Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is heading to the US, and to hear him talk he’s really going to put his foot down with President Obama on the issue of Iran diplomacy.
But President Obama’s comments going in suggest he’s going to focus on the crumbling Israel-Palestinian peace talks, warning that time is running out on Israel to salvage the deal.
Obama went on to say that if Netanyahu needed to come up with an “alternative approach” if he isn’t going to accept the US framework, adding that if the talks fail the US won’t be able to protect Israel from “international isolation and possible sanctions.”
The US has been pushing a “framework” by Secretary of State John Kerry, though both Israeli and Palestinian officials have repeatedly rejected the plan as vague and impractical.
…"if the talks fail the US won’t be able to protect Israel from “international isolation and possible sanctions.”
I'll believe that when I see it.
And you, Jason believing that, otherwise you wouldn’t publish such ridicules nonsense, but let me ask you this question, which president did kept his word regarding Palestinians right and which president ever warned Israel over any peace talks when Israel what it did promised to do, for your info Jason, 550 recorded Israeli abuses of UN charter is filed with UN and non been even criticized by USG, nor any of promises by Israel been materialized. you are being played by an manipulative politician as many time before.
You seem to be in a state of perpetual confusion as to Jason's role.
When Jason writes an article noting that the President of the United States said X, it is in no way, shape, manner or form the same thing as Jason saying that Jason believes X.
What the President of the United States says may indeed be ridiculous nonsense, but the fact that he said it is news. And Jason reports news.
The same news is reported by CNN, BBC, NBC, Fox News and etc. What is the different here and there? Many of Jason's "news" are second hand, like this one. Jason news are actually copied news from somewhere, which means that Jason is not the one writing or as a reporter on the field gathering, interviewing or even participating in a news conference for reporting these news, which then the title (News matter) only can be named or reported by Jason Ditz when is Jason Ditz that writing it, not when he copying a news.
Antiwar.com, as I understand it, is a source of information about the behavior or the political or social economic matters, matters in general which could lead or creat wars, gathering the political or economical information needs to be in parallel with the platform, which means anti war.com needs to have reporters on the ground interviewing people, gathering news in real time and informing others for that reason. Copying what president had said is a second hand reporting of a news which is not in parallel with the antiwar.com concept, which in reality means that Jason Ditz just filing a copied news that is not from antiwar.com . I hope you guys have the copy right contracts with some of these news agencies?
I'm pretty sure that Antiwar.com, not you, gets to decide what "the antiwar.com concept" is.
If you don't like our stuff, feel free not to read it.
I'm sure the Israelis are really scared. Trembling in their boots, even. Ha ha ha ha ha.
Usually a protection racket involves the dominant party being paid by the victim but Israel gets $3000,000,000 a year from the USA did I miss something or is Israel extorting the US?
My God!
Has America and Obama finally come to their senses?
Finally they are showing some common sense and refusing to be pulled by the "balls" into a mess made by AIPAC and Bibi
You think?
I wouldn't bet your paycheck, yet. As soon as Netanyahoo gets done with the supplicating Congress, and AIPAC passes out the checks, Obama may just fold under and return to form. It seems all this Administration can do competently is to make threats they can't or won't back up with action and threatening Israel opens up a whole new set of problems – not that Israel doesn't deserve it.
I bet that went over well with Obama's employers, APAIC/ADL, etc…
Obama just confess to the world that he was the "Enforcer" for Israel's occupation and murder of the Palestinians…..Oh, he is going to ask Bibi to stop assassinating Iranian scientist…..Accessory after the fact or before to murder, you make the call.
To Thomas knapp. No wonder you got 81 points presented to you by Jason Ditz, I didn’t know that bribery is part of antiwar.com or Jason Ditz favoritism is part of argument which is not accepted by you. Were is Jason Ditz to defend himself.
Obama is a manipulative politician as Jason Ditz is, a concept in falsified democracy, copied argument and news defended by such social imbecile as you.
I have no idea who "presented me" with points — but Antiwar.com is by no means the only site I comment on using IntenseDebate.
I seldom see Jason comment. I don't know whether or not he follows the comments, and if he does he probably doesn't feel the need to "defend himself" from BS attacks like yours. He's probably too busy putting together the news that you spend all your time bellyaching about when you're not busily posting the same damn comments over and over on it.
You mean copying news, not putting together news. For your idiotic mind from 1930s ideology, my critic of Jason Ditz "copying news articles" from other sources is about the copy right law, if one of these news agency suing antiwar.com for stealing their news, I hope you have a big pocket or saving money stacked somewhere and willing to put up or you are satisfied with your 89 points of BS writing.
Well, then let me put your mind to rest: Copyright law covers particular phrasing, not facts, events, etc. And it only partly covers particular phrasing ("fair use" is excluded). So even if intellectual property wasn't a BS anti-concept, there would be no problem with Jason reporting the same facts that other places have also published.
But as we both know, that wasn't your "critic" anyway. Your "critic" was that Jason told you something that you didn't want to hear, because it conflicted with your preferred propaganda line. Which is fine, but if you don't want to hear something, why not stop listening to it, instead of complaining about it?
Thomas – While you are correct, I'm wondering why you wasted so much time debating this jerk.