Maybe Bibi just doesn't want peace?
I don't know why so many folks are rooting against a diplomatic solution. Who's kids are first in line for war? I don't have any, but if I did I'd be rooting even harder for a diplomatic solution.
If Johnny comes marching home... ever again, if he has legs to march with... hurrah. Hurrah.
I don't think we disagree on wanting peace; just on its possibility/viability and where we lay the blame. And if we have this breach in the NY Metropolitan area you can only imagine how deep the rift is in the Mid East
It's a typical tactic to accuse anyone who rejects apeasement of a savage enemy to be a warmonger. Churchill was so accused. Reagan of course was so accused. Now Netanyahu is so accused.
What exactly is this appeasement you speak of? Just by talking to them? That's comical.
You know full well what I am referring to. It has been in every article describing the terms that Obama is going to agree to. It's not a secret. He claims it will stop their progress towards a weapon. That is a lie.
Appeasement? Wow. Diplomacy and negotiations are a cornerstone of peaceful civilization. I think a treaty is far better than a war.
I also don't think Israel will benefit in the eyes of the world from a militant, hard line stance. Anti-semitism is permeating Europe. Check out this article from the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/
I find this paragraph from the article interesting:
"Hitler destroyed most everything. But the story Europeans tell themselves—or told themselves, until the proof became too obvious to ignore—is that Judenhass, the hatred of Jews, ended when Berlin fell 70 years ago."
It sort of reminds me of the people who maintain that racism in America is dead.That the protections given by the Civil Rights Acts are no longer needed.
If there is no diplomatic solution with Iran I can see military action leading to a World War. There are large groups of people in Europe who will blame European Jews for Netanyahu's hard line.
Is that some kind of veiled threat?
Diplomacy is about promoting your conuntry's interests. It is not about "talking" and it is not about signing pieces of paper. Chamberlain in 1938 thought he was delivering "peace for our time" Europe was at war less than a year later. Some regimes cannot be reasoned with and cannot be apeased. At the every least with a regime such as Iran, diplomacy requires maximum use of leverage. The sanctions were our leverage. Obama gave that up. Iran fully believes it can roll Obama and he has amply demonstrated that his goal is an agreement not the prevention of Iranian nukes.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created from a call for such legislation by President Kennedy in 1963. The process of authorship and passage was a truly bi-partisan endeavor, with key people including but not limited to: Senator Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL), President Johnson, Senator Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and many others.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was co-sponsored in a bi-partisan manner by Senators Mansfield and Dirksen.
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).
To lay claim in a current context that the landmark civil rights legislation is the exclusive "property of credit" of either political party is just plain silly, and the role that the Democrat "Southern Bloc" played in the matter doesn't change that no matter how many snarky "conservatives" wish it so.
Agreed. The Democratic party was divided between the racist Southern wing and the liberal northern wing. The republican party also had a northern liberal wing. Civil rights legislation cut out the SOuthern racist Democrats by forming a coalition of all the liberal and moderate Democrats AND Republicans.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created from a call for such legislation by President Kennedy in 1963. The process of authorship and passage was a truly bi-partisan endeavor, with key people including but not limited to: Senator Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL), President Johnson, Senator Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and many others.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was co-sponsored in a bi-partisan manner by Senators Mansfield and Dirksen.
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).
To lay claim in a current context that the landmark civil rights legislation is the exclusive "property of credit" of either political party is just plain silly, and the role that the Democrat "Southern Bloc" played in the matter doesn't change that no matter how many snarky "conservatives" wish it so.
______________________________________________________________________
Not even close to accurate.
The Civil Rights Act was first proposed by Dwight Eisenhower and supported by Senate Republicans and the democrats railed against it. Remember that it was the democrats that ran The South during the slavery era.
Mansfield (D-MT) and Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) publically supported the Act but on The Senate floor they constantly supported the filibuster against it.Kennedy jumped on the bandwagon as it was fast becoming a populist issue.
During the course of crafting the legislation the democrats repeatedly filibustered against The Civil Rights Act.The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).
No, Cellar co-sponsored the Act after it was proposed by The Republicans.It had nothing to do with “snarky conservatives".
It was the democrats that worked against both the Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act.You are mixing up several laws/acts debated/passed between 1957 and 1968, so you are wrong as well.
In any case, trying to paint the civil rights legislation of the period as a simple D vs. R issue is pure folly...not saying there wasn't any partisanship then, but it was a different era in many, many ways and you can't simply project the current political landscape onto what was happening then. And just FYI, the "slavery era" you mentioned had ended nearly a hundred years earlier.
_____________________________________________________
I didn't say "there wasn't any partisanship then"
By party, it was The Republicans that got the Civil Rights Act done while the democrats fought against it.
I didn't say you did, and I specifically went out of my way to not say that as well. The five words you put in quotes completely take my words out of context in a way that changes their meaning. What I did say is that your partisan generalizations don't reflect the complete picture.
It's much more complex. Republican candidate Barry Goldwater (though not at all racist) opposed the 64 Act. Liberal Republicans like Jacob Javitz supported it. Every Southern Democrat opposed it but every non-Southern Democrat supported it.
Appeasement? Wow. Diplomacy and negotiations are a cornerstone of peaceful civilization. I think a treaty is far better than a war.
I also don't think Israel will benefit in the eyes of the world from a militant, hard line stance. Anti-semitism is permeating Europe. Check out this article from the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/
I find this paragraph from the article interesting:
"Hitler destroyed most everything. But the story Europeans tell themselves—or told themselves, until the proof became too obvious to ignore—is that Judenhass, the hatred of Jews, ended when Berlin fell 70 years ago."
It sort of reminds me of the people who maintain that racism in America is dead.That the protections given by the Civil Rights Acts are no longer needed.
If there is no diplomatic solution with Iran I can see military action leading to a World War. There are large groups of people in Europe who will blame European Jews for Netanyahu's hard line.
Is that some kind of veiled threat?
Diplomacy is about promoting your conuntry's interests. It is not about "talking" and it is not about signing pieces of paper. Chamberlain in 1938 thought he was delivering "peace for our time" Europe was at war less than a year later. Some regimes cannot be reasoned with and cannot be apeased. At the every least with a regime such as Iran, diplomacy requires maximum use of leverage. The sanctions were our leverage. Obama gave that up. Iran fully believes it can roll Obama and he has amply demonstrated that his goal is an agreement not the prevention of Iranian nukes.
WHERE do you get that the sanctions ended? This is from LAST WEEK!
US extends Iran sanctions while noting improved behavior
Tehran’s actions pose ‘unusual and extraordinary threat’ to American security, says ObamaWASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama noted improved Iranian behavior while nuclear talks are underway, but said a yearlong extension of sanctions is still merited.
On Wednesday, Obama extended the status of national emergency for Iran, which perpetuates existing sanctions on the regime for a year.
Such extensions have been routine since 1995, when President Bill Clinton first imposed nuclear-related sanctions. But Obama spoke of progress made in the talks between Iran and the major powers.
“This marks the first time in a decade that Iran has agreed to take, and has taken, specific actions that stop the advance and roll back key elements of its nuclear program,” he said, adding that the United States was participating in the temporary relief of some sanctions as part of the agreement governing the talks.
“Nevertheless, certain actions and policies of the Government of Iran are contrary to the interests of the United States in the region and continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to Iran and to maintain in force comprehensive sanctions.”
The deadline for an outline of an agreement is March 24 and for a final agreement July 1. Obama could suspend some sanctions with an agreement in place, but would need congressional approval to permanently repeal sanctions.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-extends-iran-sanctions-while-noting-improve d-behavior/
Maybe Bibi just doesn't want peace?
I don't know why so many folks are rooting against a diplomatic solution. Who's kids are first in line for war? I don't have any, but if I did I'd be rooting even harder for a diplomatic solution.
If Johnny comes marching home... ever again, if he has legs to march with... hurrah. Hurrah.
I don't think we disagree on wanting peace; just on its possibility/viability and where we lay the blame. And if we have this breach in the NY Metropolitan area you can only imagine how deep the rift is in the Mid East
It's a typical tactic to accuse anyone who rejects apeasement of a savage enemy to be a warmonger. Churchill was so accused. Reagan of course was so accused. Now Netanyahu is so accused.
What exactly is this appeasement you speak of? Just by talking to them? That's comical.
You know full well what I am referring to. It has been in every article describing the terms that Obama is going to agree to. It's not a secret. He claims it will stop their progress towards a weapon. That is a lie.
No, I don't. Do you support taking a military action against the Iranian nuclear program? If you do, just admit it. It's not that big of a deal.
Benjamin Netanyahu re-elected Israeli Prime Minister.
Obama must be livid.
He sent senior members of his campaign staff to Israel to help PM Netanyahu’s opponent and diverted tax-payer funds through non-profits to try and oust his nemesis and failed.
Our closest ally in The Middle East will continue to be guided by a strong leader.
Instead of working against Israel, Obama should choose to support our friends and partners in the fight against terror.
Don’t count on it.
"Hi Hillary, its Barrrack. "
"You know I was thinking, before I head down to Palm Springs for 18 holes I could swing by your campaign event"
Click.
"Hello.... Hillary can you hear me?""""
"Hi Hillary, its Barrrack. "
"You know I was thinking, before I head down to Palm Springs for 18 holes I could swing by your campaign event"
Click.
"Hello.... Hillary can you hear me?""""
___________________________________________________
Well played.
quote:
Appeasement? Wow. Diplomacy and negotiations are a cornerstone of peaceful civilization. I think a treaty is far better than a war.I also don't think Israel will benefit in the eyes of the world from a militant, hard line stance. Anti-semitism is permeating Europe. Check out this article from the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews -to-leave-europe/386279/
I find this paragraph from the article interesting:
"Hitler destroyed most everything. But the story Europeans tell themselves—or told themselves, until the proof became too obvious to ignore—is that Judenhass, the hatred of Jews, ended when Berlin fell 70 years ago."
It sort of reminds me of the people who maintain that racism in America is dead.That the protections given by the Civil Rights Acts are no longer needed.
If there is no diplomatic solution with Iran I can see military action leading to a World War. There are large groups of people in Europe who will blame European Jews for Netanyahu's hard line.
Is that some kind of veiled threat?
Diplomacy is about promoting your conuntry's interests. It is not about "talking" and it is not about signing pieces of paper. Chamberlain in 1938 thought he was delivering "peace for our time" Europe was at war less than a year later. Some regimes cannot be reasoned with and cannot be apeased. At the every least with a regime such as Iran, diplomacy requires maximum use of leverage. The sanctions were our leverage. Obama gave that up. Iran fully believes it can roll Obama and he has amply demonstrated that his goal is an agreement not the prevention of Iranian nukes.
A veiled threat? C'mon Doug. Did you read the article?
A veiled threat? I'm concerned that if that the breakdown of negotiations will lead to a World War. If that is the case, I don't see all of Europe siding with the United States and Israel. Especially if someone like Rubio is President. He has already stated he will "absolutely" defy European allies and revoke any Iran deal.
Oh well... out of my hands. It won't be my kids going to war. I don't have any. I'm with Dylan on what should happen to the Masters of War.
The world will not back an extreme right wing agenda.
Maybe Bibi just doesn't want peace?
I don't know why so many folks are rooting against a diplomatic solution. Who's kids are first in line for war? I don't have any, but if I did I'd be rooting even harder for a diplomatic solution.
If Johnny comes marching home... ever again, if he has legs to march with... hurrah. Hurrah.
I don't think we disagree on wanting peace; just on its possibility/viability and where we lay the blame. And if we have this breach in the NY Metropolitan area you can only imagine how deep the rift is in the Mid East
It's a typical tactic to accuse anyone who rejects apeasement of a savage enemy to be a warmonger. Churchill was so accused. Reagan of course was so accused. Now Netanyahu is so accused.
What exactly is this appeasement you speak of? Just by talking to them? That's comical.
You know full well what I am referring to. It has been in every article describing the terms that Obama is going to agree to. It's not a secret. He claims it will stop their progress towards a weapon. That is a lie.
No, I don't. Do you support taking a military action against the Iranian nuclear program? If you do, just admit it. It's not that big of a deal.
I do not. I propose isolating them, sanctioning them to destroy their economy and bring them to their knees and hopefully fomenting an internal revolt since the Iranian people loathe the Mullahs. The last time they rose up Obama didn't even give them rhetorical support.
Benjamin Netanyahu re-elected Israeli Prime Minister.
Obama must be livid.
He sent senior members of his campaign staff to Israel to help PM Netanyahu’s opponent and diverted tax-payer funds through non-profits to try and oust his nemesis and failed.Our closest ally in The Middle East will continue to be guided by a strong leader.
Instead of working against Israel, Obama should choose to support our friends and partners in the fight against terror.Don’t count on
No doubt Obama takes it as a persona affront. My guess is that his animus willnow extend to the Israeli public at large for daring to resist his will. He failed to call Netanyahu to congratulate him as other world leaders did. Pretty classless.
quote:
Appeasement? Wow. Diplomacy and negotiations are a cornerstone of peaceful civilization. I think a treaty is far better than a war.I also don't think Israel will benefit in the eyes of the world from a militant, hard line stance. Anti-semitism is permeating Europe. Check out this article from the Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews -to-leave-europe/386279/
I find this paragraph from the article interesting:
"Hitler destroyed most everything. But the story Europeans tell themselves—or told themselves, until the proof became too obvious to ignore—is that Judenhass, the hatred of Jews, ended when Berlin fell 70 years ago."
It sort of reminds me of the people who maintain that racism in America is dead.That the protections given by the Civil Rights Acts are no longer needed.
If there is no diplomatic solution with Iran I can see military action leading to a World War. There are large groups of people in Europe who will blame European Jews for Netanyahu's hard line.
Is that some kind of veiled threat?
Diplomacy is about promoting your conuntry's interests. It is not about "talking" and it is not about signing pieces of paper. Chamberlain in 1938 thought he was delivering "peace for our time" Europe was at war less than a year later. Some regimes cannot be reasoned with and cannot be apeased. At the every least with a regime such as Iran, diplomacy requires maximum use of leverage. The sanctions were our leverage. Obama gave that up. Iran fully believes it can roll Obama and he has amply demonstrated that his goal is an agreement not the prevention of Iranian nukes.
A veiled threat? C'mon Doug. Did you read the article?
A veiled threat? I'm concerned that if that the breakdown of negotiations will lead to a World War. If that is the case, I don't see all of Europe siding with the United States and Israel. Especially if someone like Rubio is President. He has already stated he will "absolutely" defy European allies and revoke any Iran deal.
Oh well... out of my hands. It won't be my kids going to war. I don't have any. I'm with Dylan on what should happen to the Masters of War.
The world will not back an extreme right wing agenda.
This is what its come to eh? Not wanting to capitulate to the Mullahs, the single biggest supporter of international terrorism and continue a policy that was working that has existed for three decades, is now an extreme right wing agenda. This is how Obama and his supporters constantly move the goalposts. Pretty soon supporting the first amendment will be seen as an extreme right wing agenda.
Maybe Bibi just doesn't want peace?
I don't know why so many folks are rooting against a diplomatic solution. Who's kids are first in line for war? I don't have any, but if I did I'd be rooting even harder for a diplomatic solution.
If Johnny comes marching home... ever again, if he has legs to march with... hurrah. Hurrah.
I don't think we disagree on wanting peace; just on its possibility/viability and where we lay the blame. And if we have this breach in the NY Metropolitan area you can only imagine how deep the rift is in the Mid East
It's a typical tactic to accuse anyone who rejects apeasement of a savage enemy to be a warmonger. Churchill was so accused. Reagan of course was so accused. Now Netanyahu is so accused.
What exactly is this appeasement you speak of? Just by talking to them? That's comical.
You know full well what I am referring to. It has been in every article describing the terms that Obama is going to agree to. It's not a secret. He claims it will stop their progress towards a weapon. That is a lie.
No, I don't. Do you support taking a military action against the Iranian nuclear program? If you do, just admit it. It's not that big of a deal.
I do not. I propose isolating them, sanctioning them to destroy their economy and bring them to their knees and hopefully fomenting an internal revolt since the Iranian people loathe the Mullahs. The last time they rose up Obama didn't even give them rhetorical support.
When did the sanctions stop? Can you address this claim you keep making?
This is what its come to eh? Not wanting to capitulate to the Mullahs, the single biggest supporter of international terrorism and continue a policy that was working that has existed for three decades, is now an extreme right wing agenda. This is how Obama and his supporters constantly move the goalposts. Pretty soon supporting the first amendment will be seen as an extreme right wing agenda.
Its Bibi who the world sees as far right. Why? Because he wants war. "The Mullahs". All the Mullahs Doug? All of them all over the world.
You have a really blunted look at the world.
How have the last internal revolts the United States fomented worked out?
So you don't support war but you definitely support a bloody overthrow of the Iranian government.
There's that I guess.
So there is territory in Israel that disputes of ownership go back a long time; but I don't think there is one historical example of Israel starting a war with its neighbors. They go into Gaza when the terrorists attacked their country to stop Hamas.1967; 1973 recent Gazan conflicts - those were defensive moves on Israels part as they were attacked.
I don't think there is one example of Israel attacking without being attacked first. Again; one can dispute the legitimacy of Israel's territorial existence. That one goes back thousands of years - not sure anyone will ever solve that. But I don't think Israel has ever attacked a neighboring country without being attacked (and I am including Hamas terror strikes in that equation)
Benjamin Netanyahu re-elected Israeli Prime Minister.
Obama must be livid.
He sent senior members of his campaign staff to Israel to help PM Netanyahu’s opponent and diverted tax-payer funds through non-profits to try and oust his nemesis and failed.Our closest ally in The Middle East will continue to be guided by a strong leader.
Instead of working against Israel, Obama should choose to support our friends and partners in the fight against terror.Don’t count on
No doubt Obama takes it as a persona affront. My guess is that his animus willnow extend to the Israeli public at large for daring to resist his will. He failed to call Netanyahu to congratulate him as other world leaders did. Pretty classless.
After the classless Boehner/Netanyahu stunt I don't blame Obama for no congratulations. Netanyahu learned well from Romney and McCain flipping a major long held view at the last minute to gain conservative votes and get re elected. Job well done. Now he either has to flip back and make enemies with those who helped him get elected or follow through and have an opposing view than their closest and biggest ally. He now comes off as a phony flipper who has undermined any chance for any peace process. So their new policy with Palestine is no negotiations and you never get a state no matter what. How is this gonna go over with the rest of our allies besides being opposite of our view? Netanyahu sold out to get re elected and now he will have to deal with the aftermath. I don't think anything good for Israel has come out of the last few weeks events.
Benjamin Netanyahu re-elected Israeli Prime Minister.
Obama must be livid.
He sent senior members of his campaign staff to Israel to help PM Netanyahu’s opponent and diverted tax-payer funds through non-profits to try and oust his nemesis and failed.Our closest ally in The Middle East will continue to be guided by a strong leader.
Instead of working against Israel, Obama should choose to support our friends and partners in the fight against terror.Don’t count on
No doubt Obama takes it as a persona affront. My guess is that his animus willnow extend to the Israeli public at large for daring to resist his will. He failed to call Netanyahu to congratulate him as other world leaders did. Pretty classless.
After the classless Boehner/Netanyahu stunt I don't blame Obama for no congratulations. Netanyahu learned well from Romney and McCain flipping a major long held view at the last minute to gain conservative votes and get re elected. Job well done. Now he either has to flip back and make enemies with those who helped him get elected or follow through and have an opposing view than their closest and biggest ally. He now comes off as a phony flipper who has undermined any chance for any peace process. So their new policy with Palestine is no negotiations and you never get a state no matter what. How is this gonna go over with the rest of our allies besides being opposite of our view? Netanyahu sold out to get re elected and now he will have to deal with the aftermath. I don't think anything good for Israel has come out of the last few weeks events.
Bibi and Barry have a long standing hatred of each other. Trying to decide who started will be as fruitful as discussions to determine who has rights to the land as to which came first the chicken or the egg. Countries are allies; leaders hate each other
Bibi and Barry have a long standing hatred of each other. Trying to decide who started will be as fruitful as discussions to determine who has rights to the land as to which came first the chicken or the egg. Countries are allies; leaders hate each other
You really think they "hate" each other?
This world is doomed.
Bibi and Barry have a long standing hatred of each other. Trying to decide who started will be as fruitful as discussions to determine who has rights to the land as to which came first the chicken or the egg. Countries are allies; leaders hate each other
You really think they "hate" each other?
This world is doomed.
I really do. They are diametrically opposed in viewpoint; personality; demeanor. The countries have a need for each other as Israel is the only true Mid-East Democracy so the US needs them there. They need US support. In a different situation they'd be street fighting and cursing each other.
Bibi and Barry have a long standing hatred of each other. Trying to decide who started will be as fruitful as discussions to determine who has rights to the land as to which came first the chicken or the egg. Countries are allies; leaders hate each other
You really think they "hate" each other?
This world is doomed.
______________________________________________________________________
Obama’s hatred of Israel goes back long before America’s mistake in electing him president happened.
Obama is all about supporting his Muslim Brothers.
Fortunately even with Obama meddling in another country’s democratic election, the people of Israel elected a strong leader who is actually willing to defend his nation against Islamic Extremist Terrorism.
Sadly American does not have a strong leader. Instead we have a failure
How will the Obama Administration respond to Bibi's opposition to a two state solution?
Is the United States kowtowing to Israel? Or will there be substantive changes in our relations?
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.647859
How will the Obama Administration respond to Bibi's opposition to a two state solution?
He already changed his mind.
From today: "I don't want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution."
How will the Obama Administration respond to Bibi's opposition to a two state solution?
He already changed his mind.
From today: "I don't want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution."
Which will only be considered if Hamas is out of the picture; which is like my wife telling me she'd consider a ménage-a-trois as long as Angelina Jolie joins us. Both sound good; neither is about to happen during our lifetime
The linked article gives several paths that the Obama Administration might choose.
Failing to oust Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu by directly interfering in Israel’s election, Obama now will use The U.N. to hurt our best ally in The Middle East while helping our biggest enemy:
Standoff between Obama, Netanyahu deepens despite Palestinian state clarification
Published March 19, 2015 - FoxNews.com
Rift between Obama and Netanyahu widens after election
Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday seemed to dial back his pre-election remarks opposing the creation of a Palestinian state -- but that did little to ease the emerging stand-off between his government and the Obama administration on the matter, which reportedly is considering going to the U.N. to pressure Israel.
The Israeli prime minister, shortly before Tuesday's election, had said he would not allow a Palestinian state on his watch.
But on Thursday, Netanyahu claimed he hadn't actually changed his position.
"I didn't retract any of the things I said in my speech six years ago, calling for a solution in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes a Jewish state," Netanyahu told Fox News' Megyn Kelly.
He clarified that he thinks the conditions for a two-state solution, "today, are not achievable" -- since he said Palestinian leaders do not accept Israel as a Jewish state and terrorists could occupy any territory Israel withdraws from.
But he also told MSNBC he ultimately wants "a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution" if circumstances change.
The latest comments, however, were greeted with skepticism by Obama administration officials.
"Words matter," White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said.
He made clear the administration is focusing on what Netanyahu said before the election, and not on what he's saying now. Earnest accused Netanyahu of "backing away" from the commitment to a two-state solution with those earlier comments.
Watch the interview with Netanyahu on Fox News' "The Kelly File" at 9 p.m. ET on Thursday.
"It does raise questions about his commitment to that solution," Earnest said.
In a stark warning, Earnest said the position the U.S. historically has taken before the United Nations -- protecting Israel from intervention -- was based on the idea of a two-state outcome. He said that foundation has now been "eroded" and the U.S. is reevaluating its position -- though Obama could call Netanyahu as early as Thursday for further discussions.
The comments come amid reports that the Obama administration is indeed considering looking to the U.N. to pressure Israel into a peace deal with the Palestinians, despite historically blocking such action at the world body.
Foreign Policy reported Thursday that the U.S. is looking at supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for peace talks and a comprehensive settlement.
"The more the new [Israeli] government veers to the right the more likely you will see something [at the United Nations] in New York," a Western diplomat told Foreign Policy.
Netanyahu told Fox News he hopes the Obama administration is not seriously considering this.
"I hope that's not true, and I think that President Obama has said time and time again, as I've said, that the only path to a peace agreement is an agreement, a negotiated agreement. You can't impose it," he told Fox News. "You can't force the people of Israel, who've just elected me by a wide margin, to bring them peace and security, to secure the State of Israel, to accept terms that would endanger the very survival of the State of Israel. I don't think that's the direction of American policy. I hope it's not."
But Obama administration officials are leaving the door open.
After the election, the Obama administration made clear it still supports a two-state solution and would work to achieve it -- somehow. Officials would not say whether that means going through the United Nations. But they didn't rule it out, either.
"We haven't made a decision," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Thursday. "It's just natural that we would be looking at the different options."
"Based on PM Netanyahu's comments we will need to reevaluate our position and the way forward. We're not going to get ahead of any decisions about what the United States would do with regard to potential action at the U.N. Security Council," a senior administration official also told Fox News on Thursday.
The potential shift comes after Netanyahu's Likud Party won big in Tuesday's election -- positioning him for a third consecutive term as prime minister.
The consideration of going to the U.N. underscores the growing rift between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations. The two already at odds over a pending Iran nuclear deal, Netanyahu staked out a new area of disagreement with his Palestinian state comments.
The prospect of U.N. interference already is raising the hackles of the Israelis.
After a U.N. spokesman on Wednesday said it is "incumbent" on the Israelis to pursue a peace deal and support the creation of a Palestinian State, among other conditions, Israel's ambassador to the U.N. Ron Prosor fired back.
"The United Nations may disagree with the policies of the Israeli government, but there is one fact that can't be disputed -- that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East," he said. "If the U.N. is so concerned about the future of the Palestinian people, it should be asking why President Abbas is in the tenth year of a five-year presidential term or why Hamas uses the Palestinian people as human shields."
The Palestinians had urged the U.N. Security Council to accept a resolution demanding that the Israelis leave Palestinian territories. The U.S. opposed it.
Foreign Policy reported, however, that France is now pressing the U.S. to take another look at a separate resolution, which they offered, calling for resumed peace talks toward a final deal.
Diplomats told Foreign Policy there are still significant differences between the U.S. and French approaches, but suggested they could be resolved. Foreign Policy reports that the U.S. delegation also could simply abstain on a U.N. resolution vote.
The dynamic on the council also has changed in recent months.
When the Security Council last voted on the Arab nation-backed measure to set a deadline for peace talks and Israel's withdrawal from the territories, supporters could not secure the nine votes needed for adoption from the 15-member council -- meaning the U.S., which opposed it, did not have to exercise a veto to block it. However, with Venezuela now on the council, supporters could have the needed nine votes today -- forcing the U.S. to make a decision on whether to veto.
Obama has not yet called Netanyahu to congratulate him, though the White House says he will. Secretary of State John Kerry has called the prime minister
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was created from a call for such legislation by President Kennedy in 1963. The process of authorship and passage was a truly bi-partisan endeavor, with key people including but not limited to: Senator Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL), President Johnson, Senator Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and many others.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was co-sponsored in a bi-partisan manner by Senators Mansfield and Dirksen.
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).
To lay claim in a current context that the landmark civil rights legislation is the exclusive "property of credit" of either political party is just plain silly, and the role that the Democrat "Southern Bloc" played in the matter doesn't change that no matter how many snarky "conservatives" wish it so.
______________________________________________________________________
Not even close to accurate.
The Civil Rights Act was first proposed by Dwight Eisenhower and supported by Senate Republicans and the democrats railed against it. Remember that it was the democrats that ran The South during the slavery era.
Mansfield (D-MT) and Senator Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) publically supported the Act but on The Senate floor they constantly supported the filibuster against it.Kennedy jumped on the bandwagon as it was fast becoming a populist issue.
During the course of crafting the legislation the democrats repeatedly filibustered against The Civil Rights Act.The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was sponsored by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY).
No, Cellar co-sponsored the Act after it was proposed by The Republicans.It had nothing to do with “snarky conservatives".
It was the democrats that worked against both the Civil Rights Act and The Voting Rights Act.You are mixing up several laws/acts debated/passed between 1957 and 1968, so you are wrong as well.
In any case, trying to paint the civil rights legislation of the period as a simple D vs. R issue is pure folly...not saying there wasn't any partisanship then, but it was a different era in many, many ways and you can't simply project the current political landscape onto what was happening then. And just FYI, the "slavery era" you mentioned had ended nearly a hundred years earlier.
_____________________________________________________
I didn't say "there wasn't any partisanship then"
By party, it was The Republicans that got the Civil Rights Act done while the democrats fought against it.
I didn't say you did, and I specifically went out of my way to not say that as well. The five words you put in quotes completely take my words out of context in a way that changes their meaning. What I did say is that your partisan generalizations don't reflect the complete picture.
It's much more complex. Republican candidate Barry Goldwater (though not at all racist) opposed the 64 Act. Liberal Republicans like Jacob Javitz supported it. Every Southern Democrat opposed it but every non-Southern Democrat supported it.
Exactly. Too bad muleman can't wrap his head around any more complex that the A,B,C's
Maybe Bibi just doesn't want peace?
I don't know why so many folks are rooting against a diplomatic solution. Who's kids are first in line for war? I don't have any, but if I did I'd be rooting even harder for a diplomatic solution.
If Johnny comes marching home... ever again, if he has legs to march with... hurrah. Hurrah.
I don't think we disagree on wanting peace; just on its possibility/viability and where we lay the blame. And if we have this breach in the NY Metropolitan area you can only imagine how deep the rift is in the Mid East
It's a typical tactic to accuse anyone who rejects apeasement of a savage enemy to be a warmonger. Churchill was so accused. Reagan of course was so accused. Now Netanyahu is so accused.
What exactly is this appeasement you speak of? Just by talking to them? That's comical.
You know full well what I am referring to. It has been in every article describing the terms that Obama is going to agree to. It's not a secret. He claims it will stop their progress towards a weapon. That is a lie.
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies." - Moshe Dayan.
Ronald Reagan is turning over in his grave. He championed the two state solution.
Maybe Bibi just doesn't want peace?
I don't know why so many folks are rooting against a diplomatic solution. Who's kids are first in line for war? I don't have any, but if I did I'd be rooting even harder for a diplomatic solution.
If Johnny comes marching home... ever again, if he has legs to march with... hurrah. Hurrah.
I don't think we disagree on wanting peace; just on its possibility/viability and where we lay the blame. And if we have this breach in the NY Metropolitan area you can only imagine how deep the rift is in the Mid East
It's a typical tactic to accuse anyone who rejects apeasement of a savage enemy to be a warmonger. Churchill was so accused. Reagan of course was so accused. Now Netanyahu is so accused.
What exactly is this appeasement you speak of? Just by talking to them? That's comical.
You know full well what I am referring to. It has been in every article describing the terms that Obama is going to agree to. It's not a secret. He claims it will stop their progress towards a weapon. That is a lie.
No, I don't. Do you support taking a military action against the Iranian nuclear program? If you do, just admit it. It's not that big of a deal.
I do not. I propose isolating them, sanctioning them to destroy their economy and bring them to their knees and hopefully fomenting an internal revolt since the Iranian people loathe the Mullahs. The last time they rose up Obama didn't even give them rhetorical support.
When did the sanctions stop? Can you address this claim you keep making?
The deal Obama is planning will remove the sanctions. That is the main thing Iran wants and it is the main thing Iran will get.
This is what its come to eh? Not wanting to capitulate to the Mullahs, the single biggest supporter of international terrorism and continue a policy that was working that has existed for three decades, is now an extreme right wing agenda. This is how Obama and his supporters constantly move the goalposts. Pretty soon supporting the first amendment will be seen as an extreme right wing agenda.
Its Bibi who the world sees as far right. Why? Because he wants war. "The Mullahs". All the Mullahs Doug? All of them all over the world.
You have a really blunted look at the world.
How have the last internal revolts the United States fomented worked out?
So you don't support war but you definitely support a bloody overthrow of the Iranian government.
There's that I guess.
You know Mullahs refers to the Iranian regime not all the Mullahs all over the world. And again with Obama's favorite technique of making crap up you accuse me of fomenting a "bloody revolution." You say I have a blunted view of the world? Try living inthe Middle East for a while where the MULLAHS are busy hacking and killing away while Obama makes nice nice with them. Your views are not even left wing. They are just through the Looking Glass nuts.
