Israeli Official Spills: We Knew Obama Wanted ‘Revenge’

[Coyote]

Exactly what policies has Obama inacted that supports that?

It isn't a policy, it actually something in the works:

The nuclear deal with Iran. If that doesn't have "I hate Israel" written all over it. I don't know what does.

Specifically how? What specific element?

 

[Coyote]

Do loyal allies try to force their fellow allies into a war of choice?

Uh, and how are we being forced?

Do loyal allies coerce other allies into changing their own stances simply because they disagree with them stances? I'm sorry. Not playing this game.

You started the game.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So all negotiations that involve one or the other adjusting positions are coercion?

"Agree to this deal, or else."

Does that sound like negotiation to you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Specifically how? What specific element?

The 10 year sunset clause, the complete exclusion of Israel to the details of the deal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do loyal allies try to force their fellow allies into a war of choice?

Uh, and how are we being forced?

Do loyal allies coerce other allies into changing their own stances simply because they disagree with them stances? I'm sorry. Not playing this game.

You started the game.

Actually you did, by lecturing all of us about our "lack of respect" towards Obama. It was more like "you don't want this deal because you hate Obama!"

How childish. I'm done playing with the toys, you can have them now.

 

[Coyote]

What exactly has Obama done that represents "revulsion" of Israel? Specific policies?

Have you not been reading the news? Or have you been too busy painting Obama as the victim to notice?

I've been reading all the crying and complaining that Obama is the most anti-semitic president ever and that he hates Israel yada yada yada. But beyond empty emoting - there is nothing specific.

First and foremost he demanded that Israel revert to it's pre-1967 borders.

When?

Second, go Youtube his conversation with Nicholas Sarkozy.

I don't waste time with youtube. What conversation do you mean?

Third, Obama's reaction to Netanyahu when he came to give his speech.

You mean the speech he gave 2 weeks prior to his election when our President specifically wouldn't meet with him because it was too close - the same speech that Netanyahu turned around and used in a campaign ad? That one? What exactly was wrong with Obama's reaction?

Fourth, his reaction to Netanyahu after he won the Israeli election.

Need I go on?

Yes...I think you do. All of the above is supposed to show that Obama hates Israel?

All it shows is that Obama and Netanyahu don't get along.

 

[Coyote]

Do loyal allies try to force their fellow allies into a war of choice?

Uh, and how are we being forced?

Do loyal allies coerce other allies into changing their own stances simply because they disagree with them stances? I'm sorry. Not playing this game.

You started the game.

Actually you did, by lecturing all of us about our "lack of respect" towards Obama. It was more like "you don't want this deal because you hate Obama!"

How childish. I'm done playing with the toys, you can have them now.

Maybe you should re-read what I wrote. It has nothing to do with whether or not you respect the man - it's the office. When you put foreign leaders over your own president - that is disrespecting the office.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've been reading all the crying and complaining that Obama is the most anti-semitic president ever and that he hates Israel yada yada yada. But beyond empty emoting - there is nothing specific.

Oh? And your dismissive attitude is quite specific.

When?

How could you not know? The year was 2011.

Barack Obama Israel must recognise 1967 borders - Telegraph

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html

Obama Call For 1967 Borders For Israel May Make For Awkward Meeting With Netanyahu

Netanyahu Rejects Obama Call for Palestinian State Based on 1967 Borders Fox News

After Obama speech Netanyahu rejects withdrawal to indefensible 1967 borders - Israel News Haaretz

I don't waste time with youtube. What conversation do you mean?

I just told you.

 

[Coyote]

Specifically how? What specific element?

The 10 year sunset clause, the complete exclusion of Israel to the details of the deal.

On the first - the agreement isn't complete.
On the second - Israel did that to herself by leaking information while the negotiations were going on.

A sunset clause isn't necesarily a bad thing if the object of the negotiations is to the get the best deal possible now, in hopes of achieving a better one between now and 10 years. The Salt talks began with an executive agreement (exactly like what's happening here) that agreed to a temporary 5-year freeze - in essence, a sunset clause. During that time, negotiations continued that lead to treaties.

 

[TemplarKormac]

it's the office

Perhaps you should reread what I said. I respect the office, not the man.

And your words were specific and I quote "You guys, on the right, are so full of hatred for Obama." You never said anything about the office he held, it was hatred of Obama.

Feeling pretty sanctimoneous here are you?

No more than you appear to be.

ou don't just rise above an "ally" that is deliberately trying to undermine your negotiations.

This whole "disrespect" thing, which was what I was actually addressing, is what Obama tends to repay, not rise above.

 

[TemplarKormac]

On the first - the agreement isn't complete.

Why does it matter? That clause of the agreement hasn't been struck.

A sunset clause isn't necessarily a bad thing if the object of the negotiations is to the get the best deal possible now

The object of a deal, any deal, isn't to be expedient, Coyote.

 

[Coyote]

I've been reading all the crying and complaining that Obama is the most anti-semitic president ever and that he hates Israel yada yada yada. But beyond empty emoting - there is nothing specific.

Oh? And your dismissive attitude is quite specific.

When?

How could you not know? The year was 2011.

Barack Obama Israel must recognise 1967 borders - Telegraph

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/middleeast/20speech.html

Obama Call For 1967 Borders For Israel May Make For Awkward Meeting With Netanyahu

Netanyahu Rejects Obama Call for Palestinian State Based on 1967 Borders Fox News

After Obama speech Netanyahu rejects withdrawal to indefensible 1967 borders - Israel News Haaretz

How does that indicate a "hatred of Israel"? He's not stating Israel must revert to those borders. He's stating that those borders represent a starting point for negotiations - with mutually agreed land swaps. If you are working towards a 2-state solution that is probably the best way to go about it. Neither side will be completely happy.

Obama Call For 1967 Borders For Israel May Make For Awkward Meeting With Netanyahu

"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states," the president said toward the end of a broader speech on the Middle East. "The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their potential in a sovereign and contiguous state."

While the president's position that Israel's borders should return to the borders it had before it occupied the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights marks a new government stance, the idea is hardly a breakthrough among experts and professional peace negotiators. At least one Washington think tank has already drawn several maps detailing possible swaps.

"It's somewhere between a big deal and no big deal," said Aaron David Miller, who spent 25 years as a Middle East negotiator for six U.S. secretaries of state. "And that is exactly what the administration wanted."​

I don't waste time with youtube. What conversation do you mean?

I just told you.

You mean when he called Netanyahu a "chickenshit" in private? And that means he hates Israel?

 

[Coyote]

On the first - the agreement isn't complete.

Why does it matter? That clause of the agreement hasn't been struck.

A sunset clause isn't necessarily a bad thing if the object of the negotiations is to the get the best deal possible now

The object of a deal, any deal, isn't to be expedient, Coyote.

It's not being expedient - it's being pragmatic. And again, I refer you to the Salt talks.

 

[Coyote]

it's the office

Perhaps you should reread what I said. I respect the office, not the man.

And your words were specific and I quote "You guys, on the right, are so full of hatred for Obama." You never said anything about the office he held, it was hatred of Obama.

Feeling pretty sanctimoneous here are you?

No more than you appear to be.

ou don't just rise above an "ally" that is deliberately trying to undermine your negotiations.

This whole "disrespect" thing, which was what I was actually addressing, is what Obama tends to repay, not rise above.

If a key ally were deliberately leaking information on sensitive negotiations - how exactly do you "rise above" it?

 

[TemplarKormac]

On the first - the agreement isn't complete.

Why does it matter? That clause of the agreement hasn't been struck.

A sunset clause isn't necessarily a bad thing if the object of the negotiations is to the get the best deal possible now

The object of a deal, any deal, isn't to be expedient, Coyote.

It's not being expedient - it's being pragmatic. And again, I refer you to the Salt talks.

No deal is created equal. And "pragmatism" is what caused this mess.

 

[Coyote]

So all negotiations that involve one or the other adjusting positions are coercion?

"Agree to this deal, or else."

Does that sound like negotiation to you?

Where did he say that? He didn't did he?

 

[Coyote]

On the first - the agreement isn't complete.

Why does it matter? That clause of the agreement hasn't been struck.

A sunset clause isn't necessarily a bad thing if the object of the negotiations is to the get the best deal possible now

The object of a deal, any deal, isn't to be expedient, Coyote.

It's not being expedient - it's being pragmatic. And again, I refer you to the Salt talks.

No deal is created equal. And "pragmatism" is what caused this mess.

That doesn't make sense.

 

[TemplarKormac]

it's the office

Perhaps you should reread what I said. I respect the office, not the man.

And your words were specific and I quote "You guys, on the right, are so full of hatred for Obama." You never said anything about the office he held, it was hatred of Obama.

Feeling pretty sanctimoneous here are you?

No more than you appear to be.

ou don't just rise above an "ally" that is deliberately trying to undermine your negotiations.

This whole "disrespect" thing, which was what I was actually addressing, is what Obama tends to repay, not rise above.

If a key ally were deliberately leaking information on sensitive negotiations - how exactly do you "rise above" it?

By not throwing a tantrum. You spoke of doing what was in our best interests, you should understand that Israel is doing exactly that, as it pertains to their own.

 

[TemplarKormac]

On the first - the agreement isn't complete.

Why does it matter? That clause of the agreement hasn't been struck.

A sunset clause isn't necessarily a bad thing if the object of the negotiations is to the get the best deal possible now

The object of a deal, any deal, isn't to be expedient, Coyote.

It's not being expedient - it's being pragmatic. And again, I refer you to the Salt talks.

No deal is created equal. And "pragmatism" is what caused this mess.

That doesn't make sense.

Of course it doesn't. People who are simply disinterested in the other position will often claim so.

 

[Coyote]

it's the office

Perhaps you should reread what I said. I respect the office, not the man.

And your words were specific and I quote "You guys, on the right, are so full of hatred for Obama." You never said anything about the office he held, it was hatred of Obama.

Feeling pretty sanctimoneous here are you?

No more than you appear to be.

ou don't just rise above an "ally" that is deliberately trying to undermine your negotiations.

This whole "disrespect" thing, which was what I was actually addressing, is what Obama tends to repay, not rise above.

If a key ally were deliberately leaking information on sensitive negotiations - how exactly do you "rise above" it?

By not throwing a tantrum. You spoke of doing what was in our best interests, you should understand that Israel is doing exactly that.

What tantrum did he throw after information was leaked?

Israel is doing what is in THEIR best interest. Not ours.