James Baker takes on the Israeli CryBibi

From Politico:

“His actions have not matched his rhetoric,” says the former secretary of state.

By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE 3/23/15 9:16 PM EDT Updated 3/23/15 9:48 PM EDT

It’s not just Democrats and White House officials who’ve got problems with Benjamin Netanyahu.

Blasting “diplomatic missteps and political gamesmanship,” former Secretary of State James Baker laid in hard to the Israeli prime minister on Monday evening, criticizing him for an insufficient commitment to peace and an absolutist opposition to the Iran nuclear talks.

Baker told the gala dinner for the left-leaning Israeli advocacy group J Street that he supported efforts to get a deal with Tehran — but he called for President Barack Obama to bring any agreement before Congress, even though he may not legally be required to do so.

Baker, who was the chief diplomat for President George H.W. Bush, cited mounting frustrations with Netanyahu over the past six years — but particularly with comments he made in the closing days of last week’s election disavowing his support for a two-state solution and support for settlements strategically placed to attempt to change the borders between Israel and the West Bank.

“Frankly, I have been disappointed with the lack of progress regarding a lasting peace — and I have been for some time,” Baker said. And “in the aftermath of Netanyahu’s recent election victory, the chance of a two-state solution seems even slimmer, given his reversal on the issue.”

Baker said while Netanyahu has said he’s for peace, “his actions have not matched his rhetoric.”

Some Republicans in Congress have claimed Obama has eroded American support of Israel.

That’s wrong, too, Baker said.

“No one around the entire world should ever doubt America’s commitment to Israel, Not now, or at any point in the future,” he said.

Earlier in the day at the conference, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough reiterated Obama’s frustration with Netanyahu, saying that the administration is holding the prime minister to his comments ruling out a two-state solution — even though Netanyahu immediately began to walk those comments back the day after his Likud Party won a resounding number of seats in the Israeli Knesset.

Baker said he’s also holding to Netanyahu’s pre-election comments — and pointed out how out of sync he believes the Israeli leader is with his own country, and with Washington.

“Although Netanyahu and his right-and-center coalition may oppose a two-state solution, a land-for-peace approach has long been supported by a substantial portion of the Israeli body politic, by every American [administration] since 1967 — Republican and Democratic alike — and a vast majority of nations around the world,” Baker said.

As to Netanyahu’s opposition on Iran, Baker warned against seeking only a perfect deal.

“If the only agreement is one in which there is no enrichment, then there will be no agreement,” Baker said.

After all, Baker said, no military solution could work in his assessment: an American strike would only generate more support among Iranians for the fundamentalist government, and an Israeli strike would neither be as effective nor carry American support.

This isn’t the only tough moment in U.S.-Israeli relations, Baker said, recounting some of his own head-butting in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In those days, the administration was dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, a hard-liner who referred to Netanyahu as “too soft,” according to Baker.

The danger now, Baker said, is the personalization and politicization of the disputes between the governments in Washington and Jerusalem.

“This is of course a delicate moment in the Middle East, and will require clear thinking from leaders,” Baker said. “That clear thinking should not be muddled by partisan politics.”


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/0...#ixzz3VGi2oI2J[/QUOTE]

Another BigKotex cut 'n runner! er..paster!

You forgot your usual "Interesting" comment Originally Posted by gnadfly

No additional "Interesting" comments were needed.

Baker said it all!

Just James Baker prospecting for clients.............remember, he is a lawyer....he will say anything if the client is paying...........

I have no doubt I could hire James Baker (if i could afford him) to argue before a court that the moon is made of cheese.

Good One...........

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Just James Baker prospecting for clients.............remember, he is a lawyer....he will say anything if the client is paying...........

I have no doubt I could hire James Baker (if i could afford him) to argue before a court that the moon is made of cheese. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

How convenient! Apparently Trendy must believe that James Baker wants a TrendingIdiot to be his spokesperson.

BTW Trendy, where's the link that verifies your claim that "James Baker (is only) prospecting for clients"?

If you can't find that link, please provide the link that says that James Baker is willing to "argue before a court that the moon is made of cheese."

Either link will do!

While on the subject of missing links: Where's the MLK opposes "illegal immigration" link, Trendy?

It was a overwhelming bipartisan support for Israel till Bibi made his speech and divided the support.

There still is.............Obama will do some damage til he no longer occupies the White House. The next president will be more responsible (even if it is Hillary) and right the ship. It is not in America's national interest to make Israel the pariah in the middle east. Obama's pro-Islamic (some reasonably say anti-semitic) stripes are showing...Fortunately we only have 18 more months of the Manchurian President.

It was a overwhelming bipartisan support for Israel till Bibi made his speech and divided the support. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

It was a overwhelming bipartisan support for Israel till Bibi made his speech and divided the support. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Not to worry. The next time we need some real time eyes on the subject and focus of our attention over there, "our hat will be in our hand" and all will be forgiven as we beg.

Alienating our allies in order to appease our enemies has been the stock and trade of our country's foreign policy decisions over the last ... well .... 100 years or so.

As for Baker, hopefully he checked in with Jeb before he mouthed off .... he was gearing up to help Jeb out.

Not to worry. The next time we need some real time eyes on the subject and focus of our attention over there, "our hat will be in our hand" and all will be forgiven as we beg.

Alienating our allies in order to appease our enemies has been the stock and trade of our country's foreign policy decisions over the last ... well .... 100 years or so.

As for Baker, hopefully he checked in with Jeb before he mouthed off .... he was gearing up to help Jeb out. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Or when they need more than the 8 mil a month we send them now. Is that called biting the hand that feeds them? They need us far more than we need them.

Not to worry. The next time we need some real time eyes on the subject and focus of our attention over there, "our hat will be in our hand" and all will be forgiven as we beg.

Alienating our allies in order to appease our enemies has been the stock and trade of our country's foreign policy decisions over the last ... well .... 100 years or so.

As for Baker, hopefully he checked in with Jeb before he mouthed off .... he was gearing up to help Jeb out. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Real-time eyes? Are you fucking kidding? Alienating our allies to appease our enemies? Is that what happened in Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? You are a fucking moron. You've always BEEN a moron and I'm afraid that's as far as you get.

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

It's super easy when the Cock brothers have implanted their newest chip in your brain. They just type it out and you say it. Easy.

Real-time eyes? Are you fucking kidding? Alienating our allies to appease our enemies? Is that what happened in Korea? Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? You are a fucking moron. You've always BEEN a moron and I'm afraid that's as far as you get. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You might want to reread what you posted, before you start calling anyone "moron" .....

Korea certainly was NOT voluntarily "allied' with Japan in WWII & was split with Russians
Ho Chi Minh was funded and armed by the Brits/U.S. in WWII to oppose Japan
Iraq was considered an "ally" of the U.S. in the Middle East even before '67 War
Afghanistan was an "ally" of the U.S. in the struggle against the Soviets

You're the moron, duffus.

Several things ... in the 1991 invasion involving Kuwait the Israelis provided (repainted) mine clearing vehicles and "scouts" ... to locate launch and storage sites for missiles. There were Israelis in the Kurdish area of Iraq. In the 2003 invasion there were also "scouts" from Israel and inserted into the Kurdish area of Iraq. We provide them with technology, they have provided us with "intelligence" and special ops in the region.

Additionally, if you look at the "aid" .. it is primarily in the form of purchases and loans. If you are comparing the military/technological assistance we have provided the Israelis to welfare debit cards and checks in the mail ... you are a double moron ....

You might want to reread what you posted, before you start calling anyone "moron" .....

Korea certainly was NOT voluntarily "allied' with Japan in WWII & was split with Russians
Ho Chi Minh was funded and armed by the Brits/U.S. in WWII to oppose Japan
Iraq was considered an "ally" of the U.S. in the Middle East even before '67 War
Afghanistan was an "ally" of the U.S. in the struggle against the Soviets Originally Posted by LexusLover

Did I mention WW2? Iraq an ally? I'm pretty sure that wasn't the way they saw it. We don't have 'allies'. We have countries we use until they aren't useful to us anymore and then we drop them like a hot turd.