Something I read that expresses the ignorance of our government concerning our       relationship with Israel.  Everybody seems concerned about Armagedon and the end.  The more this  government moves in this direction the more it puts us one step closer to it.

 US  rebukes Israel 

 

          I’ve been informed that this article is copywrited so I am going to have to remove it from my blog.  However, I can still post what I have to say about it.

US rebukes Israel

 The article was written by Matthew Lee, AP and tells of (sarchasim) our illustrius Presidents’ un American attatude toward Israel.
 

Israeli plans to build new housing units in settlements.  This doesn’t seem to set well with our President as it interferes with his plans for his peace efforts between Israel and Arab nations. It seems Obama doesn’t know who to critisize and who to stand behind.   He rebuked the wrong country.It looks like he thinks Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is inconsistent concerning the.  I think he means they were “inconsistent” with what he wanted.   Commitments the Jewish state has made are harmful to his, though I believe he said  U.S. attempts to lay the groundwork for a resumption in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.“United States, shouldn’t that rather say (Obama), does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement expansion and he urges that it stop,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement. “We are working to create a climate in which negotiations can take place, and such actions make it harder to create such a climate.”  If that is true, then I say “good for Israel”.  The U.S. is not the country that is supposed to establish peace over there. The following I quote from the article:  “Netanyahu’s aides, speaking on condition of anonymity Friday because the plans have not been formally announced, said any Israeli settlement freeze would not halt building the new units and or block completion of some 2,500 others currently under construction. They also said the freeze would not include east Jerusalem, which the Palestinians hope to make their future capital.”  And, I say, I would hope not.The criticism from the White House, said to be unusually blunt, displayed the childish  frustration this administration’s has with Netanyahu and anyone whose decision would enterfere with Obama’s plans and approve new housing units in West Bank settlements before considering even a temporary freeze in construction, as President Barack Obama has requested. And probably asking his permission first.  Yea Israel!!!“The White House typically refrains from commenting on such moves until they are formally announced. But in this case, U.S. officials said they acted because Mideast peace envoy George Mitchell had already been briefed on the Israeli plans earlier in the week.”  And probably bruised Obama’s ego which was more than likely the main reason.“State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Mitchell and the Israelis had been having “a very open dialogue” in “very intense discussions.” He would not elaborate.”But one U.S. official familiar with a meeting in New York with a Netanyahu envoy and Israeli Defense Ministry chief of staff said the Israelis “told Mitchell they were going to do it and he told them they could expect a sharp response.”  Seems to me he should have said, from what I read, Obama’s going to throw a temper tantrum, (ala Kruschev).“The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive diplomatic exchange, said the meeting had “not gone well.””  Supprise, Supprise, Supprise.The White House, in my opinion, jumped at the opportunity to issue a statement  before a formal Israeli announcement  about Netanyahu’s plans because our President can’t stand for things to not go his way.  Flying off the handle like that is not a very mature response, neither is it very Christian.“Publicly, the State Department had described Mitchell’s discussion with the Israeli delegation — which came after his talks with Netanyahu a week earlier in London — as a “good meeting.”” One official said that the statement was not entirely negative.  How negative does a  rebuke have to be too be entirely negative?         “We are working with all parties — Israelis, Palestinians, and Arab states — on the steps they must take to achieve that objective,” said Gibbs.”  Whose objective.“Netanyahu’s refusal to bend on the settlement issue despite repeated U.S. appeals threatens to damage Obama’s credibility in the Arab world.”  As long as he doesn’t stand up for the constitution of this country and stand behind the Israelis, it needs to be damaged. The only Arab support he’ll probably get is in favor of the Palestiniaans and against the Israelis no matter what Netanyahu does.The Palestinians and Arab leaders won’t talk unless there is a settlement freeze. I copied a few parts and added my thoughts and fealing and hope I don’t violate any copywrite laws.  If I do, sombody please tell me what needs to be done to avoid this problem.I read this the other day and was so angry that I couldn’t think straight.  Right now, all I can say is “Hooray” for Netanyahu and the Israelies, Boo for Obama and the ignorance of his position and tell the Palestinians and Arabs to back off.  GOD gave that country to the decendents of Israel and their decendents.  And they need to back off or move out and forget any pipe dreams of making any part of Israel their capital especially any part of Jerusalem.  They’re trying to bite off more than they can chew and they are going to loose a lot of teeth in the process.  Obama had better learn which side of the fence he is supposed to be on, take the “right” position and stand his ground backing Israel or he might find GOD isn’t standing behind him.  That would be a horrible thing to find out and eternally disasterous for him.           

Government needs to get it’s big fat nose out of where it doesn’t belong.  This is private sector concerns not Federal Government.  If a government agency wants to act as a moderator between two or three factions, fine.  But don’t sit up there on your high horse and arrogantly think you have the right to make policy when you don’t.  I repeat, if you want to sit in as moderator between a human rights commitee and an insurance policy commitee and a commitee that represents medical practicioners, that’s all well and good and make suggestions if you must, but any changes in policy, costs, treatment availability or any other controversial points of concern should be agreed upon by them.  Granted, people will want to get all they can for nothing.  The so called doctors that treat symptoms instead of trying to cure illnesses and probably wouldn’t know how to cure someone even if the procedure was available to them.  They would send that person to a specialist and tell them here, I’ve gotten my money out of them now you get yours.  There was one doctor back in the first half of the 20th Century that was on to something but the medical society would have nothing to do with it because it would meen that they would have to treat each person as an individual instead of being able to treat symptoms as a group.  They would have to do too much work and take up too much time with one person instead of running them through like cattle through a gate.  And, put more money in their pocket while they’re doing it.  No government doesn’t belong here just re-learning of morals and ethics by the medical profession.  And, loosing their arrogance that they are worth all the money they are charging for such small results.  That would help reduce the amount of money the insurance companies had to put out and they could reduce their cost to the consumer and even offer insurance to people with previous conditions because it didn’t cost so much to pay for their treatment.  Government get your nose out and let the parties concerned come to an agreement and settle the problem.