Incompetence, huh? It's like we are seeing different worlds, different presidents. Obama is not incompetent. He has made mistakes like any president, of course. He just persuaded Netanyahu to apologize to Turkey over the ship incident. That's good for Israel, Turkey, and America. That wasn't incompetent. This trip to Israel by Obama was bloody brilliant. A highlight of his presidency. May it bear some fruits of peace.

What are you talking about? This wasn't a peace making mission. Obama doesn't give a <deleted> about Israel. This was a political visit to show Democrats can be counted on. It is strictly for the consumption of Florida Jews who swing the state that can swing the nation.

Israel and what happens to it is the least consequential thing going on in the Middle East and Africa but it it HUGE with a small percentage of American voters. THAT's why presidents go there and send foreign aid there.

While solving the entire Middle Eastern question on one visit is quite an ask, perhaps the rapprochement between Turkey and Israel is far more significant in the short term at least, especially when it comes to sorting Syria and/or Iran. Look beyond the partisan entrenchments for once....

Incompetence, huh? It's like we are seeing different worlds, different presidents. Obama is not incompetent. He has made mistakes like any president, of course. He just persuaded Netanyahu to apologize to Turkey over the ship incident. That's good for Israel, Turkey, and America. That wasn't incompetent. This trip to Israel by Obama was bloody brilliant. A highlight of his presidency. May it bear some fruits of peace.

What are you talking about? This wasn't a peace making mission. Obama doesn't give a <deleted> about Israel. This was a political visit to show Democrats can be counted on. It is strictly for the consumption of Florida Jews who swing the state that can swing the nation.

Israel and what happens to it is the least consequential thing going on in the Middle East and Africa but it it HUGE with a small percentage of American voters. THAT's why presidents go there and send foreign aid there.

While solving the entire Middle Eastern question on one visit is quite an ask, perhaps the rapprochement between Turkey and Israel is far more significant in the short term at least, especially when it comes to sorting Syria and/or Iran. Look beyond the partisan entrenchments for once....

I'm not a partisan. I just have a deep antipathy for insincere political posturing. America has zero role to play in the Israeli/Palestinian problem.

Recent opinion polls of the entire American population show very strong support of Israel and very weak support of the Palestinians.

JT,

the majority of the American population has no opinion except the opinion presented by the media. but one can't blame people for adopting an opinion if they don't possess the basic knowledge and lack of desire to form an own opinion.

having said so, i admit that the above-mentioned does not exclusively apply to Americans but to the population of many countries.

listen to what Obama said when he addressed the Palestinians

Recent opinion polls of the entire American population show very strong support of Israel and very weak support of the Palestinians. I would actually prefer super strong support for PEACE, but it's the way they phrased the question I suppose.

Fifty-five percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll sympathize more

with Israel, vs. 9 percent who side more with the Palestinian

Authority, with the rest favoring neither, or undecided. It’s been a

similar gap for many years, including polling back to the 1980s testing

Israel vs. the Arab nations of the Middle East.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/more-americans-sympathize-with-israel-dont-want-u-s-to-lead-peace-talks/

Look, please try to process this, Obama isn't running for any office ever again. He has already won the presidency twice, and that's it, and he won strong Jewish support both times even with the absurd attacks that he wasn't friendly enough to Israel. So objectively your point makes no sense. Obama doesn't need Florida ever again.

The vast majority of American Jews do not vote with Israel as their top issue. Many polls have shown this. It is assumed any American president is going to support Israel and that has been the case so there really hasn't been any need for American Jews to raise the priority. American Jews are not going to rubber stamp the opinion of every Israeli government, especially the right wing ones, and they sure have been pretty right wing for a long time. If there was an American presidential candidate who was very dodgy on Israel, yes more American Jews would probably raise the priority of the Israel support issue. Obama wasn't seen as questionable by AMERICAN Jews, but he was by Israelis Jews. Of course I think the Americans were right, and after this trip I am sure many more Israelis will be more favorable towards Obama.

The candidate I think that will worry Jews in future is RAND PAUL, the so called libertarian. He is not a friend of Israel, and interestingly, he's a republican. He is now a serious candidate for president. So if he is nominated, the republicans can count on even LESS support from Jews than usual. I sincerely hope Rand Paul is not nominated. I personally despise his politics.

Paul has been quoted that if Israel is directly attacked he would support helping out Israel in SOME WAY. To American supporters of Israel, that is outrageous. Totally unacceptable. Much worse than anything Obama has ever said about Israel. An American president is expected to be much more aggressive in the event of a direct attack on Israel. Israelis wished for a republican president this time; if Paul is nominated I would imagine they would change their tune BIG TIME.

Also keep in mind a group that is in some ways more passionate about Israel support are the right wing Christian fundamentalists. Not all of them of course, but many, and that is a HUGE demographic in America. They are a strange political bedfellow to American Jews who are mostly a liberal demographic group.

From your post...

"Look, please try to process this, Obama isn't running for any office ever again."

While this statement is seemingly true, you should realize he is running as hard as he can to have his Democratic Party take control of the House of Representatives in 2014.

If he succeeds in this, then God help the US because the government will destroy it, completing the work they started with Obamacare and Dodd-Frank when they last had a majority in Congress.

This man campaigns each and every day.

The candidate I think that will worry Jews in future is RAND PAUL, the so called libertarian. He is not a friend of Israel, and interestingly, he's a republican.

Not correct. Rand Paul IS a friend of Israel - or so he says - but wants to stop all foreign aid to every country, but he says that Israel would be last. He also says that Israel should be able to defend themselves and their policies without asking permission from the U.S.

"There is this perception out there that because I'm in favor of cutting foreign aid I am not a friend to Israel…But there is more than one way to be a friend to Israel."

Don't be fooled. He has tried to clean up his Israel message since he started running for president. The we'll do SOMETHING quote from the past is damning and Jews will never forget it. The we'll help the Israeli defense industry but cutting their defense funding is total BS! That man will not be supported by the right wing Jewish faction that supported Romney. Mark my words. I am not saying I disagree with all of Paul's policy ideas on things like stopping the drug war. I am saying I find the man, and his father, scary and creepy. He's the same kind of radical isolationist in the tradition of Henry Ford.

I think in the long run he can't be nominated. He's clearly a man for a weaker isolationist America. I don't believe the republican party will go for that. He has a strong base, but he'll get beat by someone like Jeb Bush.

The 2016 election will probably be Bush vs. Clinton with Clinton winning.

As someone said, this time the right Bush and the right Clinton.

Of course Rand Paul has problems of being associated with his even more radical Daddy. The one that published the virulently antisemitic newsletters (there's the Henry Ford antisemitic isolationist thing again). Rand Paul has to form a coalition of the fringe who loved his Daddy with more mainstream conservatives. The thing is they believe very different things. I don't think he can pull it off. I hope he can't pull it off. Like many anti-Obama people can never trust Obama, I can never trust either Ron or Rand Paul. Nothing he can say would change my mind. His core values are obvious to me. Now he is playing games to try to be president.

The apparent reconciliation between Turkey and Israel says much more about their short term interests than it does any meaningful change of heart. Had Israel unilaterally supplied the PKK and called Turkey every name under the sun concerning their treatment of the Kurds that would have been seen as a hostile act by Israel, the so called peace flotilla was similarly a hostile act against a supposed ally. The fact that the two sides appear at least to bury the hatchet while Obama is in town suggests to me his visit is more concerned with preparations for an escalation of the war with Syria, which needs Israel, Turkey and Jordan to be on the same side.

I can't say I'm happy about this as I would have liked Israel to stay out of the inevitable Sunni vs Shia bloodbath, but perhaps that just isn't possible and so Israel has to side with forces which through naivety and mismanagement will likely put an Islamist regime in charge in Syria, just as they did with Egypt, Tunisia and Libya before.

I don't think anybody would expect you to.... nor do I think that American (or British) politicians will ever make much difference. Nobody has ever denied that the Jews are very clever people (that's part of their problem) whereas the Palestinians don't have very much going for them. But this will hardly influence the endgame.

The Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank do have quite a bit going for them - if they get out of those enclaves. I have worked with many Palestinians throughout the Middle East, educated in Palestinian territories to degree level, but then going abroad to complete their tertiary education (MSc, MA, PhD, etc.). They are bright, hard-working and willing and able to converse on many subjects.

Just don't get them started on Palestine. Every Palestinian I have met is completely blind on this subject - nothing other than the complete destruction of Israel and humiliation of the USA will satisfy them. On the other hand, when discussing this problem with Israelis I find that all arguments are considered and discussed (although I know very few Hasidic Jews, even though my early years were spent in Stamford Hill). The difference in the two sides is probably cultural, in that Arabs are brought up to believe all that their leaders tell them, whereas the Jrws are brought up to query and test what they are told, but among the highly educated I find this blind-spot to be a serious handicap to any successful dialogue being held.

@Jing,

In case you are confused, here is what a real American friend of Israel sounds like - I agree with her Israel should stop apologizing.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/22708/Default.aspx

@Jing,

In case you are confused, here is what a real American friend of Israel sounds like - I agree with her Israel should stop apologizing.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/22708/Default.aspx

She's part of that right wing Christian friends of Israel phenom I mentioned before. Israel isn't picky. Any friend will do in a storm. But really, she is a total moron.

BTW, apologizing to Turkey was the right thing to do. It was also in the best interest of Israel to do that.

I don't think anybody would expect you to.... nor do I think that American (or British) politicians will ever make much difference. Nobody has ever denied that the Jews are very clever people (that's part of their problem) whereas the Palestinians don't have very much going for them. But this will hardly influence the endgame.

The Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank do have quite a bit going for them - if they get out of those enclaves. I have worked with many Palestinians throughout the Middle East, educated in Palestinian territories to degree level, but then going abroad to complete their tertiary education (MSc, MA, PhD, etc.). They are bright, hard-working and willing and able to converse on many subjects.

Just don't get them started on Palestine. Every Palestinian I have met is completely blind on this subject - nothing other than the complete destruction of Israel and humiliation of the USA will satisfy them. On the other hand, when discussing this problem with Israelis I find that all arguments are considered and discussed (although I know very few Hasidic Jews, even though my early years were spent in Stamford Hill). The difference in the two sides is probably cultural, in that Arabs are brought up to believe all that their leaders tell them, whereas the Jrws are brought up to query and test what they are told, but among the highly educated I find this blind-spot to be a serious handicap to any successful dialogue being held.

You made some points I can largely agree with, that the Palestinians are more likely to be inflexible on their goals in the conflict, BUT there really is a large segment of right wing Jews that are equally inflexible, and some even quite racist. That all makes this dream of a peaceful two state solution so very hard, and maybe even totally impossible.

I can understand, though obviously I cannot feel, the passion which Jews feel about Israel. Everything (well, almost everything) Jingthing says is right.

But the destruction of Israel will come either from population growth (see several posts in this thread) or from a major attack (nuclear, chemical or biological). If some enemy can get that through the defences (and all defences can be breached some time, some way), all the support from world Jewry and from the Americans will be fruitless.

Of course Rand Paul has problems of being associated with his even more radical Daddy. The one that published the virulently antisemitic newsletters (there's the Henry Ford antisemitic isolationist thing again). Rand Paul has to form a coalition of the fringe who loved his Daddy with more mainstream conservatives. The thing is they believe very different things. I don't think he can pull it off. I hope he can't pull it off. Like many anti-Obama people can never trust Obama, I can never trust either Ron or Rand Paul. Nothing he can say would change my mind. His core values are obvious to me. Now he is playing games to try to be president.

I can't find the quote that you are referring to. I did find one where he says that any attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S. He should not be blamed for the sins of his father.

I think in the long run he can't be nominated. He's clearly a man for a weaker isolationist America.

Normally, I would agree with you on this, but I think that there is a very good chance that Obama will diminish our power in the world so much that when he is finished we will have little choice but to be isolationist. Therefore, I want to consider Rand Paul fairly.

I am not saying I disagree with all of Paul's policy ideas on things like stopping the drug war. I am saying I find the man, and his father, scary and creepy. He's the same kind of radical isolationist in the tradition of Henry Ford.

America WAS an isolationist country at the time Ford and others, like Lindburgh suggested it remain so, in keeping with the tenets that established America as an independent country, such as not intervening in foreign intrigues. NOW America is an empire, and not a benevolent one, and not well managed and not for the benefit of the citizenry. To begin to display fewer characteristics of an empire does not make a country isolationist.

Ford and Lindburgh openly admired Adolph Hitler.

Ford and Lindburgh openly admired Adolph Hitler.

You weren't on the debating team were you?

Ford and Lindburgh openly admired Adolph Hitler.

You weren't on the debating team were you?

It's relevant to this discussion considering the background of the Paul family.

Ford and Lindburgh openly admired Adolph Hitler.

You weren't on the debating team were you?

It's relevant to this discussion considering the background of the Paul family.

I know politics is your "aetheist church" , complete with the puny gods you worship and the mere men you make into devils, but let's not start on the 2016 campaign just yet, shall we?

BTW, speaking of family backgrounds, JFK, who IMO was the greatest president in my lifetime, had many personal failings and his father was a stock manipulator , insider trader and a racketeer.

Rand Paul is clearly running for president and his trip to Israel was clearly damage control for the radical anti-Israel statements he previously made and in my view still believes. He's hoping to trick Americans now into thinking he doesn't believe his core radical libertarian isolationist values. I hope he fails.

Obama isn't running for anything any more.

Rand Paul is.

Rand Paul is clearly running for president and his trip to Israel was clearly damage control for the radical anti-Israel statements he previously made and in my view still believes. He's hoping to trick Americans now into thinking he doesn't believe his core radical libertarian isolationist values. I hope he fails.

I think you mean Rand Paul. So now you're agreeing with me that these pilgrimages to Israel are wholly for domestic consumption. That's progress.

Rand Paul is clearly running for president and his trip to Israel was clearly damage control for the radical anti-Israel statements he previously made and in my view still believes. He's hoping to trick Americans now into thinking he doesn't believe his core radical libertarian isolationist values. I hope he fails.

I think you mean Rand Paul. So now you're agreeing with me that these pilgrimages to Israel are wholly for domestic consumption. That's progress.

In Rand Paul's case, yes.

So which Rand Paul would be in the white house, if elected?

The real Rand Paul who spoke just like his radical father before he was running for president?

Or the "new" Rand Paul who realizes he can never be president espousing those anti-Israel views?

Interestingly, the group that paid for Paul's visit to Israel was a radical right wing ANTI-GAY group.

Americans politics get stranger and stranger.

In case you missed Obama's historic speech:

Ford and Lindburgh openly admired Adolph Hitler.

You weren't on the debating team were you?

It's relevant to this discussion considering the background of the Paul family.

I know politics is your "aetheist church" , complete with the puny gods you worship and the mere men you make into devils, but let's not start on the 2016 campaign just yet, shall we?

BTW, speaking of family backgrounds, JFK, who IMO was the greatest president in my lifetime, had many personal failings and his father was a stock manipulator , insider trader and a racketeer.

Joe Kennedy was a nasty piece of work sent as the Ambassador to the Court of St James by Roosevelt as an ironic joke ( given his Irish republican vews) and as a way of removing a political opponent to Roosevelt. When J. Kennedy fled London during the blitz, unlike the British hierarchy, the legendary comment was made "I thought daffodils were yellow before I met Joe Kennedy".

JFK as poster child President? Without being unduly churlish he had the fortune to lead a rock star lifestyle and die young, shades of Princess Diana in many ways. Winning the 1960 election by a squeak, quite possibly had a lot to do with his day's unpleasant friends, and quite what did he actually achieve? Bay of Pigs, swapping missiles in Cuba for missiles in Turkey, stalemate in terms of civil rights etc. LBJ skipped banging film stars and mob dolls and got on with Civil Rights legislation but sank with little trace as a Texan pol mired in Kennedy's SE Asian adventures, playing the Democrat hard guy....

Rand Paul is clearly running for president and his trip to Israel was clearly damage control for the radical anti-Israel statements he previously made and in my view still believes.

I notice that you are not providing quotes of these "radical anti-Israel statements he previously made". You are just smearing him with no evidence to back it up.

Of course Rand Paul has problems of being associated with his even more radical Daddy. The one that published the virulently antisemitic newsletters (there's the Henry Ford antisemitic isolationist thing again). Rand Paul has to form a coalition of the fringe who loved his Daddy with more mainstream conservatives. The thing is they believe very different things. I don't think he can pull it off. I hope he can't pull it off. Like many anti-Obama people can never trust Obama, I can never trust either Ron or Rand Paul. Nothing he can say would change my mind. His core values are obvious to me. Now he is playing games to try to be president.

I can't find the quote that you are referring to. I did find one where he says that any attack on Israel is an attack on the U.S. He should not be blamed for the sins of his father.

He's more 'practible' than his father. Understands real politik better.

Ford and Lindburgh openly admired Adolph Hitler.

Godwin's law

Mike Godwin (2010)

Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

Although in one of its early forms Godwin's law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions,[4] the law is now often applied to any threaded online discussion, such as forums, chat rooms and blog comment threads, and has been invoked for the inappropriate use of Nazi analogies in articles or speeches.[5]

In 2012, "Godwin's Law" became an entry in the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Godwin's law is invalid if you're referring to actual facts about Hitler or Nazism that directly relate to the discussion. What I cited about Ford and Lindburgh regarding Hitler was a fact (both were also virulent antisemites and American isolationist fascists), and the fact is the Paul radical and dangerous "libertarian" (a very deceptive name) movement is a historical continuation of that kind of American political tradition. Also Rand Paul's EXTREMIST father Ron Paul (who ran for president multiple times and still has a solid loyal base ripe for the picking), who he is still very close to and has not CONDEMNED, claims his father's political base constituency as his own. Normally I might agree the son should be free from the stain of the father. But in this case, Rand Paul is PLAYING on his father's base and clearly needs to hold on to most of it to win, so that does not apply.