Outrageous Outrage Over White House 'Jerusalem' Photo Op

Pages

Outrageous Outrage Over White House ‘Jerusalem’ Photo Op

Shrieking Harpie thinks it's a declaration of war

By Vicious Babushka

Middle East • August 2011 • Views: 1,379

viciousbabushka.com

Caption: “Vice President Joe Biden laughs with Israeli President Shimon Peres in Jerusalem [no country], March 9, 2010.

By Adam Kredo.

WASHINGTON (JTA/Washington Jewish Week) — Jerusalem: To be or not to be part of Israel. That’s the question that White House administrations have tiptoed around for decades.

The State Department neither recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s official capital nor views the eastern part of the city — captured from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently annexed — as part of Israel. But Congress passed a law in 2002 that effectively recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Presidents have been caught in the middle, cautiously balancing their pro-Israel rhetoric against longstanding U.S. policy.

That’s exactly where the Obama administration found itself last week after news reports revealed that the White House quietly had removed all references to Jerusalem as being part of Israel from a collection of photos on its website.

The Weekly Standard reported Aug. 9 about a set of White House photos from Jerusalem that had been scrubbed of all explicit references to Israel. Whereas a caption for a shot of Vice President Joe Biden once said that he was dining at the ‘David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem, Israel,’ for instance, the photo was altered to read just ‘Jerusalem.’

Some pro-Israel activists were incensed by the change, charging a White House whitewash and claiming definitive proof that President Obama disdains Israel. To others it appeared that the president was kowtowing to pressure from the State Department, which recently had reiterated its policy against recognizing Jerusalem as part of Israel.

But the White House upon discovering the captions referring to ‘Jerusalem, Israel’ — and with the Obama administration’s policy on Jerusalem being no different than those of his predecessors in the Oval Office — corrected them to reflect longstanding U.S. policy.

Recent Pages by Alouette (Vicious Babushka):
Zaka: The Volunteers Giving Dignity to Israel's Dead Holocaust Survivor Celebrates 90th Birthday in Auschwitz With 100 Descendants Under Linda Yaccarino, X Is Placing Ads for Major Brands on a Verified Pro-Hitler Account House Republicans May Have Committed Some Light Treason - the Bulwark Burn the Witch! Burn Her! GOP PAC Sets AOC on Fire

Jump to bottom

44 comments

sliv_the_eli Tue, Aug 16, 2011 11:46:29am

While the policy reflected in the White House’s scrubbing of the photos is not new, it is nevertheless an outrage, albeit one that is shared by multiple U.S. Presidents of both political parties. Israel remains the only country with which the United States maintains diplomatic relations but in the capital city of which the U.S. does not maintain its embassy.

Even assuming that the U.S. wants to maintain an even-handed position with respect to whether or to what extent Israel will either relinquish or retain parts of East Jerusalem, the only places where Israel’s claim to the rest of Jerusalem as its capital city is a matter of dispute is amongst those nations in the Arab and Muslim world that refuse to this day to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a country. The refusal by successive U.S. Administrations to recognize even the “western” part of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is nothing short of kowtowing to those countries that have refused for 60+ years to recognize the right of Israel, a member state of the United Nations, to exist. It has absolutely nothing to do with the “peace process” as know it or with the Palestinian claim to a capital in East Jerusalem. It is an act of moral cowardice of which successive U.S. presidents are guilty and is, by any objective measure, an outrage.

On a related note, why is it embarrassing, as the author of the linked piece calls it, to have identify Israel as the location of at least that portion of Jerusalem where Israel’s government seat is located and where the photos were taken? The photos taken at Abu Ghraib of U.S. soldiers humiliating prisoners were “embasrrassing”. The photograph of then presidential candidate Gary Hart cavorting with Donna Rice after he had dared the press to find proof of the rumors of his marital infidelity were “embarrassing”. Thhat President Peres’ office, where the photograph shown in the article was taken, is in Jerusalem, Israel, is not “embarrassing”, it is a fact. Can anyone imagine such a statement about an official U.S. government photograph identifying the actual location of any other place in the world?

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 11:47:50am

re: #1 sliv_the_eli

The refusal by successive U.S. Administrations to recognize even the “western” part of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is nothing short of kowtowing to those countries that have refused for 60+ years to recognize the right of Israel, a member state of the United Nations, to exist.

I assume you just don’t know what ‘kowtow’ means, then.

sliv_the_eli Tue, Aug 16, 2011 11:59:03am

re: #2 Obdicut

You know what they say about assuming. I know what the word means, I used the word in strict accordance with its actual meaning and the use of the word accurately conveys the idea for which it was used.

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 12:20:30pm

re: #2 Obdicut

I assume you just don’t know what ‘kowtow’ means, then.

After that whole post, with all that was said, you feel the need to nit pick like that astounds me.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 12:21:40pm

re: #3 sliv_the_eli

You know what they say about assuming. I know what the word means, I used the word in strict accordance with its actual meaning and the use of the word accurately conveys the idea for which it was used.

No, you don’t. You use it because it’s a frequent word that’s been used to attack Obama, even though it bears no relationship to reality.

There is no way that the Obama administration has acknowledged the supremacy of any of the Arab states, nor have they groveled before them.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 12:22:36pm

re: #4 Buck

After that whole post, with all that was said, you feel the need to nit pick like that astounds me.

It’s the central point. He’s claiming the US is subservient to the Arab states. It’s not true. We’re far too entangled with them thanks to our reliance on oil, but there is no way that the US’s attitude towards Arab states can be described as ‘kow-towing’.

sliv_the_eli Tue, Aug 16, 2011 12:37:10pm

re: #5 Obdicut

No, you don’t. You use it because it’s a frequent word that’s been used to attack Obama, even though it bears no relationship to reality.

There is no way that the Obama administration has acknowledged the supremacy of any of the Arab states, nor have they groveled before them.

Sorry to burst your small-minded intellectual bubble, but neither my post, nor my use of the word “kowtow” to describe the actions of successive U.S. presidents has anything to do with your beloved President Obama except insofar as, while he is no more to blame than those who preceded him in the Oval Office, he is nevertheless equally to blame.

sliv_the_eli Tue, Aug 16, 2011 12:44:47pm

re: #6 Obdicut

It’s the central point. He’s claiming the US is subservient to the Arab states. It’s not true. We’re far too entangled with them thanks to our reliance on oil, but there is no way that the US’s attitude towards Arab states can be described as ‘kow-towing’.

Bull shit. If the Arab states did not have oil, the United States would have long ago located its embassy in Jerusalem, as it does in the capital city of every other country with which we have diplomatic relations, and would not hesitate to identify the country in which Jerusalem is located. That we do not do so is solely a function of wanting to avoid causing offense to those who control the West’s access to oil. That is the epitome of kowtowing, which, Mr. Webster, refers to acting obsequiously, not to actually being subservient to another.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 12:45:03pm

re: #7 sliv_the_eli

Okay. Neither Obama, nor any previous administration’s actions can be described as kow-towing.

This is not about Obama, except that he’s the current dude.

Now, this part:

The refusal by successive U.S. Administrations to recognize even the “western” part of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital is nothing short of kowtowing to those countries that have refused for 60+ years to recognize the right of Israel, a member state of the United Nations, to exist. It has absolutely nothing to do with the “peace process” as know it or with the Palestinian claim to a capital in East Jerusalem. It is an act of moral cowardice of which successive U.S. presidents are guilty and is, by any objective measure, an outrage.

You seriously, literally think that all US presidents have just been cowards, and there is no politics or diplomacy at all involved in this? Just cowardice?

What does it gain the US to be cowards?

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 12:47:15pm

re: #8 sliv_the_eli

Bull shit. If the Arab states did not have oil, the United States would have long ago located its embassy in Jerusalem, as it does in the capital city of every other country with which we have diplomatic relations, and would not hesitate to identify the country in which Jerusalem is located.

I agree.

That we do not do so is solely a function of wanting to avoid causing offense to those who control the West’s access to oil.

Yep.

That is the epitome of kowtowing, which, Mr. Webster, refers to acting obsequiously, not to actually being subservient to another.

Ah, you just love the word so much. Yes, the US deals dimplomatically with regimes it would otherwise have nothing to do with because of oil. However, this doesn’t somehow take it out of the realm of politics and diplomacy, and I’ve got no fucking clue why you think it does.

The US can’t suddenly go off oil. It’s not actually possible. The oil is needed. In order to get off it, in order to be able to fully support Israel, we need to change away from an oil-based economy.

Until that happens, no matter how much it may ‘outrage’ you, the US really does actually have to deal with those states for oil.

sliv_the_eli Tue, Aug 16, 2011 12:58:14pm

re: #9 Obdicut

Okay. Neither Obama, nor any previous administration’s actions can be described as kow-towing.

This is not about Obama, except that he’s the current dude.

Now, this part:

You seriously, literally think that all US presidents have just been cowards, and there is no politics or diplomacy at all involved in this? Just cowardice?

What does it gain the US to be cowards?

Not cowards. And, yes, there are “politics and diplomacy” involved in this, but the basic rules of diplomacy are that you respect another sovereign’s choice of its capital city. Fundamentally, the only “politics and diplomacy” that warrants treating our ally, Israel, differently is the desire not to offend Israel’s sworn enemies, who possess oil and have shown a willingness to use oil as an economic weapon. Consequently, while the position that successive U.S. presidents have taken on this issue is one that can readily be explained on the basis of politics or even self-interested economics, it is nevertheless, in my view an act of moral cowardice.
You are, of course, free to disagree with my opnion. If so, your view would be shared by the State Department’s establishment. Congress obviously felt differently when it overwhelmingly passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act more than a decade and a half ago.

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 1:02:26pm

The idea that the arab states would stop providing the West oil if the West were to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel is ridiculous.

In my opinion it is cowardice. Political cowardice.

You do what is right. You do not shrink from taking sides. In this case, the right side is very clear. AND NOT taking sides only extends the debate.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 1:04:10pm

re: #11 sliv_the_eli

Not cowards.

Then don’t say that it’s an act of cowardice, please.

And, yes, there are “politics and diplomacy” involved in this, but the basic rules of diplomacy are that you respect another sovereign’s choice of its capital city.

Really? Where’s that listed in those ‘rules’ exactly?

Consequently, while the position that successive U.S. presidents have taken on this issue is one that can readily be explained on the basis of politics or even self-interested economics, it is nevertheless, in my view an act of moral cowardice.

Only if you take a particularly blinkered and useless view of the world. I’d say the act of moral cowardice is those who oppose the US moving off of the oil economy. That is the root cause. While our economy is so entangled, there is not a real option to start pissing off the Arab states. It’s not cowardice to not take the option that leads to goddamn economic disaster.

The path to hope for Israel lies in getting off oil. That is all. It doesn’t lie in the US calling Jerusalem the Israeli capital. That is a symbolic issue that would not do a damn bit of actual good.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 1:06:11pm

re: #12 Buck

The idea that the arab states would stop providing the West oil if the West were to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel is ridiculous.

That’s not the claim, though, assumptive Buck.

You do what is right. You do not shrink from taking sides. In this case, the right side is very clear. AND NOT taking sides only extends the debate.

What would happen if the US ‘took Israel’s side’. What would actually occur that benefited Israel?

The truth is that those who have prevented us from moving away from oil— the conservatives, in other words, that you give unfailing support to— are the ones who keep the Arab states strong and lethal. Those are those who are endangering Israel.

sliv_the_eli Tue, Aug 16, 2011 1:06:53pm

re: #10 Obdicut

I might be more inclined to agree with your view on the subject if your arguments had not also been made by those who advised President Truman not to recognize the Jewish State in 1948, and by those who urged President Nixon not to send Israel emergency military assistance as it was fighting for its survival after the surprise attack by Egypt and Syria on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. Similar arguments were made by those who told successive U.S. presidents not to take up the plight of Soviet refuseniks. And, doubtless, someone urged President Reagan not to antagonize the Soviet Union by calling on Mr. Gorabachev to tear down that ignominious wall. Indeed, such arguments were even made by some of those who advised the current President not to support the “democracy” protestors in the Arab world. In each of the instances I cited, the then President of the United States engaged in an act of moral courage, despite the potential, and even significant (as in the oil embargo) consequences.

Sometimes diplomacy and politics requires taking a moral stand. So, yes, I am outraged by the fact that we treat our ally this way in order to not offend those who seek to destroy our ally. I expect more of the leader of the free world. If others have lower expectations, and are therefore not outraged, that is their right.

sliv_the_eli Tue, Aug 16, 2011 1:12:37pm

re: #14 Obdicut

Obdicut, your assertion that this is merely a failing of conservatives is historically incorrect. I have been hearing so-called leaders from all across the poliitcal spectrum in this country speak of getting us off the oil economy since I was a child, and yet no administration, be it Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative has truly done jack-squat in order to do so.

As for the question that started all this, tell us, what is your view? Is it morally justified that the only country in whose capital city we do not have our embassy is the one that the oil producing countries hope to destroy? By the same token, was Chamberlain’s agreement to sacrifice the Sudetenland to Nazi Germany justified merely because there were “diplomatic” or “political” reasons for doing so?

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 1:16:14pm

re: #14 Obdicut

What would happen if the US ‘took Israel’s side’. What would actually occur that benefited Israel?

I think that the conflict would end. The Palestinian leadership is fed by the support they get. Like a drug addict, they will only quit when they have no other choice.

The truth is that those who have prevented us from moving away from oil— the conservatives, in other words, that you give unfailing support to— are the ones who keep the Arab states strong and lethal. Those are those who are endangering Israel.

Ahhh….the truth according to Obdicut. Don’t you really mean “In my opinion”?

There is no need to move away from oil. All the oil the US needs for generations is right here in the same continent. The number one (by far) exporter of oil to the US is Canada. And in a couple of years that could be doubled. Oil from the USA proper could be doubled in a few years…

Who is opposing that?

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 1:28:29pm

re: #15 sliv_the_eli

No, the argument I’m making is about a symbolic act, and not in any way analagous to actually sending aid.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 1:29:25pm

re: #16 sliv_the_eli

Obdicut, your assertion that this is merely a failing of conservatives is historically incorrect. I have been hearing so-called leaders from all across the poliitcal spectrum in this country speak of getting us off the oil economy since I was a child, and yet no administration, be it Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative has truly done jack-squat in order to do so.

The ones who are actively working against it are on the conservative side of the spectrum. The ones not doing crap include tons on the liberal side, but those actually opposing it, those funding AGW denial, are on the conservative side.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 1:31:50pm

re: #17 Buck

I think that the conflict would end. The Palestinian leadership is fed by the support they get. Like a drug addict, they will only quit when they have no other choice.

The Palestinians would still get all— even more, actually— support from the Arab states. So even if your analogy is true, it’d make the problem worse.

Ahhh…the truth according to Obdicut. Don’t you really mean “In my opinion”?

No. It’s factually true. The AGW-denial of the GOP, the right-wing think-tanks, all of the forces opposing transition to alternative energy are on the right. You don’t want to deal with this, but it’s true.

There is no need to move away from oil. All the oil the US needs for generations is right here in the same continent.

See? Right damn there.

It doesn’t matter where the oil is, Buck, because oil is fungible. As long as someone is buying their oil, they remain powerful and rich, and able to affect the world economy at will.

The number one (by far) exporter of oil to the US is Canada. And in a couple of years that could be doubled. Oil from the USA proper could be doubled in a few years…

Please back that stupid claim up, please.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 1:55:56pm

You know what I’d love? I’d love for the US to sign a mutual defense treaty with Israel. To make a firm commitment that if they are attacked, we’ll respond.

What needs to happen for us to do that? We need to get off oil. That is the path that allows that. So let’s do that. Let’s be official allies with Israel, and protect her from anyone seeking to exterminate her.

sliv_the_eli Tue, Aug 16, 2011 2:19:57pm

re: #21 Obdicut

You know what I’d love? I’d love for the US to sign a mutual defense treaty with Israel. To make a firm commitment that if they are attacked, we’ll respond.

What needs to happen for us to do that? We need to get off oil. That is the path that allows that. So let’s do that. Let’s be official allies with Israel, and protect her from anyone seeking to exterminate her.

I am in near-total agreement with your view. The only difference is that I don’t think we should make getting off oil a pre-condition for doing that. Hell, doing so without first getting off oil could actually prompt a circumstance in which the price of oil spikes sufficiently to prompt Americans to make a real effort to “get off oil”. And that, my friends, is what I would call a “win-win”.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 2:28:20pm

re: #22 sliv_the_eli

I am in near-total agreement with your view. The only difference is that I don’t think we should make getting off oil a pre-condition for doing that.

There is no ‘make’ about it. We can’t do it, otherwise. Not in the real world, where the Arab states would be able to actually finally cement Israel = US. The Arab states would eject our military from everywhere they’re currently allowed to be, losing most of our ability to effectively strike at terrorist in the Middle East, who would now be funded even more than ever. The economic damage to the US from the Arab states invalidating our oil contracts would be very high. The Arab states would suffer a little, but recover quickly, since oil is fungible. They’d be more strongly aligned against Israel and the US, and not any weaker.

ell, doing so without first getting off oil could actually prompt a circumstance in which the price of oil spikes sufficiently to prompt Americans to make a real effort to “get off oil”. And that, my friends, is what I would call a “win-win”.

That’s not at all realistic. The price of oil has a relationship with the amount of use, but not an linear one. And individual Americans paying high prices for oil as a proxy way to get them to support alternative energy is incredibly backwards. The US should be making a gigantic national effort towards alternative energy right now. We’re not, because we have insane lunatics making up one of the parties in Congress, and because the other party is insipid.

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 3:18:11pm

re: #20 Obdicut

Please back that stupid claim up, please.

America’s oil shale reserves are enormous, totaling at least 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. That’s five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia!

There is new technology that can extract it.

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 3:21:47pm

re: #20 Obdicut

The Palestinians would still get all— even more, actually— support from the Arab states. So even if your analogy is true, it’d make the problem worse.

So the west pays and supports the bad guys because we don’t want other bad guys to support them?

No. The actual support they get from the tyrants of the middle east (TOTME) is negligible. A lot of talk, but little actual cash. And even if they did become a serious cash drain on the TOTME then those countries would start to want to see an end to this conflict.

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 3:27:51pm

re: #23 Obdicut

The Arab states would eject our military from everywhere they’re currently allowed to be, losing most of our ability to effectively strike at terrorist in the Middle East, who would now be funded even more than ever. The economic damage to the US from the Arab states invalidating our oil contracts would be very high. The Arab states would suffer a little, but recover quickly, since oil is fungible. They’d be more strongly aligned against Israel and the US, and not any weaker.

Countries that fund terrorism are on notice that what happened to others could happen to them. The US companies can take their technology and drill where they are NOT funding terrorism (which is happening now anyway)., The US might suffer a little, but they would throw that monkey off their back.

You are basically admitting that it is better to placate the anti Israel, anti democracy tyrants than to do the right thing.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 3:39:12pm

re: #24 Buck

America’s oil shale reserves are enormous, totaling at least 1.5 trillion barrels of oil. That’s five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia!

There is new technology that can extract it.

I said back it up, not just assert. Why the hell would we develop the technology to go after more oil, increasing AGW and the disaster it brings, when we could develop artificial technology? Why would we incur the incredible environmental harm?

Your assumption is predicated on an estimation of oil that we have no idea how quickly we could extract, given that we don’t have the technology right. And furthermore, the oil would run out. All the oil will run out. There is no long-term energy plan that involves oil.

And again: Since oil is fungible, it doesn’t matter much. The price of oil is what keeps the Arab nations strong. The use of it at all. Not the specific sale of it to the US.

So the west pays and supports the bad guys because we don’t want other bad guys to support them?

No. No clue what you’re talking about, here.

Countries that fund terrorism are on notice that what happened to others could happen to them.

What are you talking about? You think the US, refusing to raise taxes and cutting defense spending, is looking to get into another war in the Middle East? We spent more than a trillion there already. How much more do you think the US can spend over there?

The US might suffer a little, but they would throw that monkey off their back.

No, because oil is fungible. They might lose a very small amount per barrel. Very small. That’s all that would happen. The price of oil is set by the use of oil. As long as we use oil, the Arab nations remain strong and remain powerful enemies of Israel. And that’s the status quo that you support.

You are basically admitting that it is better to placate the anti Israel, anti democracy tyrants than to do the right thing.

And what’s ‘the right thing’?

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 5:11:03pm

Let me summarize your position.

We’re entangled with the Arab States thanks to our reliance on oil.

In order to be able to fully support Israel, we need to change away from an oil-based economy.

The right opposes the US moving off of the oil economy. (Not strictly true, they just don’t want the government to fund this shift).

If the US did move off of the oil economy (ideally by creating green technology and forcing people to use it), then we would be able to support Israel, because we would no longer need their oil.

However, between oil shale reserves and Canada’s oil sands, we could very simply change away from an Arab State provided oil, and that would NOT allow us to fully support Israel because oil is fungible. It just isn’t fungible when we stop buying Arab State oil due to green technology.

AND you don’t know what the right thing is, in relation to this conversation.

—————————-
The technology to extract oil from shale already exists, and there is already a pipeline and technology to use it. However the left is against it.

You make the point that the right is anti green technology. Reality is that the right simply does not want to spend billions in tax dollars to try and pick the best technology. You don’t see right wing protesters trying to stop some company from developing green technology. Just protesters trying to stop the government from spending tax dollars to do it.

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 5:14:10pm

You said:

The Palestinians would still get all— even more, actually— support from the Arab states. So even if your analogy is true, it’d make the problem worse.

I said:

So the west pays and supports the bad guys because we don’t want other bad guys to support them?

And you didn’t understand that?

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 5:19:44pm

re: #28 Buck

Let me summarize your position.

This should be great.

We’re entangled with the Arab States thanks to our reliance on oil.

Nope. The world economy is entangled with the Arab States due to the economy’s reliance on oil. That’s why developing alternative oil is important.

In order to be able to fully support Israel, we need to change away from an oil-based economy.

We as in the world, yes. But the US needs to lead.

The right opposes the US moving off of the oil economy. (Not strictly true, they just don’t want the government to fund this shift).

No, it is strictly true. You’re ignoring, as you always do, the massive amount of propaganda put out by the right wing denying AGW, promoting ‘clean coal’, and other such idiocy.

If the US did move off of the oil economy (ideally by creating green technology and forcing people to use it), then we would be able to support Israel, because we would no longer need their oil.

We already do support Israel. We would be able to support Israel more.

However, between oil shale reserves and Canada’s oil sands, we could very simply change away from an Arab State provided oil, and that would NOT allow us to fully support Israel because oil is fungible.

We couldn’t do it at all simply. I have no idea why you’re asserting that. It’d be an enormous process, cause huge amounts of environmental damage, and the oil, again, is limited. There is no choice of staying on oil indefinitely. It’s not possible.

It just isn’t fungible when we stop buying Arab State oil due to green technology.

Not we. The world.

AND you don’t know what the right thing is, in relation to this conversation.

Yeah. I mean, I’d say the right thing is signing a mutual defense treaty with Israel. Is that what you mean?

—-

The technology to extract oil from shale already exists, and there is already a pipeline and technology to use it. However the left is against it.

There is not technology that can extract all of it, no. Some if it extractable. The actual cost to do so is high.

You make the point that the right is anti green technology. Reality is that the right simply does not want to spend billions in tax dollars to try and pick the best technology.

No, this is you ignoring the anti-science disinformation put out by the GOP about AGW, and oil in general.

You don’t see right wing protesters trying to stop some company from developing green technology. Just protesters trying to stop the government from spending tax dollars to do it.

You see right wing politicians saying that AGW doesn’t exist, it isn’t happening, and burning fossil fuels certainly doesn’t cause it.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 5:21:35pm

re: #29 Buck

You said:

I said:

And you didn’t understand that?

Well, I didn’t understand your logic.

So the west pays and supports the bad guys because we don’t want other bad guys to support them?

No, mainly because it’s pointless not to buy their oil— and keep a military presence there, and enjoy other benefits— as long as we’re buying that amount of oil. Because, again, oil is fungible.

As long as we buy X oil, the Arab world profits by that. The only way to reduce their profits is buy buying less oil.

Please try sourcing your claims about the oil reserves so you don’t look like you just believe what’s convenient for yourself, by the way.

Doubt you will.

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 5:49:37pm

re: #31 Obdicut

Please try sourcing your claims about the oil reserves so you don’t look like you just believe what’s convenient for yourself, by the way.

Doubt you will.

Because I know that is a trap. The only sources for oil reserve data would come from what you will consider a tainted source.

You can look it up.

Yeah. I mean, I’d say the right thing is signing a mutual defense treaty with Israel. Is that what you mean?

This thread is about recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. However you like to change the subject… You might want to read the post again.

You’re ignoring, as you always do, the massive amount of propaganda put out by the right wing denying AGW, promoting ‘clean coal’, and other such idiocy.

That is not opposing green technology, it is opposing “cap and trade”
type legislation.

Not we. The world.

So, in order for the USA to fully support Israel, we Jews have to wait for the entire world to shift fully away from an oil economy.

I don’t think we can wait that long.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 5:57:41pm

re: #32 Buck

Because I know that is a trap. The only sources for oil reserve data would come from what you will consider a tainted source.

Why would I consider them tainted? What’s wrong with them?

This thread is about recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. However you like to change the subject… You might want to read the post again.

I love how you insist people stay on topic, and yet go off topic all the time yourself. It’s one of your many lovely hypocritical features.

That is not opposing green technology, it is opposing “cap and trade”
type legislation.

Well, that was pathetic. No, Buck, it is demonstrably true that the GOP and the right-wing in general deny global warming. It is not just about opposing cap and trade.

Deal with it.

So, in order for the USA to fully support Israel, we Jews have to wait for the entire world to shift fully away from an oil economy.

Depends what you mean by ‘fully’, I guess. What support does Israel currently need?

I don’t think we can wait that long.

It’ll come faster if the right wing and conservatives stop denying AGW. So get on that, would you?

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 6:12:18pm

re: #33 Obdicut

in general deny global warming.

Again that is not the same thing as opposing the development of green technology. Do you get that? If someone wants to spend their money developing electric cars, wind mills, or tide based electricity generators… Conservatives have never actively opposed them. No protests. No legislation created to stop them. You said that conservatives have as a group prevented the world from moving away from oil. I am saying that not accepting the A in AGW, is not the same thing as preventing the world from moving away from oil.

What support does Israel currently need?

Bzzzzzt! The secret topic is: “Recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel”

Sorry you were unable to guess it.
Maybe you should have used a life line. You could have called a friend, or asked the audience…. OR READ THE POST!

We do have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 6:19:20pm

Something else you can look up: Menachem Zivotofsky

It is relevant.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 6:37:11pm

re: #34 Buck

Again that is not the same thing as opposing the development of green technology.

It certainly is a gigantic fucking roadblock in front of it, given that fossil fuels are ‘cheaper’, when you don’t actually assign the environmental cleanup cost to them.

So yes, by denying AGW and preventing us from dealing with it, conservatives really are opposing green tech.

Defend it if you like, but stop dodging around and pretending it’s no bleeding obvious.

Bzzzt! The secret topic is: “Recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel”

Gee, then why were you talking about Israel getting the US’s full support?

Buck, topics lead to other topics. Things are connected. This is fine. Given your habit of endlessly spinning, dodging, and bringing up irrelevant crap, you’re the last person I can take seriously with a po-faced ‘stay on topic’ jibe.

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 6:54:45pm

re: #36 Obdicut

then why were you talking about Israel getting the US’s full support?

I used your term.
It was also you who said:

The US can’t suddenly go off oil. It’s not actually possible. The oil is needed. In order to get off it, in order to be able to fully support Israel, we need to change away from an oil-based economy.

You were talking about the US not being able to fully support Israel until the US change away from an oil-based economy.

I thought you understood that the support that was being talked about was recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

Maybe you can re-read the topic, and the comment at #1, which is what you were arguing against.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 7:24:16pm

re: #37 Buck

I thought you understood that the support that was being talked about was recognizing Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

Given that I already said that was a symoblic gesture that wouldn’t actually do any good, I guess you’re just not paying any atteniotn.

Maybe you can re-read the topic, and the comment at #1, which is what you were arguing against.

Try reading what I’ve already said on the topic.

Can I remind you of this next time you go wildly off-topic, how you were red-facedly scolding me for departing from the topic?

I won’t, because it won’t make a dent in you. You don’t care to examine your own positions or behavior in the least.

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 7:35:53pm

re: #38 Obdicut

Given that I already said that was a symoblic gesture that wouldn’t actually do any good, I guess you’re just not paying any atteniotn.

It is funny, I do a search on this page for “symoblic gesture” and I don’t seem to find where you said that “already”.

It was not a “symoblic gesture” when in 2002, Congress directed the State Department to “record the place of birth as Israel” in passports of American children born in Jerusalem if their parents ask.

It was not just a “symoblic gesture” when President George W. Bush signed that bill. Yes, I know he opposed it, but he signed it.

And it would not be a “symoblic gesture” to me and millions of Jews who feel that this is really a terrible way to treat a friend.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 7:50:50pm

re: #39 Buck

It is funny, I do a search on this page for “symoblic gesture” and I don’t seem to find where you said that “already”.

Yeah. I guess you can’t read.

re: #13 Obdicut
The path to hope for Israel lies in getting off oil. That is all. It doesn’t lie in the US calling Jerusalem the Israeli capital. That is a symbolic issue that would not do a damn bit of actual good.

It was not a “symoblic gesture” when in 2002, Congress directed the State Department to “record the place of birth as Israel” in passports of American children born in Jerusalem if their parents ask.

Yes, it was.

It was not just a “symoblic gesture” when President George W. Bush signed that bill. Yes, I know he opposed it, but he signed it.

Again, yes it was.

And it would not be a “symoblic gesture” to me and millions of Jews who feel that this is really a terrible way to treat a friend.

Yes, even the language you’re using to talk about it shows that it would, in fact, be a symbolic gesture.

I don’t get the magical thinking at work here. US recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And then? What benefit does Israel get from this? What is the actual, literal benefit achieved?

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 8:15:40pm

I don’t get the magical thinking at work here. US recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And then? What benefit does Israel get from this? What is the actual, literal benefit achieved?

Ya, I know you don’t get it. But I also know you don’t think it is a “symbolic issue”.

If it was, then it would be done. But you are really convinced that it would lead to “goddamn economic disaster”. Hardly simply a symbolic issue.

It certainly is more than a “symbolic issue”. Jerusalem is not just a city to the Jews. Every year, for generations we say “Next Year in Jerusalem”. In every Synagogue in the world the worshipers face Jerusalem. The city is filled with our history going back more than 2000 years. A history of a Jewish presence before there was a christian or a muslim.

I have lived there. Maybe there is nothing in your life like that. I don’t know you. Maybe you and your people have no history. Well if you did you would understand when someone tells you that it is not really yours.

Jerusalem is the Capital City of Israel. Jerusalem is part of Israel. Not symbolically, but in fact.

I suppose the guy who said “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” thinks that was only symbolic too.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Tue, Aug 16, 2011 8:54:07pm

re: #41 Buck

If it was, then it would be done. But you are really convinced that it would lead to “goddamn economic disaster”. Hardly simply a symbolic issue.

I don’t actually think recognizing it as Jerusalem alone would do much of anything. I think it’d piss off the Arab nations and achieve nothing else. They might retaliate. The part that ends in economic disaster is if the US fully allies with Israel.

certainly is more than a “symbolic issue”. Jerusalem is not just a city to the Jews. Every year, for generations we say “Next Year in Jerusalem”. In every Synagogue in the world the worshipers face Jerusalem. The city is filled with our history going back more than 2000 years. A history of a Jewish presence before there was a christian or a muslim.

Your listing lots of reasons why it’s a symbolic gesture for the US to recognize it as the capital, you realize.

I have lived there. Maybe there is nothing in your life like that. I don’t know you. Maybe you and your people have no history. Well if you did you would understand when someone tells you that it is not really yours.

You’re kind of rambling. I certainly don’t think Jerusalem is mine; I’m not Israeli.

Jerusalem is the Capital City of Israel. Jerusalem is part of Israel. Not symbolically, but in fact.

It is part of Israel. It’d also be a symbolic gesture for the US to recognize it as the capital.

Can you actually answer the question of what effect it would have, the US recognizing it? What benefit would accrue to Israel from the US doing that?

Buck Tue, Aug 16, 2011 9:06:00pm

re: #42 Obdicut

Can you actually answer the question of what effect it would have, the US recognizing it?

I have. You dismiss it as symbolic. However it is enough for me that you admit that the only reason not to is because it “piss off the Arab nations”.

That might not be ‘kow-towing’ in the strictest sense of the word, but it certainly is accommodating them. I just don’t think they have done anything to deserve that accommodation.

Glenn Beck's Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut Wed, Aug 17, 2011 2:37:18am

re: #43 Buck

I have. You dismiss it as symbolic. However it is enough for me that you admit that the only reason not to is because it “piss off the Arab nations”.

No, you haven’t. You haven’t pointed out an benefit Israel would actually get.

That might not be ‘kow-towing’ in the strictest sense of the word, but it certainly is accommodating them. I just don’t think they have done anything to deserve that accommodation.

They don’t deserve it in the least. Weirdly enough, the world doesn’t operate on the ‘just desserts’ principle.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!