The US shifted away from the Iran talks a few weeks ago, stopping short of declaring them dead. The European Union has saved the process, declaring it back on.
The State Department says that they are once again committed to making a deal, a commitment that seems to vary sometimes. At the same time, spokesman Ned Price says a deal is “far from certain.“
This is the first time the US has commented since the EU went out to salvage the talks, and the US seems determined to position itself as reluctant and pessimistic.
Price then went out to say Iran needs to demonstrate its seriousness. It’s unlikely Iran will be willing to give up much in that regard, as they’re fresh off the US being willing to walk away a more or less finalized deal.
“Price then went out to say Iran needs to demonstrate its seriousness.”
Yesterday’s headline:
“US to Participate in Israeli Military Simulation of Large-Scale Attack on Iran”
Ned is funny.
Iran’s current leaders unspoken message to Biden: “thank you for supporting our Islamic Republic against the pesky reformers in Iran”.
I think the State Department is ‘throwing its voice’… That was Israel talking…
Meanwhile,when a “guest ” at this site writes about the “Rothchilds”,you are silent.
I’m fine with introspection Jake. At the moment, I have a slight brain injury, so, I am not exactly myself… I will try to get back on my game ASAP.
And I still like you Jake, you help to keep things interesting!
Is there any reason to suppose that any given commenter has something to add or subtract from discussion of the Rothschilds?
One the one hand, some people are presumably using mentions of the Rothschilds as proxies — that is, they’d like to openly Jew-bait but know they’ll get banned here if they do, so they walk as close to the line as they can without going over it.
On the other hand, the Rothschild family does in fact operate a large number of multi-billion-dollar businesses and clearly has clout extending across centuries. If the US elected a Jewish president, would it be anti-semitic to discuss the presidency?
It would be ok to discuss the president and presidency.It would not be ok to link this particular president with classic canards.If former president Obama was called a rat based on his character, that would be ok, It would not have been ok to compare him to some of the tailed lower primates-invoking a particular negative bigoted stereotype.
If the US elected a Jewish president,it would be fine to discuss the presidency-it would be wrong to automatically link him to Rothchild wihout reason.No one has linked the Ukraine tragedy to the Vatican Bank or the Queen.
Actually, I do seem to recall a LaRouchie publication bringing the Queen into it recently.
Considering all the “it isn’t apartheid and it’s OK that it’s apartheid because TERRAISM!” stuff you have to do to justify your positions, I can appreciate your acumen in detecting similar behavior from others, though.
There is no sophistry here.Life is complicated.Whatever was done in 1947-48 to create a homeland was sometimes harsh,but necessary. Whatever was done in 1967 to secure national survival was necessary.Knocking over the other guy’s village at this point, or after 1967 is wrong morally and creates more problems down the road. The Arab world for the most part went beyond apartheid into mass expulsion. In Israel today,there are Arab villages where Jewish citizens are ill advised to go.Keeping yourself away from those who wish to kill you is not apartheid, it s necessary common sense.
If you want to argue that apartheid is common sense, that’s up to you.
But “it’s not apartheid because I consider it necessary” doesn’t make it not apartheid.
If the Israeli government wanted to “keep themselves away” from the Palestinian Arabs without an apartheid system, they could — by withdrawing from the West Bank and not trying to have it both ways (“it’s Israel when we want to govern it, but not Israel with respect to the people in it”).
Would doing so have down sides? Certainly.
That’s the trade-off, though. The Israeli regime needs to decide whether the down sides of having people notice they run an apartheid system are worse than the down sides of no longer running an apartheid system.
Whining about people noticing that they run an apartheid system, and demanding that people stop noticing they run an apartheid system, isn’t going to make people stop noticing that they run an apartheid system.
Apartheid is not common sense,it is self defense.No whining here.but a good chunk of those tossing about apartheid comments are just using it to conceal their true generalized animus.
Meanwhile, back in pre 1967 Israel,Arabs due enjoy essentially full rights.
Meanwhile,I have respectfully entered Churches in the US, and nothing bad happened.Christians have respectfully entered synagogues, and nothing bad happened.But I cannot walk upon the Temple mount,if I desire to do so,without problems.
I certainly support the right of Jews to worship in the area in question.
If I’m not mistaken, the original partition plan in the UN resolution called for Jerusalem to be an “international city” under UN administration. Am I recalling that correctly? And if so, do you happen to know the attitude of the Israeli regime toward that possibility? I suspect the “leaders” on the Palestinian Arab side aren’t on board with it, but I haven’t really looked into the matter.
One thing I can say that’s positive about the US is that I have been cordially welcomed at churches of various kinds, synagogues, mosques, Hindu temples, etc., so long as I was respectful to others (which I’ve always been). That aspect of liberalism doesn’t seem to enjoy much adoption in the Middle East.
Here’s the thing: Every so often, things break big in that region. And there is no guarantee that they will always break big to Israel’s benefit. It seems to me that the Israeli regime would be better off in the long run proffering solutions, even if those solutions aren’t accepted, than attempting to occupy an unfriendly population’s land and treat them as less than second-class citizens in perpetuity. That’s obviously not a full-fledged plan, but I don’t have one to offer.
Oslo failed due to the fact that both sides were being wiseguys-a shame.Pulling back from most of the West Bank would have been fine with me,if it left a peaceful,positive Palestine behind.Palestine foolishly would have wanted the rest of what is now Israel And stated as much..Jerusalem might have been shared-a corridor for worship to the wailing wall . Israelis do not forget how the Jordanians expelled them from East Jerusalem, blocked access to the wailing wall, and defiled ancient cemeteries-now they are on top and can not be expected to give Jerusalem away. Quite a mess.
Anything that eases one’s passage through this very difficult world is fine with me.I practice syncretism in matters of spirit,trying to find wisdom from whatever source.
I have been saying it for years. No Iran deal. Zionists had already decided. No slave can defy its master.
Well spoken!
As to the article’s title:
No sh*t, Sherlock.