The differences between Bibi and Obambi

I agree with Bruce Kesler. His analysis is spot-on.

I’m going to add two frivolous comments (because it is, after all, a Sunday, a day on which deep thought seems to elude me).  When when Obama tried to put Bibi in his place, the image that came to my mind was precisely the same as the paired photos Bruce has at his post — one is a seasoned warrior; the other a drug-taking dilettante.

Having seen that old photo of Bibi, I have one more thing to add:  People can drool about Obama’s skinny little wuss abs, but it was Bibi who was the real hottie.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • jj

    The top picture should be posted prominently in every temple and synagogue in the United States, in a last-ditch effort to wise up American Jewry.  There could be no clearer illustration of the difference between an adult and a child.  You have a serious man engaged in serious business on the left, and an immature grinning idiot on the other side.  Quite a disheartening contrast.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    but it was Bibi who was the real hottie.

    Your biases for the military image is coming through, Book ; )

  • NancyB

    Dear Bookworm,

    I’ve always thought Bibi was a hottie since I first saw him during the 1st gulf war!!!!

  • Charles Martel

    At least Bibi is passing through the classic stages of leader manhood, from dashing young warrior to dignified older statesman. Obama, on the other hand, appears to have passed the immense distance from bong-sucking Steve Urkel lookalike to mom jeans-wearing nancy boy.

  • Mike Devx

    jj 1: The top picture should be posted prominently in every temple and synagogue in the United States

    Actually I really wish Book would post those two pictures of Netanyahu and Obama side by side at the top of her post.  The contrast really is incredible.

  • abc

    “When when Obama tried to put Bibi in his place…”

    How did Obama put Netanyahu in his place?  And what is his place?  Last I checked, Obama is the leader of the most powerful country in the world, while Netanyahu is the leader of a relatively small country that receives about $4B in aid from the US each year.  In terms of power, Obama is in a much stronger position than Netanyahu, so perhaps what you call trying to put in his place is actually a reflection of which country is a superpower and which one is not…

  • Danny Lemieux

    So, abc, in your worldview it is OK for the much richer and more powerful United States to dictate how a smaller country is going to structure its government and obey its constitution (Honduras) or define its borders and submit to its mortal enemies (Israel), just because we give them aid.  

    And you Lefties wonder why the world hates the Ugly American?

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    Mike (#4):  I might do that (that is, post the picture here).  I wanted Bruce to get the traffic, though, since he brought it to my attention.

  • abc

    Danny, we’ve been doing that for a very long time.  Real politik is a fact of life. 

    Also, we give Israel a lot more aid than Honduras.  it leads the amount of aid supplied to any other country in the world each year.  Further, unlike all other countries, Israel actually charges us interest on the money we give them during the course of the year, since we have promised to supply it all upfront on January 1.  To draw comparisons with Honduras is totally laughable.

  • Michael Adams

    If I am looking at the Young Bibi picture and thinking, “I sure wouldn’t want to mess with him,”  he’s probably hot. I am.  He was.

  • Danny Lemieux

    So, in ABC’s world…it is just realpolitik today to subvert independent countries because we give them money.

    Do you agree, Z?

    ABC, I don’t think you give nearly enough credit to what Israel gives us. However, no matter what type of imbalance you think there may be in that relationship, I can’t see Israel committing suicide just because Obama told them to, do you?

    Or, you do. 

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Netanyahu was a commander in the Sayeret Matkal, an elite special forces group in the Israeli army. 

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Danny Lemieuxit is just realpolitik today to subvert independent countries because we give them money.

    There’s always strings attached, though the terms should be clearly laid out.

    Nothing the U.S. President did subverted Israel, or its government. He merely stated long-standing policy. Ultimately, it’s up to the parties. However, according to several on this blog, at least, Israel owns the West Bank by right of conquest, so there’s nothing to negotiate. 

  • Charles Martel

    Zach, which president previously stated that Israel should return to the May 1967 borders? I don’t recall that policy. Could you give your Wikidex a twirl and see what it spits up (we’ll give you time to rewrite it)?

    PS, I know this is hard for you to grasp, because it runs counter to what abc would call your “narrative,” but the West Bank was won from Jordan. Perhaps Jordan is the aggrieved party here? If so, why not a peep from it?

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Charles Martel: which president previously stated that Israel should return to the May 1967 borders?

    No President did that. American policy has been that the parties should negotiate changes based on the Armistice lines in effect from 1949-1967. 

    “Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.”
    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050526.html

    And it’s still U.S. policy. 


  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Charles MartelPerhaps Jordan is the aggrieved party here? If so, why not a peep from it?

    Perhaps it’s your hearing. 

    “Prime Minister Marouf Bakhit on Tuesday said the Palestinian cause is not only a national issue for Jordan, but also an inseparable component of the Kingdom’s security.”
    http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=37122

  • Charles Martel

    Zach, that Wikidex works wonders! Now, once again: Why isn’t Jordan negotiating directly with Israel since the West Bank was taken from Jordan? Jordan’s blather about caring for the Palestinians is pro forma crap and you know it.

    Please, just for once, answer a direct question. Try it, even, in your own words.

  • Mike Devx

    “Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to.”

    The above quote, supplied by Zachriel, is the standard position of all American Presidents… until Obama.

    Obama significantly changed the diplomatic language.  Obama’s language sets it as: “the 1967 borders, with swaps”.

    Diplomacy-speak seems rather silly to me, personally, but it is a *big* deal between nations, so I have to accept that.  There’s a reason even the Democrats that are pro-Israel are extremely upset with Obama. 

    Relations between Israel and America are unlikely to recover for years.  

    Obama’s been going overseas and apologizing for America for two and a half years now.  Once he is out of office, the next President is going to have to make so many overseas trips as well, apologizing for the rogue administration that preceded.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Charles Martel: Why isn’t Jordan negotiating directly with Israel since the West Bank was taken from Jordan?  

    Jordan captured the West Bank in 1948, but it was never recognized by the international community. Jordan relinquished its claim to the West Bank, ceding it to the Palestinians in 1988. Jordan is not a direct participant in the talks, but attempts to keep an open dialogue with the participants. Jordan has been at peace with Israel since 1994. 
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Hussein_Clinton_Rabin.jpg

    Charles Martel: Jordan’s blather about caring for the Palestinians is pro forma crap and you know it.

    We know no such thing. The King and his father have both worked for a settlement of the issue, and there is little doubt that it is crucial for their own country’s security and development. 

    Mike Devx: The above quote, supplied by Zachriel, is the standard position of all American Presidents… until Obama.

    It’s the same position, though the diplomatic formulation changed.


    Mike Devx:
    There’s a reason even the Democrats that are pro-Israel are extremely upset with Obama.

    Yes, many people don’t like to hear the truth put in plain terms. It is the same position, after all. That and the media storm that leads people (including on this thread) to think that the actual U.S. position has changed. 

  • Mike Devx

    Zachriel 19: Yes, many people don’t like to hear the truth put in plain terms. It is the same position, after all. That and the media storm that leads people (including on this thread) to think that the actual U.S. position has changed.

    Unless my eyes deceive me, Zachriel has just stated that he is certain that Obama Israel policy is the same as Bush Israeli policy.  There’s no difference!

    Ye shall be known by the words ye speak, and the company ye keep.

  • Danny Lemieux

    In 1948, after Israel’s defeat of the Arabs, masses of Palestinian refugees were left homeless and packed by Arab nations into filthy camps that they would be forced to inhabit for more-than half a century. The world and the Arab nations yawned.

    In 1970, Jordan cracked down on Palestinians for trying to usurp Jordan’s reigning monarch, killing thousands in the progress in a campaign called “Black September”. The Arab world and Europeans shrugged.

    In 1991, following the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi occupation, Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from Kuwait for having supported Saddam Hussein. Ho-hum, said the world.

    In 2006, Palestinians and Hezbollah terrorists rain thousands upon thousands of rockets on Israeli population centers. The world yawns. Israel retaliates to stop the attacks. The world is outraged at the indignities to which the Palestinians are subjected. Oh, the injustice of it all!

    In 2011, Israel refuses to give the Palestinians dedicated to its destruction a nation state (instead of an asylum). The final straw: now Z is truly indignant, lashing out about the injustice of it all and saying, “the Israelis must make peace with the Palestinians”. 

    Danny Lemieux responds: “No, the Palestinians need serious medication.”

  • abc

    Danny,

    The Palestinians are on medication.  The Israelis call it the Gaza diet, which is about 50% of the recommended allowance of calories.  The Israelis somehow have included chocolate and baby formula among the items to be prohibited from being allowed into the Palestinian territories.  This is why the number of anemic babies in Palestine is over 50% according to international aid groups.  The only Muslim in the US Congress, Ellison, confirmed these reports when he visited the area.  There is plenty of blame to go around, but strangely, none is assigned to Israel at this website.  This is dishonest.

    To answer your question, the US foreign aid programs should have strings attached.  We have started to require South Korea to pay for our military presence there, transitioning about $3B in costs to them.  We ought to do the same with Israel.  The country has a corporate tax rate of about 25%, but its tech companies pay an average of 8% in taxes and can afford to do this, since we essentially subsidize their military.  They have a better deal than any other country in the world vis-a-vis the US, and you cannot even specifically name what we are receiving in return.  Please do so.  And think about this:  Irish Americans sent millions and millions to the IRA during its conflict with Northern Ireland and England, sending aid to the Republic without official US aid.  Jewish Americans, who care more about Israel for religious and cultural reasons than the average American, can do the same thing.  Unless you can articulate a strategic interest for the US, there is no principled reason to support the country to the extent that we do.  South Korea is much more imporant strategically to the US, as is Indonesia, as is Japan, as is the Philippines.  But they receive no where near the aid.  No country does.

    Finally, I must say that I do enjoy reading Z’s material, since he presents a more neutral view than those who like to present Netanyahu as a war hero and Obama as a druggie.  We could easily do a different comparison of Bibi and Barack:  we could show the bodies of school children in Palestine riddled with shrapnel, faces burned from sulfur (from devices that the US military refuses to use), and compare those pictures to the triumphant capture of OBL.  But that doesn’t fit the unquestioningly pro-Israel narrative on this website, now does it??

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Mike Devx: Zachriel has just stated that he is certain that Obama Israel policy is the same as Bush Israeli policy.  There’s no difference!

    We didn’t say that, of course. What we said was that the policy concerning changes to the 1967 borders must be negotiated has not changed. 
     
    Danny Lemieux (using quotation marks): “the Israelis must make peace with the Palestinians”
     
    http://www.google.com/search?&q=%E2%80%9Cthe+Israelis+must+make+peace+with+the+Palestinians%E2%80%9D&btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky

  • Danny Lemieux

    Through rivulets of tears, ABC attempts to soften hearts in regard to the Palestinians of Gaza, saying:

    “Danny, the Palestinians are on medication.  The Israelis call it the Gaza diet, which is about 50% of the recommended allowance of calories.  The Israelis somehow have included chocolate and baby formula among the items to be prohibited from being allowed into the Palestinian territories.  This is why the number of anemic babies in Palestine is over 50% according to international aid groups.”

    Danny Lemieux, as unsympathetic as befits a troglodyte of the right, responds, “Funny, Gaza has a border with Egypt, an Arab country. It seems they could just as easily import their foodstuffs from Egypt, a fellow Arab country.

    And, certainly, with the billions and billions of EUro-aid available, they could buy feedstuffs for their citizens instead of the rockets and missiles launched toward Israel that seem to provoke Israelis into unreasonable paranoia about just what crosses Gaza’s borders. 

    And, speaking of launch…I mean “lunch”, why don’t you and I dine at Gaza’s exquisite Roots Club, where chocolate is in abundance (see 1:39 of YouTube video) and discuss the problems of Gaza’s rampant anemia over a fine steak dinner. Then, if we have time, let’s shop at brand new mall in Gaza (I’ve linked to some nice photos for you from that noted Zionist propaganda outlet, the Huffington Post).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJvvkXYD12U&feature=player_embedded 

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-shrybman/gaza-strip-mall-did-the-e_b_650362.html

  • Charles Martel

    I have to laugh. I knew that when I was describing Bibi tongue in cheek on another thread as a monstrous assassin and flayer of Arab babies that Margaret Dumont would show up and say almost exacrly the dame thing. Great handwringing job, abc!

    .

  • Mike Devx

    Zachriel #23:

    Mike Devx: Zachriel has just stated that he is certain that Obama Israel policy is the same as Bush Israeli policy.  There’s no difference!
    Zach: We didn’t say that, of course. What we said was that the policy concerning changes to the 1967 borders must be negotiated has not changed.

    You’re correct, I wrote badly.  I meant to write exactly what you *did* just say again: That you believe that *this* particular policy had not changed.  

    I believe that what Obama stated *does* in fact invoke a policy change; it is a big one; and it is deeply destructive to relations between the U.S. and Israel.

    The *concept* itself that there will be negotiations has not changed.  Of course.  However: the entire nature of those negotiations – the premises, the starting points, the process – gets changed when you alter the formulation of the diplomatic language publicly.  Sigh, I’ll rehash: There’s a reason Netanyahu was livid, and there’s a reason those Democrats who are pro-Israel were very upset.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    Mike Devx: However: the entire nature of those negotiations – the premises, the starting points, the process – gets changed when you alter the formulation of the diplomatic language publicly.

    This may be mostly semantic, as you don’t point to an actual change in policy. There certainly was a change in emphasis that put Israel on the spot, but if you read Bush’s language, you will see it is much the same policy. 

    “Any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed to. A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.”

    There was a brief media-storm where people claimed Obama said Israel had to return to the 1967 borders, but that was never accurate. But yes, the change in diplomatic *language* was significant.