Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic An apology to all Israeli nationals on this board

After reading the below article, I am so ashamed of our President...

Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama \'dumped him for dinner\'

James

I only post this here because I know some of our FOLC's are from Israel.

I second James' sentiment. President Obama's behaviours toward Israel are even worse than I had feared they would be based on his previous track record.

I'm sure I join all of Israel in hoping that he will be a one-term president. In the meantime, please know that the attitude of my country's president does not reflect that of most of the citizens of the United States.

- Lynn

Discussions such as these are largely why I do not come on these boards anymore.

I was coming here with the hope that this sort of thing had passed but apparently it has not.

*goes back into hiatus once more*

Was this congressman a member of AIPAC by any chance? A Republican? Who is he? Unless we know, we are unable to judge the validity of his statements or whether he has an agenda or vested interest in making things up. Claarly, as he 'spoke to the Prime Minister', the one thing we do know about him is that he has close links with him.

So it seems even his own people blame him, not Obama for this argument.

Seriously, I see a lot of questions in this article - the use of uncredited sources is a particular problem for credibility - and I wouldn't believe all you read in newspapers.

LabRat

Labby's instincts appear to be right on the money...
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/0...a-net.html?imw=Y&f=most-emailed-24h5 updated an article that reported on the same topic as follows:

There seems to be very little posted online about what had actually happened; specifically, on how the meeting ended. (i.e., Did the president walk out in a huff but not say anything about dinner with his family? Did he *say* that he was going to eat with his family, even though he knew they weren't there? Did nothing remotely like any of this happen and did the meeting in fact end amicably?)

I should have read the original article with a more critical eye. I shall endeavor to do so with similar articles in the future.

- Lynn

I agree with Jojo about divisive posts like these. Remember that old lesson about religion and politics?

I am not taking any position on the Obama/Netenyahu flap at this time. I don't believe we have all the information yet.

But I would like to say that the old "Don't discuss religion and politics" bromide is both tiresome and false. If we can't allow friends to have differing opinions, we're not going to have many friends. I do understand that some people are so inundated by political or religious controversy that they really don't want to be smacked with it here. But you don't have to read it or comment on it.

These two subjects are so pervasive and far-reaching that it's hard to find a theme which doesn't involve one or both of them. And I have some examples from canon. The episode where Lois traveled to a parallel Earth to meet alt-Clark ("Tempus, Anyone?") made a subtle but definite pro-gun control statement with the well-armed citizenry of alt-Metropolis. The episode with Katie Banks ("Ghosts") took a definite stand against a number of Christian teachings. And this was a show which did not develop explicit political or religious themes.

Politics and religion are a huge part of all of our lives. If you don't wish to discuss politics or religion here, I respect your choice. Really, I do. And I understand it. But telling others to avoid such postings or story themes isn't far from censorship.

As long as the thread is civil in tone and based in fact, I have no problem reading such posts, whether I agree with the poster or not.

My folks just returned from a two week trip to Israel. While they were gone, I read the Jerusalem Post on-line every day (you know, just to keep an eye out for any stories about tourists being killed or injured). Anyway, I never came across any stories about this alledged incident. So I doubt it ever happened. Or if, for some reason, they decided not to dine together, I doubt it was some big international incident. Maybe it was something as simple as the President was having zebra for dinner and the Prime Minister didn't like zebra.

ML

I'm with Terry on this one. If you don't want to read about political controversy, avoid it. Censorship of people's opinions isn't a good idea.

Nan

All of the following are from the Jersusalem Post (online):

Obama demands Netanyahu’s peace answers by Saturday – 3/25/2010
[T]he administration’s treatment of Netanyahu during his meeting with Obama created the impression of a deep crisis in relations. As Jackson Diehl wrote in The Washington Post, the White House’s refusal to allow non-official photographers record the Obama-Netanyahu meeting, and the fact that no statement was issued afterward, led to the impression that “Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length.”

== == ==
Post poll: Obama still in single digits – 3/26/2010
9% of local Jews say US administration pro-Israel; 48% call it pro-Palestinian. The poll of a representative sample of 500 Israelis was conducted on Sunday and Monday after weeks of heightened tensions between Obama and Israel, but before the crisis intensified during Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House. (emphasis mine)

== == ==
PM won’t drop coalition partners – 3/26/2010
Hermesh described the prime minister upon his return to Israel as “defeated, embarrassed and humiliated.”

== == ==
Obama didn’t mean to snub PM – 3/28/2010
Reuters quoted David Axelrod as saying[...] "there was no snub intended."

Note: In the comments section, one Israeli wrote, “Obama's clear snub of Bibi was not only meant as a gesture of hostility towards Israel and solidarity with Israel's enemies. It was also meant as a trial balloon in the U.S. If Americans accepted the snub, Obama would stand by it. However, Obama's disgusting snub of Bibi was rightly condemned by America's media and leaders. Thus Obama now claims it was unintentional."

As others have said, we do not know all the details of what happened. Even if it turns out this was much ado about nothing, (even if it turns out it was all a misunderstanding over zebra for dinner!), it still never hurts to simply remind our Israeli friends on the boards that we support Israel and consider her our friend and ally.

No matter where Mr. Obama stands on the issue, I will always consider myself a friend of Israel.

Nan

Most news posts state that it was to "have dinner in private".

Still, there is no excuse for the making demands and rude treatment of a long-time friend and ally.

And while it is true I am more inclined to fault this Administration due to my political leanings, I would have offered the same posting if Bush had done the same thing and I was aware of it.

James, who has always held Israel as important in world history.

Guess I missed something when reading the Jerusalem Post, eh? Of course, in my own defence, none of those quotes include the phrase: "tourist dead."

ML

I never called for censorship. I just said I'd be taking my participation to other boards. I came back here because I have had several people thank me for standing up on this point and then saw some of the comments.

It is fine that you don't want to censor people. But you are driving a good number of the people on your board away because people want to post inflammatory posts that they know people who don't hold their same view would take offense to and be upset about. But that doesn't matter to most of you because you are all of the same opinion. Those of us on the other side have felt threatened and been treated as rejects and as if we are stupid.

If you see the poll on this very subject you will find most people would prefer we NOT talk about subjects such as this.

So yes, I am not on the board because of this. Because I don't want to have to pick and choose through topics hoping none of them have devolved into a political discussion.

But it doesn't seem to be that you guys care that you are running some members off the boards... and when it is quiet here and no one is posting a thing and you are all sitting here wondering why.

Well here is your answer. Because quite frankly you guys don't care about what part of the board feels.

This is the end of my posting here.

Those of you who support me... please don't let me know the outcome of this because honestly I'm done at this point.

Just because I was intrigued, I found the poll here:
politics on the board, yay or nay?

I'm always afraid of offending people over such topics, but it seems like there's pretty even divide here--half don't mind politics, and half do mind it...

Elsewhere, thank you for calling Israel to my attention. I really do love to read your guys' posts from all sides of the coin...I can't form an opinion just from what one side has to say on a topic. Thanks all!
JD

Although I am broadly in agreement with JoJo on these topics - they irritate me to the point that I can't even open them any more and deeply regret it when I do - I think it is worth pointing out here the admins of these boards have never, to my knowledge, had a single official complaint about them.

We make no apologies for not basing board policy on rumour and gossip and reported third party conversations with people who heard people (unnamed of course) expressing dissatisfaction.

And, as Jen points out, the results of that poll can hardly be called conclusive in favour of those wanting a ban on these topics. Far more voted either positively for them or expressed no real opinion either way on them than voted negatively against them. It certainly cannot be seen as an endorsement of your argument, Jo.

As Wendy stated at the time of the poll:

We received not one single email from a member on the side of banning such threads, after that post. If you don't take up the invitation, it seems churlish to then complain that we don't care what you feel and are ignoring your views.

Perhaps if some of you had, instead of quietly grumbling about it on other forums, we could have found a solution to fit most views. As it is....


LabRat

Well, I don't agree with censorship and I don't usually participate in the political discussions here because I don't want to. But I would like to perhaps send a little information out to the folks here.
The whole thing with "Bibi's" visit with the President was discussed on "This Week" on ABC this morning and for the record the round table was divided evenly 2 vs. 2 on the subject.
The US has been Israels loyal ally since she became a country. This whole thing started when Bibi announced new building in Jerusalem while VP Biden was in town for a visit. That was considered a slap at the US because Biden was caught flat-footed by the announcement. It's usually polite to let your allies know you are going against their direct wishes to not enflame your next door neighbor.
Netanyahu came to Washington to make amends and smooth things over, but he wasn't going to halt the building of new houses. I speculate if there was any snubbing that occurred, and it hasn't been substantiated that there was, it was to make a point that their policy was in disagreement with things they had promised the US.
Our Secretary of State was rather blunt in her criticism of their new policy in that it had the potential to destabilize the Middle East again.

Very often political things are not at all what they appear to be to the public.

I'm sad that Folcs are perhaps leaving the boards because these threads come up, but life is not lived in an Ivory Tower and disagreements are a fact of life.

Frankly, I don't agree Bibi needs an apology.
Just my humble opinion.
Artemis

Since I was one of the individuals whose posts jojo_da_crow had objected to, I have been hesitant to respond. But I have decided to do so.

First of all, I am sorry that I made my original post without getting all of the facts first. I am still not sure what precisely happened at that meeting and suspect I will never know. I hope the reported snub never occurred; I would rather have egg on my face than have the original story proved to be true.

I am also sorry that my original post caused offense. Having said that, however, I hasten to add that I agree 100% with Terry's post.

In RL, I am very circumspect about with whom I discuss controversial topics. And before I started a topic that touched on religion in the LnC folder, I even ran it past LabRat for permission precisely because I feared that it might cause offense. I am thrilled to say that the thread proved to be both civil and quite lively. I was impressed at how people of many different beliefs were able to have a polite and fascinating discussion, and how the FoLCs here were able to disagree without being disagreeable, and I said as much more than once within that thread.

Which brings me to the posts in this current thread. This section of the MB is specifically labeled "Off Topic - For almost anything not related to Lois & Clark or fanfiction." I saw nothing in either the description of this folder or the MB FAQ indicating that the posts in this thread would not be appropriate. If I saw a thread or a post whose subject I found to be highly offensive, I would either stop reading it as soon as I realized what was being said or, if I felt compelled to do so, I would try to write a polite response refuting the points in the post. In neither case would I desire or expect the poster to stop posting. (That is, of course, assuming that the post I found offensive did not have anything like an incitement to riot, threats against an individual, or something equally questionable; those would, of course, be an entirely different story.)

As the old saying goes, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I am very grateful that I live in a place where freedom of speech is constitutionally protected.

I'll admit that I am a newcomer to this MB; but at least from what I have seen, the discussions outside of the "Off Topic" folder have all been LnC related and the few discussions I have read anywhere on the MB which have been on controversial topics may sometimes have been passionate, but they have always been polite. I have yet, for example, to see anyone reduced to calling anyone else names or flaming them.

It is my hope that it continues to stay that way.

- Lynn

Just a quick clarification: The building of homes in Jerusalem is not a change of policy; Israel did nothing in disagreement with their promise to the US. The promise Netanyahyu had made (and which Israel continues to honor) was for a 10-month moratorium on building in the West Bank settlements (but which expressly excluded East Jerusalem).

Speaking of the West Bank, I think it is interesting to note that two things happened during Biden's visit. Israel's board of urban planning announced it had approved some new homes in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, the Palestinians renamed a square in the West Bank in honor of Dalal Mughrabi, a terrorist (well, they call her a 'heroine' and a 'martyr') responsible for killing 38 Israeli citizens, including 13 children, during the infamous Coastal Road Massacre.

Good point, Vicki. I wasn't exactly clear on all the details myself. The point I think it is important to make is that US-Israel relations are complex, but we are long lasting allies and that won't change. However, reading surface appearances when international relationships are involved is very hard for the average citizen who doesn't get all the facts.
The days of Perry White and media checking the facts are sadly long gone and the media has its own axes to grind on both (or three or four) sides.
So we should all take what we read, or see, or hear with a grain of salt.
And that was a nice response, Lynn.
Artemis