http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-official-s...22466.html

More evidence to show you how close R's are to Israel.

Top Rand Paul aide working for Israeli prime minister's re-election effort
http://news.yahoo.com/top-rand-paul-aide...36941.html

The guy's not an aide, he's a political consultant. He's actually a damn good number cruncher, Rand told me he was the best.

So when it was disclosed last week that political consultants to the Obama campaign have gone to work for Netanyahu's opposition, that was simply people seeking work in their profession, but when it's a consultant to a republican, it's suddenly an "aide" with sinister connotations?

Apply the same rule with equal vigor both ways.

(02-06-2015 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The guy's not an aide, he's a political consultant. He's actually a damn good number cruncher, Rand told me he was the best.

So when it was disclosed last week that political consultants to the Obama campaign have gone to work for Netanyahu's opposition, that was simply people seeking work in their profession, but when it's a consultant to a republican, it's suddenly an "aide" with sinister connotations?

Apply the same rule with equal vigor both ways.

Mach can only drive on one way streets.

(02-06-2015 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The guy's not an aide, he's a political consultant. He's actually a damn good number cruncher, Rand told me he was the best.

So when it was disclosed last week that political consultants to the Obama campaign have gone to work for Netanyahu's opposition, that was simply people seeking work in their profession, but when it's a consultant to a republican, it's suddenly an "aide" with sinister connotations?

Apply the same rule with equal vigor both ways.

Did Mach make those comments? I know I did based on what Hillary told me...but I didn't remember seeing him make them?

So to owl...working for someone is not aiding them. Got it.

Quote:In 2012, Harris had worked for Cruz, and many thought he would work for the Texan’s likely presidential campaign. But Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky who is also likely to run for president in 2016, hired Harris last November to be his chief digital strategist.

And Mach did nothing but use the same words as the Yahoo article...but go ahead Owl...rage on with this minutia.

(02-06-2015 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So to owl...working for someone is not aiding them. Got it.

Quote:In 2012, Harris had worked for Cruz, and many thought he would work for the Texan’s likely presidential campaign. But Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky who is also likely to run for president in 2016, hired Harris last November to be his chief digital strategist.

I'd side with Owl on this.. aide is a specific job title, this gentleman is not an aide, as the article states.

It's not guaranteed, but Netanyahu's chances of being PM after the election (March 17) are probably about 75% right now. And John Boehner's chances of being Speaker of the House after that time is roughly 100%, barring death. So in that sense, this really is much ado about nothing. But it does help to crystalize two facts about domestic US politics that have been slowly emerging over the horizon in the post-9/11 era:

1. Virtually every Republican is pro-Israel now.
2. Virtually every anti-Israeli person is a Democrat now.
3. Obama has shown that it is politically safe for a major US politician to give Israel the middle-finger and survive. There are a lot of people taking careful notes of how this plays out. It will be interesting to see the developments in the future.

As recently as 20 years ago, none of those statements would've been true (and they were never true before then). Now they are.

(02-06-2015 11:51 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(02-06-2015 11:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So to owl...working for someone is not aiding them. Got it.

Quote:In 2012, Harris had worked for Cruz, and many thought he would work for the Texan’s likely presidential campaign. But Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky who is also likely to run for president in 2016, hired Harris last November to be his chief digital strategist.

I'd side with Owl on this.. aide is a specific job title, this gentleman is not an aide, as the article states.

Fine, but no need to take Mach to task for it. He should probably apologize to him.

For a long time, it has been normal for American political consultants to work in Israel, the U.K. and other countries during the "off-season." The fact that they have US clients waiting for them when they get back means absolutely nothing.

(02-06-2015 11:51 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  It's not guaranteed, but Netanyahu's chances of being PM after the election (March 17) are probably about 75% right now. And John Boehner's chances of being Speaker of the House after that time is roughly 100%, barring death. So in that sense, this really is much ado about nothing. But it does help to crystalize two facts about domestic US politics that have been slowly emerging over the horizon in the post-9/11 era:

1. Virtually every Republican is pro-Israel now.
2. Virtually every anti-Israeli person is a Democrat now.
3. Obama has shown that it is politically safe for a major US politician to give Israel the middle-finger and survive. There are a lot of people taking careful notes of how this plays out. It will be interesting to see the developments in the future.

As recently as 20 years ago, none of those statements would've been true (and they were never true before then). Now they are.

anti-Bibi does not equal anti-Israel. Bibi operates against US interests by expanding settlements on the West Bank, which is against US policy (Republican and Democrat).

Tel Aviv? Support it. Ariel? Not so much.

Bibi is playing a very dangerous game. Especially with a President that loathes Bibi (for good reason - Bibi is a liar and thinks he is entitled to US support for his policies, regardless of the cost of those policies to the US) and has no election to worry about in the future. And simple opposition to an ungrateful jerk that wants to use our Army to start a war with Iran while making our foreign policy objectives more difficult through slavish devotion to hard line extremists (Ultra settlers on the West Bank) is not going to cost the Dems much

Obama has pretty much washed his hands of Bibi. For good reason.

Bibi has some very bad advisers. They seem to think that neo-conism can sway the American electorate.

The GOP is perfectly welcome to try to sell subrogating our military leadership to Bibi so that he can start a war with Iran using our troops and our money. I don't think that the American people really want that.

(02-06-2015 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The guy's not an aide, he's a political consultant. He's actually a damn good number cruncher, Rand told me he was the best.

So when it was disclosed last week that political consultants to the Obama campaign have gone to work for Netanyahu's opposition, that was simply people seeking work in their profession, but when it's a consultant to a republican, it's suddenly an "aide" with sinister connotations?

Apply the same rule with equal vigor both ways.

He never will. Mach's always been pro-Palestine, it's just who he is.

(02-06-2015 12:23 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-06-2015 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The guy's not an aide, he's a political consultant. He's actually a damn good number cruncher, Rand told me he was the best.

So when it was disclosed last week that political consultants to the Obama campaign have gone to work for Netanyahu's opposition, that was simply people seeking work in their profession, but when it's a consultant to a republican, it's suddenly an "aide" with sinister connotations?

Apply the same rule with equal vigor both ways.

He never will. Mach's always been pro-Palestine, it's just who he is.

If so, why would that be a problem? I don't give two ***** if you're pro-Israel.

(02-06-2015 01:04 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-06-2015 12:23 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(02-06-2015 11:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The guy's not an aide, he's a political consultant. He's actually a damn good number cruncher, Rand told me he was the best.

So when it was disclosed last week that political consultants to the Obama campaign have gone to work for Netanyahu's opposition, that was simply people seeking work in their profession, but when it's a consultant to a republican, it's suddenly an "aide" with sinister connotations?

Apply the same rule with equal vigor both ways.

He never will. Mach's always been pro-Palestine, it's just who he is.

If so, why would that be a problem? I don't give two ***** if you're pro-Israel.

As far as I'm concerned there is no problem. Just Mach's steadfast refusal to acknowledge his stance on the Palestinians.

(02-06-2015 11:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bibi is playing a very dangerous game.

Anyone who disagrees or goes against Obama is playing a dangerous game due to Obama's petulant and capricious nature that puts his ego above our national interests.

(02-06-2015 11:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bibi is playing a very dangerous game. Especially with a President that loathes Bibi (for good reason - Bibi is a liar

Obama is a liar ... if anything, this might endear Bibi to Obama.

(02-06-2015 11:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  anti-Bibi does not equal anti-Israel. Bibi operates against US interests by expanding settlements on the West Bank, which is against US policy (Republican and Democrat).

Please explain how US interests are affected by settlements in the West Bank.

The only real US interest in those settlements are an eventual peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and Obama's rhetoric and actions have delayed that. Obama introduced the idea that a settlement freeze was a pre-condition to talks between the two sides. The PA had never before insisted on such a pre-condition, and that misstep by Obama scuttled any substantial dialog between the two sides for years. It's disingenuous and foolish to try to act as an arbitrator between two sides by leading with "side A, you must give up something for nothing... when that 'something' is obviously going to be part of a give and take between the sides"... that was part of Obama's act to make him look like the Muslim's champion in the West, and Israel simply had no incentive to stroke Obama's ego by complying when it was against their own interests.

It would be nice if the magic key to the conflict were a settlement freeze, which would be followed by delegations from both sides blowing Obama ad infinitum, but it just would never work that way. As long as HAMAS controls basically 1/2 of the Palestinian territories, there will be no settlement. The most conciliatory position that HAMAS has ever taken amounts to "if you will provide the conditions where we can amass enough military might to defeat you, then we will hold off attacking you until we reach that point".

The US has no specific interests regarding whether Israel expands settlements around Jerusalem... that Obama has acted as if it were one has guaranteed poor relations between he and Netanyahu.

Guys, how is this good for Israel or the GOP? This is political malpractice on their part.

I don't see what Boehner is doing here. Its stupid on his part.

And I really don't see how this helps Israel. Perhaps you can help me here. The vast majority of Dems have been very supportive of Israel to the point of excusing all sort of inexcusable behavior. This is going to leave a mark.

Anyone really want to go to war with Iran? I certainly don't.

(02-06-2015 02:29 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(02-06-2015 11:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bibi is playing a very dangerous game.

Anyone who disagrees or goes against Obama is playing a dangerous game due to Obama's petulant and capricious nature that puts his ego above our national interests.

(02-06-2015 11:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bibi is playing a very dangerous game. Especially with a President that loathes Bibi (for good reason - Bibi is a liar

Obama is a liar ... if anything, this might endear Bibi to Obama.

(02-06-2015 11:55 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  anti-Bibi does not equal anti-Israel. Bibi operates against US interests by expanding settlements on the West Bank, which is against US policy (Republican and Democrat).

Please explain how US interests are affected by settlements in the West Bank.

The only real US interest in those settlements are an eventual peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, and Obama's rhetoric and actions have delayed that. Obama introduced the idea that a settlement freeze was a pre-condition to talks between the two sides. The PA had never before insisted on such a pre-condition, and that misstep by Obama scuttled any substantial dialog between the two sides for years. It's disingenuous and foolish to try to act as an arbitrator between two sides by leading with "side A, you must give up something for nothing... when that 'something' is obviously going to be part of a give and take between the sides"... that was part of Obama's act to make him look like the Muslim's champion in the West, and Israel simply had no incentive to stroke Obama's ego by complying when it was against their own interests.

It would be nice if the magic key to the conflict were a settlement freeze, which would be followed by delegations from both sides blowing Obama ad infinitum, but it just would never work that way. As long as HAMAS controls basically 1/2 of the Palestinian territories, there will be no settlement. The most conciliatory position that HAMAS has ever taken amounts to "if you will provide the conditions where we can amass enough military might to defeat you, then we will hold off attacking you until we reach that point".

The US has no specific interests regarding whether Israel expands settlements around Jerusalem... that Obama has acted as if it were one has guaranteed poor relations between he and Netanyahu.

Actually we do have an interest in those settlements. And by WE, I mean every single administration, Republican and Democrat since 1967. You see, those new settlements make a two state solution less viable. And a two state solution is the only way we actually get out of this mess. Walling off the Palestinians in South African style Townships (or would you prefer Reservations) devoid of any economic viability will ensure continued strife. And strife in a region increasingly devoid of economic importance to the US isn't something we need to be concentrating on. Why help a nation that has a government that isn't interested in helping their own situation?

Rightly or wrongly, the US is seen by the World as being responsible for Israel's actions, as we are seen as their patron. We could wash our hands of the whole mess, but that would involve washing our hands of the massive payments we make to Israel.

By the way, making a Palestinian state completely unviable is not in Israel's interest. You see, by 2030, Arabs will outnumber Israelis in the area controlled by Israel. If Israel doesn't produce a viable state for the Palestinians, then all the Palestinians have to do is demand one person one vote. Israel will of course deny that to them, but they will have a serious problem defending that. As a matter of fact, I don't see how the US can stand with Israel in that case. Its going to make Israel look even more like South Africa.

The settlement expansion will help Hamas at the PA's expense. I don't think anyone wants that.

Those settlements are bad for the US and even worse for Israel.

And we are talking about the West Bank, not Gaza.

I look forward to an Israel that is a light unto nations. Bibi's government certainly isn't that.

(02-06-2015 02:29 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys, how is this good for Israel or the GOP? This is political malpractice on their part.

I don't see what Boehner is doing here. Its stupid on his part.

And I really don't see how this helps Israel. Perhaps you can help me here. The vast majority of Dems have been very supportive of Israel to the point of excusing all sort of inexcusable behavior. This is going to leave a mark.

Anyone really want to go to war with Iran? I certainly don't.

I agree with you here on all points. Obama, Netanyahu, and Boehner have all ****** up the situation to varying degrees, and in the long run, it is the Israelis that will suffer the consequences.

As for the Democrats - they excuse all sorts of inexcusable behavior on the part of the Palestinians (not to mention on their own parts, and their own personal behavior).

(02-06-2015 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually we do have an interest in those settlements. And by WE, I mean every single administration, Republican and Democrat since 1967. You see, those new settlements make a two state solution less viable. And a two state solution is the only way we actually get out of this mess. Walling off the Palestinians in South African style Townships (or would you prefer Reservations) devoid of any economic viability will ensure continued strife. And strife in a region increasingly devoid of economic importance to the US isn't something we need to be concentrating on. Why help a nation that has a government that isn't interested in helping their own situation?

As I indicated, it is the two state solution that the US really has an interest in. If you were talking about settlements outside the shadow of Jerusalem, I could agree with you, that the two state solution becomes less viable. I think the settlements are one of the most misguided things that Israel has ever done. However, they showed a willingness to withdraw en masse from settlements over 10 years ago, and the two state solution has become far less likely than it ever was.

The fact is that I don't think the Palestinians were ever going to agree on any kind of reasonable solution, and the settlements around Jerusalem should've been a negotiating point, not a reason to keep the two sides away from the table.

(02-06-2015 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually we do have an interest in those settlements. And by WE, I mean every single administration, Republican and Democrat since 1967. You see, those new settlements make a two state solution less viable. And a two state solution is the only way we actually get out of this mess.

The problem is that there is no viable two state solution within the footprint of Israel.

Disagree? Fine, take a map and a pencil and draw boundary lines that would work for two viable states. You can't do it, because there are none.

That's the elephant in the room here. The Palestinians understand that on some level. I think Netanyahu does too. We don't, and until we do, we will cause more harm than good in the region.

(02-06-2015 11:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-06-2015 02:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually we do have an interest in those settlements. And by WE, I mean every single administration, Republican and Democrat since 1967. You see, those new settlements make a two state solution less viable. And a two state solution is the only way we actually get out of this mess.

The problem is that there is no viable two state solution within the footprint of Israel.

Disagree? Fine, take a map and a pencil and draw boundary lines that would work for two viable states. You can't do it, because there are none.

That's the elephant in the room here. The Palestinians understand that on some level. I think Netanyahu does too. We don't, and until we do, we will cause more harm than good in the region.

2030 is 15 years away. That's not a lot of time. The Palestinians are going to start demanding 'one person one vote'. They will be a majority of the population in the area controlled by the state of Israel by then.

The biggest threat to Israel might actually be the hard liners in the Knesset.