bpower posted:

When the parents come back they give Bibi a cheerful "Sholom!" (Peace!) and he answers "Not unconditionally!".

Is that a fair translation? i just read it elsewhere.

nopantsjack posted:

When the guy stupidly salutes him at the start is that a joke at him not expecting Netenyahu to be his bibisitter and not knowing how to act, or as ex-IDF are citizens meant to salute Bibi? I'd guess the former.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

No civilian is going to salute nobody in Israel, with the exception of maybe someone who used to be your commanding officer. It's a jarringly militaristic expression of respect for a high-ranking politician, especially one like Bibi who never made it to the big leagues militarily; basically, this response is completely foreign to the Israeli character, and is mostly a sad window into the beleaguered PM's psyche.

nopantsjack posted:

When the guy stupidly salutes him at the start is that a joke at him not expecting Netenyahu to be his bibisitter and not knowing how to act, or as ex-IDF are citizens meant to salute Bibi? I'd guess the former.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

No civilian is going to salute nobody in Israel,

Xander77 posted:

Ahhem.

SedanChair posted:

Mike Gravel did the world's first Dadaist political ad. This is just schmaltzy and bizarre.

Main Paineframe posted:

Lum_ posted:

Version with english subtitles, because yes, dammit, this is almost as good as the Gravel ad for political dada.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cmac71R5Br8

Avshalom posted:

All I want in life is for Bibi to have zero friends. Not a single friend. Not one.

Avshalom posted:

All I want in life is for Bibi to have zero friends. Not a single friend. Not one.

SedanChair posted:

He'll always have Mitt. Mitt isn't the sort to leave his old raider buddies high and dry.

quote:

The EU is building hundreds of illegal structures in the West Bank, which the government has not removed in order to avoid a diplomatic tangle with the Europeans, according to a report released Friday by the NGO, Regavim. The structures are being built near Ma’aleh Adumim and its E1 area.

This report is just one of a number the group – a right-wing organization which describes itself as a “research-backed, legal advocacy organization focused on land ownership issues” – has released in recent months.

According to Regavim, European Union support for the Palestinians has in recent years moved from “passive diplomatic and financial assistance to a situation of active cooperation in illegal building which the Palestinian Authority has been advancing unilaterally since 2000, as part of its strategic plan to create a Palestinian state de facto, while avoiding the need for negotiations with Israel.”

This week, prior to the release of its latest report, Regavim took journalists to look at a number of Beduin encampments straddling E1 as well as the Jerusalem-Jericho road. They are not temporary tent encampments as they were in years past, but rather clusters that – in addition to tents and tin shacks – also include modular structures with cement floors bearing the EU logo.

According to Ari Briggs, Regavim’s international relations director, the EU logo is placed on the structures in the belief that this will prevent Israel from demolishing them. Israel is not likely to take down a building with an EU logo, due to concerns over both public relations damage and the harm it could cause to relations with the EU, he said.

Maj.-Gen Yoav Mordechai, the coordinator of government activities in the territories (COGAT), was in Europe this week holding talks with high-level EU officials. One diplomatic source said this issue was one of the topics of his conversations.

A COGAT representative, referring to the Regavim charge that it is reluctant to take down the structures because of EU involvement, said: “The civil administration acts against illegal construction, and no organization is exempt from enforcement.

COGAT has sent official letters to embassies and international organizations cautioning them against building illegally in Judea and Samaria.”

Regavim claims EU support for these structures is part of a Palestinian plan to gradually take control of large parts of Area C, the 60 percent of the West Bank that, according to the Oslo Accords, is under full Israeli control.

The EU has for years increasingly focused on shoring up Palestinian development in this area, believing it vital to the viability of a future Palestinian state.

The EU-funded structures, according to Meir Deutsch, the director of Regavim’s policy and government relations department, are being placed illegally on state land, and in some cases in restricted nature reserves.

When Regavim appealed to the High Court in 2008 to compel the state to demolish illegal buildings in the area, it ruled that this could not be done until an alternative living arrangement was found for the Beduin living there. Israel then began planning a city – called Ramat Nueima – north of Jericho for some 12,000 people, a plan now adamantly opposed by the Palestinians and the EU.

In November, a meeting of EU foreign ministers issued a statement that, in addition to their usual condemnations of land expropriation and settlement construction, also slammed plans to “displace Beduin in the West Bank and the continued demolitions, including of EU and member states funded projects.”

The underlying idea behind the joint Palestinian/EU efforts in Area C, Briggs asserted, is to establish a permanent Palestinian presence on the state lands there. “This is great hypocrisy,” Briggs said. “Any time a building goes up for Jews, they raise an outcry, call it illegal and say it endangers peace. They are building illegal houses for Arabs.”

From 2012-2014, according to Deutsch, the EU – at the cost of millions of euros – has put up more than 400 structures.

In response, the EU said it is providing humanitarian assistance to communities in need in Area C in accordance with the humanitarian imperative; it is committed to supporting the development of Area C for the benefit of Palestinian communities; and it consults with the local communities themselves and the Israeli authorities where necessary.

According to a statement issued by the Office of the EU Representative in east Jerusalem, the EU is “deeply dismayed by and strongly opposes Israeli plans to expand settlements in the West Bank, including in east Jerusalem, and in particular plans to develop the E1 area.”

“The E1 plan, if implemented, would seriously undermine the prospects of a negotiated resolution of the conflict by jeopardizing the possibility of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states,” the statement read. “It could also entail forced transfer of civilian population.

In the light of its core objective of achieving the two-state solution, the EU will closely monitor the situation and its broader implications, and act accordingly. The European Union reiterates that settlements are illegal under international law and constitute an obstacle to peace.”

James Carver, a British member of the European Parliament from the right-wing Euroskeptic Independent Party, is sending a letter Friday to his colleagues based on the Regavim paper slamming the EU’s policy.

In the letter, Carver wrote that the EU actions do not comply with the founding treaties of the EU. He said the structures are disrespectful of the rule of law, because the construction of the structures without the necessary permits is a “manifest violation of law.”

Clearly, he wrote, “EU member states would not allow such behavior within their own borders, nor would the EU endorse or find it anywhere within the European Union. So why would the EU do so outside its borders?” Secondly, he wrote, the buildings contravene the Oslo Accords, which give Israel full administrative responsibility and authority over Area C. “Any building constructed without such permit is illegal, and by endorsing such acts by the Palestinians, the EU is participating in a violation of the Oslo II Agreement,” he wrote.

Finally, Carver added, some of the structures are being built on nature reserves, where construction is forbidden.

loquacius posted:

Someone who knows more about Israeli politics / parliamentary democracy plz help: assuming that Haaretz's current polls are 100% accurate, is there any likely feat of coalition-building that could possibly result in a prime-minister that is not Bibi? Likud has a 2-seat lead on Zionist Camp, and there's no way in hell that Habayit Hayehudi and Yisrael Beiteinu aren't gonna join the Likud coalition. And Shas. And Yachad. We're in trouble, aren't we?

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Considering their big "gently caress you" to an 11-12 seat bloc in the next Knesset which would have at least been capable of supporting them from the outside, it doesn't seem like they could head a coalition. Even if Ynet's poll is true, they are going to have a rough time of it. But at least they showed those A-rabs!

My Imaginary GF posted:

Tzipi coming out openly with support for working with Arabs to becone PM? That's a Bibisitter supermajority.

I like Bibi's ads, they're funny and kinda cute. If I was in Israel, I'd vote for Bibi.

Volkerball posted:

Why not Naftali?

Absurd Alhazred posted:

This is interesting. According to Tablet Mag (notoriously pro-Israeli-righwing, be forewarned), the NYT corrected its reporting to show that Netanyahu in fact did inform the White House about his visit, thus being in line with protocol. They take this to be deliberate dissembling by WH spokespeople and the NYT, as well as the rest of the Liberal Media. What NYT do say is the following:

An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

It seems to be ambiguous as to how the Administration has been informed.

This is reviving the feeling I had that Boehner is actually throwing Netanyahu under the bus here, to avoid being charged under the Logan Act.

Main Paineframe posted:

That article is either misunderstanding or deliberately misinterpreting the quote that it's based on (probably the latter, given that it seems to be exploding across right-wing media). The Times quote it's based on doesn't say that Netanyahu informed the White House before accepting the invitation, only that the White House was informed before he accepted the invitation - it doesn't say who informed the White House. Which is important, because the story has always been that the White House was informed before the public announcement of acceptance - their problem was always the fact that they heard it from Boehner rather than from Netanyahu. Considering that the Israeli ambassador has openly admitted that Netanyahu did not inform the White House, and that his excuse for that is that he expected Boehner to do it, the main issue the White House had is pretty squarely confirmed by both sides. Unless you think Netanyahu's own spokespeople are throwing him under the bus in order to protect Boehner, I guess.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Bibi is an elder statesman who understands security in the post-9/11 era.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

Yeah, that sounds about right. I did point out they were taking advantage of an ambiguity, but I'm running on little sleep so I had a hard time parsing the bigger picture. I should probably try and find an earlier NYT source confirming that this is rubbish by Tablet et al, in case I need to use it arguing with people online (although in Israel that ship has sailed long ago, I think).

quote:

Now let me tell you the facts. The speaker’s office initially reached out to me regarding the idea of the prime minister giving a speech less than two weeks before an official invitation was sent. We said that we were open to making such an address and went back and forth with the speaker’s office to see if there were potential dates that could work for the prime minister’s schedule and the congressional calendar.

quote:

The White House was first notified of this invitation on the morning of Jan. 21, by Boehner, almost two weeks after he first asked Dermer if Netanyahu might be interested. In response to this initial request, Boehner was informed that the Prime Minister was open in principle to an invitation.

quote:

The invitation was a coordinated effort involving Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with staff discussions beginning last year, according to a senior Republican aide, who spoke only on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to publicly discuss the private talks. Boehner contacted the Israeli ambassador on Jan. 8 to assess Netanyahu's interest and received a positive response.

quote:

Boehner's team had been discussing this invite with Netanyahu "for weeks," according to a House GOP leadership source, who added the reason driving the invitation was the Administration's negotiations with Iran.

quote:

The final decision to invite the prime minister was made by the speaker’s office the day before he was invited—and I was informed of it that afternoon.

quote:

The day before the announcement, on the day of the President's State of the Union speech, Secretary of State John Kerry had a lengthy meeting with Dermer, where Dermer never mentioned it.

quote:

It was also made clear to me that it was the speaker’s responsibility and normal protocol for the Speaker’s office to notify the administration of the invitation. That is why I felt it would be inappropriate for me to raise the issue with the administration, including in my meeting with the secretary of state, until the speaker notified them.

quote:

Boehner announced Wednesday that the Israeli leader will speak to a joint session of Congress on Feb. 11 to talk about the Obama administration’s efforts to negotiate a deal with Tehran that would lift sanctions in exchange for putting an end to Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

quote:

The White House was first notified of this invitation on the morning of Jan. 21, by Boehner, almost two weeks after he first asked Dermer if Netanyahu might be interested.

quote:

The speaker’s office apparently informed the administration about it the morning of the announcement, around two hours before it was publicized. After it was publicized, we were in contact with administration officials, both here and in Jerusalem.

quote:

While they did not consult with the White House, this Republican aide said Boehner's office did inform the White House this morning that Netanyahu would be coming.

quote:

“I did not consult with the White House,” Boehner told reporters. “The Congress can make this decision on its own. I don't believe I'm poking anyone in the eye. There is a serious threat that exists in the world and the president last night kind of papered over it. The fact is there needs to be a more serious conversation in American about how serious the threat is from radical Islamic jihadists and the threat posed by Iran.”
...
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the administration would "reserve judgment on the trip" until they had a chance to speak to the Israeli government, but that the unilateral invitation from Congress "seems to be a departure from the protocol."

He said that the White House had not heard from the Israelis "about this at all," and was only notified by the Speaker's office earlier Wednesday.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the administration was not opposed to Netanyahu speaking, but reiterated that the invitation was a surprise to the administration.

"Certainly, traditionally, we would learn about the plans of a leader to come to the United States, separately from learning about it from the Speaker of the House, which is how we learned of Prime Minister Netanyahu's plans to come and speak to a joint session," Psaki said.
The address would mark Netanyahu's third appearance before Congress and his second during Boehner’s tenure as Speaker.

quote:

At his request, PM @Netanyahu of #Israel will now address joint mtg of Congress on March 3 so he can attend @AIPAC conference in DC.

quote:

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel's prime minister says he has accepted House of Representatives leader John Boehner's invitation to address the U.S. Congress.

Boehner invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint meeting of Congress in February and push for new sanctions against Iran. Netanyahu said he would come in March. The White House called the invitation a breach of protocol.

A statement from Netanyahu's office Thursday didn't refer to the spat. It said the speech will give him the chance to "thank President Barack Obama, Congress and the American people for their support of Israel."

quote:

“Accordingly, the president will not be meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu because of the proximity to the Israeli election, which is just two weeks after his planned address to the U.S. Congress,” Ms. Meehan said.

Earlier Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu announced that he would accept the Republicans’ invitation to address Congress in March.

Absurd Alhazred posted:

This is interesting. According to Tablet Mag (notoriously pro-Israeli-righwing, be forewarned), the NYT corrected its reporting to show that Netanyahu in fact did inform the White House about his visit, thus being in line with protocol. They take this to be deliberate dissembling by WH spokespeople and the NYT, as well as the rest of the Liberal Media. What NYT do say is the following:

An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

It seems to be ambiguous as to how the Administration has been informed.

This is reviving the feeling I had that Boehner is actually throwing Netanyahu under the bus here, to avoid being charged under the Logan Act.

Xandu posted:

Hardly matters even if it's true, Biden's not attending and other democrats will be boycotting. The White House certainly feels protocol was breached.

Main Paineframe posted:

That article is either misunderstanding or deliberately misinterpreting the quote that it's based on (probably the latter, given that it seems to be exploding across right-wing media). The Times quote it's based on doesn't say that Netanyahu informed the White House before accepting the invitation, only that the White House was informed before he accepted the invitation - it doesn't say who informed the White House. Which is important, because the story has always been that the White House was informed before the public announcement of acceptance - their problem was always the fact that they heard it from Boehner rather than from Netanyahu. Considering that the Israeli ambassador has openly admitted that Netanyahu did not inform the White House, and that his excuse for that is that he expected Boehner to do it, the main issue the White House had is pretty squarely confirmed by both sides. Unless you think Netanyahu's own spokespeople are throwing him under the bus in order to protect Boehner, I guess.

Xandu posted:

Biden? He just announced he would be "overseas".

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/VP-Biden-to-skip-Netanyahus-speech-before-Congress-390257

My Imaginary GF posted:

Biden knows a live grenade when he sees one, and with his Presidential ambitions, is more than happy for Hillary to wind up with the hot potato.

SedanChair posted:

So the potato is a grenade? Thanks Tom.

Main Paineframe posted:

The sourcing should probably be enough, since it comes almost exclusively from the far-right blogosphere. I think even Fox News hasn't picked it up yet. If someone throws it at you on Facebook, just challenge them to find a more reliable and mainstream source than Times of Israel or the American Thinker. Either they'll fail, or they'll start screaming about some kind of media conspiracy.

I'm not sure you're going to find a single source that gives the full rundown, because (as is often the case when politics and diplomacy intersect) it's a complex issue built around a bunch of very small distinctions in a very short period of time, and news articles at the time weren't expecting to cover the whole thing in that level of exhaustive detail; the White House was apparently informed of the invitation only two hours before it was publicly announced. Here's a detailed timeline with sourcing, for each entry, as best as I can figure from consulting various sources:

Sometime around Jan 7th: Boehner contacts Netanyahu's administration to say that he'd like to invite Netanyahu to come give a speech in front of Congress. Netanyahu's administration responds that he would like to do that, and an unspecified amount of time is spent working out schedules and details between Boehner's staff and Netanyahu's staff. The source for this information does not specifically state that Netanyahu knew about it at this phase, but I find it incredibly unlikely that this was all set up without his knowledge and approval.
Source

Source

Source

Source

============================================

January 20th or 21st, morning: Boehner sends Netanyahu an official invitation letter to come speak in front of Congress on February 11th.
Source

Copy of invitation letter (note date of Jan 21st, not 20th)

============================================

January 20th, afternoon: Kerry has a "lengthy" meeting with the Israeli ambassador, who was aware of Boehner's initial outreach and the ongoing negotiations, but mentions nothing to Kerry.
Source

Source

============================================

January 21st, morning: Boehner informs the White House that he has invited Netanyahu.
January 21st, two hours later: Boehner privately informs the Republicans about the invitation in a closed-doors meeting, and then publicly announces in a press conference that he has invited Netanyahu to come speak to Congress on February 11th.
Source

Source

Source

Source

============================================

January 21st, afternoon: By noon, White House officials are telling reporters saying that they have not yet heard from Netanyahu or the Israeli government and complaining that it's unheard of for the President to only learn about a foreign leader's visit from the Speaker of the House, without being informed by that leader. Boehner publicly confirms that the White House wasn't involved and declares that Congress didn't need the White House's permission or knowledge to invite Netanyahu. By evening, the public spat is already exploding into a national controversy.
Source

============================================

January 22nd, 6am: Boehner reports that Netanyahu had requested that the speech date be moved to March 3rd so that he can also address an AIPAC meeting around that time.
Source

============================================

January 22nd, 11am: Netanyahu's office officially announces that he has officially accepted Boehner's invitation. Shortly afterward, Obama announces that he will not be meeting with Netanyahu during the visit.
Source

Source

Xandu posted:

Hardly matters even if it's true, Biden's not attending and other democrats will be boycotting. The White House certainly feels protocol was breached.

My Imaginary GF posted:

Bolded the important part. Their issue is that Boehner invited Bibi to speak on a topic which the President is weak on and has effectively no support in Congress for; to that end, WH pre-empted the political hit they'd take from the visit by making it about the visit itself, rather than the subject of the visit, by disseminating its talking talking points to friendly media outlets.

These talking points were crafted to imply that Bibi had breached Executive protocol, when WH, Congress, and Bibi know drat well that Obama could have come out publicly against Bibi's visit after Boehner informed WH the invitation had been made. WH wants to smear Bibi before Bibi starts the news cycle about how weak Obama has been on Iran, thus making this a partisan issue, rather than the bi-partisan and broad dissent which is Congress, and the American people's, opinion on Obama's policies of mid-east appeasement.