind.

      1. Doing nothing, Michael, results in nothing getting done. I suppose Israel could apply the Arutz Sheva school of diplomacy and physically expel the Arabs from all of Israel. But this would not be a smart move and would leave Israel completely alone in the world. No one would come to Israel's defense. I'm not as concerned with the planning for new construction in East Jersusalem as I am the timing of the announcement. I think the Israeli public will see this for what it is–a deliberate effort to poke the Obama Administration in the eye by the far right and to scuttle peace initiatives. How does Israel benefit by such actions, anyway?

        Look at some of Michael K.'s comments to know what the far right is sounding like. He's actually happy to see that a racist pseudo-Kahanist media outlet like Arutz Sheva has more influence with the Netanyahu administration than the Obama State Department. This is nuts. Israel needs another Rabin to lead them, someone with courage and conviction.

        1. Doing nothing? Where did I suggest that? I suggested the West takes its arrogant hands off of diplomacy and not pigeon hole people and just stand back. The Palestinian Government doesn't want peace; it isn't politically expedient for them to have peace because if there is peace, that means Israel is still there. The only peace that the Palestinian Government will accept is one where Israel is just a memory.

          Notice how I am emphasizing government and not people because there are certainly Palestinians who would want nothing more than the bloodshed to be ended.

          And I won't speak for Michael K at all. He can answer/refute that statement.

        2. While elements of the Israeli government may or may not have used the opportunity to poke Obama in the eye (nevermind Jerusalem was never in any kind of "freeze"), it is clear Obama used the opportunity to poke Israel in the eye. And for what? Obviously not for the "peace process", as it is moribund for unrelated reasons. Obama's project to appease the Arabs at the expense of Israel is doomed to fail and will lead to even more conflict.

          1. I feel like it's more that the PA is the one doing the poking. They have no interest in peace, so they seize on this non-issue to say peace talks are now in jeopardy.

        3. Michael Zvi Krumbein

          I'm the far right? Actually, for this site I think I'm pretty moderate. I just don't like the State Deaprtment, never have.

          1. I should design a political compass test for Israeli politics. I would need to study it a bit more though. I'm not even sure how to design it. There are more than 2 spectrums needed to adequately define it because I dont feel comfortable lumping economics and social issues together. The other spectrum would be the "palestinians". And you could probably have a third spectrum for "religiosity".

            1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

              I've seen a three-level test for this; you could probably find it somewhere. Probably security, economics, and social (here that would be religious). Would work here too.

              The big difference here is that people don't even try to apply terms like "left" and "right" to religion, because they don't work.

              1. That actually seems about right. Social, though, has issues that arent religious really. Perhaps social issues could be split between religious and economics. Welfare is considered a social issue, but also economic. Homosexuals are another social issue, but that also squares with religion.

                Religion would be Secular (left) vs. Religious (right). Avigdor Lieberman would be quite to the "left" on this. The directions are for convenience. The left-right spectrum is complete rubbish anyway. Where am I on it? I associate more with the left, but I have substantial disagreements on many issues with them.

                1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

                  Sorry. The compass was here. I was considering welfare economic in this sense. By social I meant personal.

                  There are actually a lot of religious Jews in the U.S. who are pretty liberal because they feel a need to take care of the needy, and think government should. Avigdor Lieberman is probably a bigger danger to the religious "status quo" than anyone else, including Meretz – even though he has t least one religious representative in his delegation.

                  I would say that your opinions (and understanding of the facts) on Communism put you rather outside the normal American political spectrum, outside the University. On the PATRIOT act, you could find agreement on both sides. But you don't need me to tell you that. Myself, my only "liberal" position is on prisioner treatment.

                  BTW, do you know a German family was recently accepted in the U.S. as political refugees because they were persecuted for home-schooling their children? I expect a lot of refugees to come in from California, now. 🙂

                  1. Yeah there is always the religious left. I know a Christian socialist. My views on the USSR were not about communism, which is actually an anarchist philosophy. My views are on authoritarianism. This is another area where words have been completely redefined and hijacked. The universities are what I term the 'lower left'. I'm upper left and between this and everything else, I have few "friends". Even someone I talk to on the internet, who thinks democracy sucks I still see as lower left and she's not an anarchist, but she's not a committed authoritarianist. I am and I actually plan to write my thesis and/or dissertation on it.

                    I think prisoners should be put to work, not exploited, but put to work on public projects. Everybody wins in such a deal.

                    Yes, I read about that. I didnt know they were granted asylum. I understand the government's argument though and as much as I want to sympathize with the 'poor oppressed family' I cant say for sure whether I do.

                    1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

                      Bad terminology on my part. The "religious left" in the U.S. is a group of denominations across religions who have a somewhat common theology, which includes the idea that no one really knows the truth. They also tend to replace the Bible with the platform of the Democratic party.

                      The problem is that they are intolerant of anyone who does not share their theology. The conservative religions (a large part of them, anyway) generally understand that no-one is going to win "in this world", and have learned to be tolerant of each other in the public square, no matter what we say about each other in our hourse of worship. Some say this is the origin of American religious freedom. This is why I get frustrated when some preacher is attacked for saying that, say, Jews will go to hell. I don't want my thoelogy censored, so I don't want to censor anyone else's, as long as int's kept bascially internal and doesn't encourage violence.

                      My neighbor is at least as Orthodox as I am, he is just a bit on the pacifist side and perhaps somewhat socially liberal. (His wife is a Michelle Malkin fan.)

            2. I'm afraid your political compass would look like one of those rotating spirals that put you into deep hypnosis if you stare at it too long.

            3. IMHO, a main spectrum would be "particularity" (key phrases: "Am Lebadad Yishcon", "Aum shmom", "Jewish state") vs "universality" (key phrases: "Misphat Haamim", "Democratic state"). Essentially, "universalists" main priority is to integrate Israel into the world community and mainly the "core". Since legitimacy mainly comes from the UN 1948 support, the Green line is the preferred border. Since religiosity is no longer common, they support more berth between religion and state. While rhetoric may be leftish economically, they have no intention to reverse liberalization. This explains why the opposition attacks the PM so often on the grounds he is isolating Israel in the world community…

              "Particularists" are most interested in having an independent nation state. Since legitimacy comes from Israel's ancient link to the land, they are comfortable with settlements. In the same manner, they have only practical qualms with religion (Note that Libermann wife is religious, and his daughter is also very religious. His main agenda is to allow civil marriage in order to unify the people, and he hasn't said anything about (for example) funding for religious studies, or the IDF exemption, etc.) While rhetoric may be slightly "rightish" economically, they have no intention of dismantling welfare state agencies like our universal health care.

              You could have a nice spectrum:
              Religious parties Settler Parties IB Likud | Kadima Labour Meretz (Arab Parties get an honorary location here). This also explains why economic discussion is so tame here: The Left's emphasis on Internationalism moderates its policies, as does the Right's emphasis on unity… (There's another reason regarding the Left's early control of the state creating a Lefty elite with economic interests requiring a right wing policy but that's another story).

              1. Correction: "regliosity no longer common" should be "religiosity-state links are no longer common in the "core"". i.e. Most Western states are quite secular and they want to emulate this.

              2. What I see from here is that economics is not much of an issue because you have the overbearing issue of the Arabs that dominates and IS the left-right. I think if that suddenly went off the table, Israel would start to have a greater debate on economics.

                1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

                  Economics is certainly an issue here. But the state was a a mess, they tried supply side economics out of desperation, and it worked.

                  Shas, for example, is as much about increasing social welfare payments (and not only for the religious) as anything else. Do you know their election motto was "Gam anachnu yecholim" = yes we can.

              3. Michael Zvi Krumbein

                Actually, they HAVE commented on these issues. Lieberman is playing to his base. The problem is that nothing is as likely to SPLIT the Jewish people as civil marriage, or rather civil divorce. We could easily end up with two groups that could not ammry each other. Even the messiah couldn't fix that.

                1. The problem is that there are quite a few people which are Jews per Hok HaShvot, but can't marry per the rabbinic authorities. Since all marriage is religious here, they are either unable to marry or have to go abroad, marry there, and than have it recognize by the state. Oh, and conversion is practically impossible (you have to become/pretend to be a super-strict Orthodox for it to be accepted).

                  This state of affairs is ridiculous. We're talking about people who in their daily lives are not much different from you and me. I support finding an accepted manner to change this, but the religious parties are barely even willing to talk about it…. (And yes, I do consider some people not being able to marry at all being a dividing issue).

                  1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

                    I think you are not up on the news. Actually, the religious parties have basically accepted the idea for "people with no religion"; I know Rav Elyashiv did. I think it is a mistake. personally, as I fear that it will lead to general civil marriage, civil divorce, mazerut, and a Jewish people split into two groups who cannot intermarry.

                    I have never seen uninimity in the Jewish community on any issue like I have seen this one (I mean civil marriage in general, not this particular exception.)

                    The idoicy was using Hitler's definition of Judaism (and even that is a myth) for the Chok HaShevut. If Russia was persecuting people with Jewish fathers, then we should have pushed the U.S. to take them as refugees, where they could assimilate into American society.

                    1. Maybe idiocy, but we did that. What now? If only the religious parties could be slightly more flexible on conversion (e.g. the proposition to allow municipal rabbis to make conversion was scuttled), we wouldn't have had this issue in the first place…

                    2. Michael Zvi Krumbein

                      It's somewhat irrelvant. Rav Duchovsky, respected Rabbinical judge, almost chiff rabbi, turned down a high position on the secular courts, said there really isn't a high demand for conversion.

        4. "Israel needs another Rabin to lead them, someone with courage and conviction. "
          You mean the Rabin who openly bribed two Knesset members to support Oslo II which passed by a 61-59 vote?
          The Rabin who had to resign as Prime Minister because of a financial scandal?

          If Israel wants someone with courage and conviction, another Yitzchak Shamir would be a better choice

  4. Ramat Shlomo isn't even in E. Jerusalem, it's in N. Jerusalem, an established Haredi district, so why the fuss? Even if construction was announced in E. Jerusalem, it isn't part of any freeze agreement. Again, why the fuss? None of this makes any sense and why haven't any of the news reports told the truth? What gives?

    Maybe this much ado about nothing is a smokescreen for something else.

  5. OK, Dave, you're allowed to have a life outside this blog. But you missed reporting on a great article by Gil Hoffman in today's Jerusalem Post concerning how Netanyahu's administration has been snake-bit by the Biden trip. Apparently during a joint press conference, the glass-covered framed certificate commemorating the event (and Israel-US friendship) broke under the weight of Netanyahu's elbow as he leaned on the podium. Not intentional, but kind of embarrassing, no? Like the actions of the Yishai-led Interior Ministry's handling of the announcement of housing expansion in N.E. Jerusalem. Maybe not intentional, but embarrassing to Netanyahu and the Americans. And given his track record, I am giving Eli Yishai the benefit of the doubt. This will all blow over very soon and the US and Israel will still be good friends and strong allies.

  6. It looks to me like Obama fears he is going to be a one-term president, so he is taking steps now to get his ticket punched to board the Saudi gravy train that three of our four living ex-presidents are currently riding, including Hillary's hubby.

      1. Be careful what you wish for.

        I still dont enough going against him to kick him out. Depending on the competition, and hundreds of other factors, people may just vote incumbent.

        1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

          Quite likely. Of course it could be worse, see Bush I. (Actually, on Israel, I see Obama as his successor.) We still have a U.S. abstention on a security council resolution saying we have no rights in Jerusalem 9over the old line) to thank him for.

          American history says you can't count anyone out. Clinton was re-elected, and Nixon was by a tremendous landslide (campained for him then, too).

          Of course, I am on the opposite sides from you on just about everything but Israel – but I'm used to that; it also applies to my wife and one of my sisters, although not to that extent.

          1. I'm assuming youre a typical conservative. I hold quite a few "conservative" views. I support gun rights. Abortion I place myself in the center—accept them within limits, but discourage them/encourage alternatives. Homosexual marriage. Those are the main ones. Altogether, this puts me in quite the fix because I associate more with the "left", but have some strong "right" views.

  7. Well, intensedebate is not working as is normal; regardless.

    Biden, leaving his bed, brings with him snake bites. Nobody, not even a majority of the State of Iowa, gives a darn about Joe Biden. Few give a darn about Hillary Clinton. An increasing few care what Obama says, about anything. Pay attention to anything uttered by any of them, or any of their supporters, at your own peril.

    Israel needs to best assess and address its own self interest, as it sees fit, while the United States deals with its own internal issues. Without question, in my personal assessment, most worthwhile Americans are strong supporters of Israelly self determination. We allow 18 year olds to vote, a mistake, and felons to vote, a mistake; we even allow the joke of the Iowa Caucus to have an impact on our Presidential elections, a mistake. However, we are mostly a forgiving lot, so we allow stupid people to be stupid, as long as they don’t get near us, or our families.

    For example, we don’t allow most 18 year olds near our sisters or daughters. We feel the same way about most felons. Given that Obama would not be President, were it not for the ridiculous Iowa Caucuses, we are not immediately inclined to defer to the wisdom of people from Iowa. All you need to know about the wisdom of the people from Iowa can be ascertained by taking a few minutes to educate yourself about Senator Tom Harkin, whom they inflict upon the nation.

    1. You're right about the Iowa Caucuses. They're held in the dead of winter, sub-zero temps and once you get there its two hours plus of mass confusion and long moments of intense boredom. No way to select the Leader of the Free World to be sure. You're wrong about Tom Harkin, though. More liberal than Iowans as a whole, but a champion for the working man. Congressman Steve King (R) from western Iowa (almost Nebraska) gets my vote for biggest loser from my state. Glad you're paying some attention to us hicks from the sticks, CJrun.

    2. I dont think letting me vote in 2008 was a mistake. I also like the caucus idea. It has a nice community appeal, although it may be more suited to local politics than the presidency.

      1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

        Well, although it was 21 when I was born, the state can make it lower (same for womken before the amendment), so if your state really trusted their youth (or more likely, thought they could easily dupe them), they could let you.

        No reason why some state couldn't lower the age to 14.

        Now a law that would ban federal employees (except military personnel) from voting…. 🙂

        1. States can only lower for state and below elections, as far as I know. Actually now that I think of it, the Constitution says "shall have the qualifications of the electors of the most numerous branch [of the state legislature]".

          There once was a proposal out in California to do that. 14 gets a quarter-vote, 16 gets a half vote, 18 gets a full.

          Why not military? Why is the military always exempt. We could probably cut $100 billion or more in waste out of Defense, but it's never touched. Even Obama just proposed to freeze everything but Defense and Veterans. In any case, once you start getting into that, you can make a whole bunch of arguments about who should and shouldnt vote. Why not ban people who work for a major corporation or are shareholders of one? etc etc etc.

          1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

            Yes. Take another look at the Constitution; you'll see it there. Note that it doesn't mention race or gender, and the Constitution itself says that Jews can hold public office, unlike Maryland for many years. It's fascinating it you just read what it actually says.

            There was once this idea called a "pauper's oath", which meant that if you took government money you could not vote. The problem we are running into is that we are getting to the point where half of the population is voting to take money from the other half. This is quite dangerous. Most union members are now government workers, I believe.

            The military is often kept from voting on technical grounds (the ballots have to get there). The Republicans suspect the Democrats of doing this on purpose. This is not a problem here; they vote right on the bases. I think, though, the soldier has to be kept loyal to the country, and voting helps. The U.S. is not a country that has to worry about a coup d'etat, in spite of the paranoia of the far left.

            1. The problem with that though is that if they dont vote their interests cannot be taken into account. Once they lose their right to vote, they can be ignored. Also, I forgot to mention that it would be interesting if your idea was implemented here in NJ, specifically the gubernatorial election last year. Something like 20 or 40% of the people are on a government payroll and they were all solidly behind Corzine. I spoke to one guy who said he couldnt vote for my candidate (Independent Chris Daggett) and my mom told me (we're family friends with the guy and his family) that he's a government worker (one you probably would want off the payroll haha) and couldnt vote for anyone except the status quo—Corzine.

              Coups are virtually impossible here because we've had long term stability set up and the system is deliberately set up to make substantial change impossible. But also, the roots of this country are very deep and tangled, so it just is impossible to upset that.

              1. Michael Zvi Krumbein

                I don't see how that's so. I tend to think it's the basic loyalty of the soldier to the constitution, a stable, law-based society (registered real estate, for example), and a citizenry that is at least partially armed. As I said to a corruption expert I once met on the plane, a basic measure of a cociety is if you are safer trying to bribe a policaeman. or not trying. In the U.S. and ISrael, it's the latter, in Mexico the former.

  8. Hey, it was great to meet you this week. Do you have Google coordinates for the housing settlement in question? We drove past there, but I doubt I'll be able to find it on google maps on my own.

  9. this is just like OSlima to attack friends and ignore terrorists like the bozo who put a bomb in his underware. He burns Israel within seconds of this comming out yet takes 3 days to speak out on a Africian Arab Muslim who tried to murder Americans as the plane was landing thus causing even more casualities. Its not hard to see wherre this POS kenyan is taking trhe US, straight to hell

  10. John In California

    Biden got the the crap in the face he deserved. An please Israel, tell obama to blow it out his butt.

  11. Obama sucks. I know it, u know it, and most Americans know it. What do u expect from someone who: 1. Never ran any t ype of business. 2 Attended a black racist separatist church for 20 years (thats not the Rev. Wright I knew), etc.. etc..

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top