Archive for Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Obama, Netanyahu talk unity, underline differences

March 6, 2012


WASHINGTON — Taking sharply different stands, President Barack Obama on Monday urged pressure and diplomacy to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized his nation’s right to a pre-emptive attack. Even in proclaiming unity, neither leader gave ground on how to resolve the crisis.

Seated together in the Oval Office, Obama and Netanyahu at times tried to speak for each other, and other times spoke past one another. The president and prime minister are linked by the history and necessity of their nations’ deep alliance, if not much personal warmth, and both sought to steer the Iran agenda on their terms.

“I know that both the prime minister and I prefer to resolve this diplomatically,” Obama said. “We understand the costs of any military action.”

If he agreed, Netanyahu said nothing about sanctions or talks with Iran, or Obama’s position that there still is time to try to deter Iran peacefully. Instead, Netanyahu drew attention back to Obama’s acknowledgement that Israel is a sovereign land that can protect itself how it sees fit.

“I believe that’s why you appreciate, Mr. President, that Israel must reserve the right to defend itself,” Netanyahu said.

Israel, he added, must remain “the master of its fate.”

Israel has not yet decided whether to launch a unilateral strike on Iran, a point underscored in the White House meetings.

Across days of comments, speeches and interviews, Obama and Netanyahu left no doubt about where they stand on Iran. Far less clear is whether they have done anything to alter each other’s position in what has become a moment of reckoning over Iran, and an important foreign policy issue in the U.S. presidential race.

Both are adamant Iran must not develop a nuclear bomb. Obama’s aim is to keep Israel from launching an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, fearing that would do little lasting good toward the goal and engulf the region and the United States in another war.


just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

"while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized his nation’s right to a pre-emptive attack."

This claim is in direct conflict with international law-- not that the hard right of Israel ever gave a whit about the myriad double standards under which it operates.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 3 months ago

Would that be the same international law that condemned Israel for killing Palestinian children yet refused to condemn the Palestinians for killing Israeli children.
The problem is that there are many, many double standards. Your picking and choosing is itself a double standard.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

No, the double standards I complain about are those that are supported through US policy and tax dollars.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 3 months ago

So you're O.K. with double standards as long as they are not supported by U.S. tax dollars? Interestingly, that would have the net effect that our allies would be handicapped in ways our adversaries would not. How would that serve the best interests of the U.S.?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

And you've been a very constant supporter of Israel's "right" to have double standards about pretty much everything.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 3 months ago

No, don't say that. I'm in favor of triple standards, multiple standards. It's a complicated world and one size fits all won't work. It would be nice if it did. Then all man's problems could have been sorted out a long time ago.
I tend to look at each situation and come up with the best solution possible, given the circumstances. You're the one who says double standards are bad and immediately uses a double standard. Should Israel and it's adversaries have equality? Of course not. Arabs have 22 votes in the U.N., countries with Muslim majorities have 55 votes. Should Israel have 55 votes? Should they split the land 50/50? Split all resources? Should they have equal populations? Equal numbers of nuclear missiles? Of course not. One side has vastly more resources, conventional weapons, more land, more resources, more conventional weapons, more votes in the U.N., more friends amongst non-aligned countries due to dependence on natural resources. The other side has vastly greater non-conventional weapons and a friendly super power.
It would be a double standard indeed to advocate for the one super power to treat both sides equally and for one side to eliminate nuclear weapons while leaving intact all the advantages of the other side. That's a double standard.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years, 3 months ago

That's a might long-winded (and necessarily selective) justification for hypocrisy.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 3 months ago

The hypocrisy isn't mine because I didn't advocate against double standards and then use one. That was what you did. As for long winded and necessarily selective, perhaps. If you think I've made a historical error, make your case. If you want to select different facts, again, make you case. But if your only comment is a vague condemnation of my post, then you've failed to make any case at all.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.