Netanyahu’s clarity and willingness to speak out are fantastic, one of the best diplomats and politicians of our times.
Benjamin Netanyahu on Israel’s Relationship with Russia and the War in Ukraine
Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister-designate of Israel, sat down with Andrew Ross Sorkin of The New York Times to discuss what he described as the fine balance in foreign policy between “moral principles and expediency.” The wide-ranging interview covered Russia’s war in Ukraine, the Iran nuclear deal, and Netanyahu’s hopes for warmer relations with Saudi Arabia, along with his disapproval of Trump’s dinner with the rapper Kanye West. West has been criticized for antisemitic statements.
Bibi wants the US to go to war with Iran and failing that Iran to have nuclear weapons. He just does not get he keeps pushing that binary choice on the US.
Bibi brought up morals. He lost me one more time. Because the first person who says they have morals truly has none.
He is a terrible representative for Israel. He is arrogant as all get out. Everyone sees that in him. The superiority act wears very thin in public. The Israeli public some of them think, “oh he knows English. He will be very clear”. Clearly arrogant is all the rest of the world sees.
This is simple Bibi wanted the US out of the prior deal with Iran. That leaves us either getting another deal or Iran getting weapons. Bibi still does not want a deal with Iran. That can leave us fighting a war with Iran. That is a binary choice Bibi is advocating for the US. The prior deal Obama carved out was absolutely excellent regardless of bl$wh$rd opinions otherwise.
Morals? What are morals? You shall not kill? How many people has Bibi had killed? There is always an excuse. I might even agree with the excuses. But where are the morals? Let’s not pretend there are morals.
Ethics are a different matter. He is having problems in that department as well.
Bibi presents a relationship for Israelis with the US to gain US support. His ability in English is part of that presentation. The Israeli public fails to see just how arrogant Netanyahu comes off. You left off the ‘arrogant’ part of my claim. Why? You do not see him as completely arrogant to the bone?
Netanyahu probably does speak Arabic quite well and understands it possibly better. That is not his failing.
As for denouncing Ye who is worse? Donald, Nick or Ye? It is really hard to tell.
Wake up there were Jews that voted for Hitler. The US Constitution is being treated like a yo yo in the last 72 hours.
The interviewer asked a relevant question about how to balance moral imperative vs. national security which Benjamin Netanyahu answered very clearly and it boils down to, “Survival comes first, everything else comes next.” If Netanyahu was elected it means that the Israeli electorate thinks that survival of Israel comes first, everything else comes next.
Since America faces no such dire threat after the collapse of the USSR, it can afford to pontificate about the moral imperative.
Some in Shiny-land think white, Christian, people being less than half the population is a threat to everything they value. I remember the national “news”, several years ago, reporting (shocking! ALARMING!!!) that white people, and Protestants, were both on trend to being less than half the population.
The Mathematics of race is all screwed up! Say a white and a black have an offspring, this new individual is not considered white but black! That makes no sense since he/she/it is 50/50. If you insist that the new individual be counted as black then in fact you are saying that black genes are more powerful than white genes. The black genes are superior, more powerful!
The user interface is trying to censor this reply…
The Nazis used a similar math with Jews vs. Gentiles admitting that Jewish genes were more powerful!
The Captain
I have archived a copy of this reply because more than likely it will be censored.
I think this is demonstrably correct in the first idea and implicitly correct in the 2nd. Inadvertently, with the notion that any amount of black ancestry mixed with white makes one black, the old racist tainting the white race concept, paradoxically this persistent view argues for its opposite.
It’s a rewriting of history and a disregard of all past decisions on race. It even told me that the person really has no clear understanding of what has happened in the past or the 3/5th rule written into the Constitution. I am glad that the Fool is not deleting the post though because I think it is important for this mindset to be shown for exactly what it is. This is one reason we are unable to get past the issue of race.
I once had a discussion with a person that said the Civil war did not need to be fought because eventually the South would agree to get rid of slavery. When I asked him how long he would be willing to be a slave, his face went blank.
“The person” (The Captain) has not read the US Constitution and was not discussing politics but racism. Since you brought up the the 3/5th rule I looked it up:
Although the Constitution did not refer directly to slaves, it did not ignore them entirely. Article one, section two of the Constitution of the United States declared that any person who was not free would be counted as three-fifths of a free individual for the purposes of determining congressional representation. The “Three-Fifths Clause” thus increased the political power of slaveholding states. It did not, however, make any attempt to ensure that the interests of slaves would be represented in the government.
It’s always been intertwined Captain. The 3/5th rule enshrined racism into the United States Constitution. Politics and racism has with stood the time in the United States. We actually have political candidates meeting with people that are avowed racist and people still support the candidate. It does nobody any good to deny that racism does not exist and the history of what it means to be considered black by having a drop of black blood.
I think you have an involuntary double negative up above. Racism does exist and my post was meant to ridicule the mathematics of racism. How the 3/5th snuck in there is beyond me. BTW, reverse racism, a.k.a. quota systems, does not solve racism.
I also would like to point out that the world does not end at the Rio Grande. The Spanish and Portuguese monarchies were very racist even beyond slavery. The Criollos (Spanish born in the colonies) got very wealthy and wanted to obtain the same noble privileges as their European cousins so they petitioned and bribed the King. But they had a problem, unlike the Pilgrims the Conquistadores didn’t bring women from the Old world and many Criollos had more than a drop of native and black blood in their veins. The Church kept the records and the Church was bribed to “improve the race” meaning to edit out non-white ancestors. These records accompanied the petitions to the King. More often than not there was “a little problem” and a new round of editing and bribery took place.
With the defeat of Napoleon and the weakening of the Spanish monarchy the Criollos changed tactics and opted for independence.
The establishment of the Supreme Caracas Junta following the forced deposition of Vicente Emparan as Captain General of the Captaincy General of Venezuela on 19 April 1810, marked the beginnings of the war.
As you can see from the above, racial maths applies the world over, it’s not an American exclusive. The difference is that LatAm has been much more successful in overcoming racism.
An employer and all other institutions asks if you are male or female, a vet, disabled, a parent, and may other things. But once again race is given short shrift. Convenient nonsense is the reason.
I don’t think anyone said it was an American thing, they just said it existed even today. It always seemed a little strange that people needed to feel superior to someone else just based on their ethnicity or color of their skin.
