The headline and opening paragraphs here stress that Yaalon has apologized, but scrolling down to the actual words, I see it's a classic sorry-if-you-were-offended nonapology:
"The defense minister had no intention to cause any offense to the secretary, and he apologizes if the secretary was offended by words attributed to the minister."
Posts
75 comments:
Sounds like exactly the amount of apology that Kerry deserved. None.
SOS Kerry. I see what you did there.
Sounds like Kerry is ONLY talking to the Istaelis' to try to get them to make all the concessions necessary. There is no way the Palestinians are going to ever agree that there will be a Jewish State of israel.
So... the message from the Defense Minister sounds pretty on the mark to me.
/obligatory
"...Kerry, who served in Viet Nam"
It's important to not piss off the US too much. Insult the man, if you must, but be careful not to insult the office.
The current clown posse in Washington may not be Israel's friend and it may be nothing to fear, but there will be other elections, other administrations.
In all fairness, the Defense Minister should offer a non-apology to the Nobel Prize Committee, as well.
no intention to cause any offense
Because who could have known that saying someone operates from a sense of messianism would cause offense.
I hope he offends JFKerry a thousand more times.
Obama is the clown in chief, remember.
Somebody at work enrolled our manager in clown school once.
It has become an article of faith that no one should ever say, "I'm sorry... if you took offense."
I used to think that way. But now I think that phrase has meaning. The Defense Minister might indeed have some regrets, if his comment(s) caused problems and if Kerry takes personal offense that impair U.S.-Israeli relations.
But he's not sorry for saying something that is true.
It is all another way of saying, "I was too candid. I should have been more politic. I was right, and I am not sorry for being right. This is indeed truly one of those incidents where I am sorry for the subject's having taken offense, and for the harshness -- but not the content -- of what I said..."
The foreign policy episodes will end with some huge scene of destruction that will get women to take it seriously, and the MSM narrative will change for a while until the dopes take over again.
Who does not nowadays share the foreign opinion, friend and foe alike, of Obama and his bunch.
Obama's problem is how long he can keep some court from taking the side of reason.
In a recent study, students were shown a picture of a black man. Students primed with the words "John Kerry" tended to remember the black man as more effete and snobbish than they actually were.
Epstein says that checks and balances only work as long as there's at least one sane actor in the bunch.
opposable thumbs up, Mr Boyd
Buy that man a drink!!
"I'm sorry if John Kerry was offended by my telling the truth about him. It's unfortunate that he's such a pissy crybaby but what can you expect from that nitwit Obama?"
What is the porpoise of apologizing for something you say about some guy in a foreign country?
It wasn't to get access to the guestroom on Kerry's yacht. It won't win favor among the anti-Israelites already common worldwide.
I don't understand why people think "diplomacy" matters. It doesn't. It's a feel-good enterprise.
It looks to me like the Israeli Defense Minister looked at Jean Fraud Kerry and recognized a post turtle when he saw it.
Sorry Kerry--you've been schmuck boated--and you had it coming.
Go off and get your Nobel Prize and leave the Israelis alone.
It's all kabuki theatricals
These Leftwing Bozos need to hear this sort of truth more often. They've been sniffing their own farts for so long, they think it's air freshener.
Telling the truth to leftists is always insulting, because truth hurts.
Bravo Bogie!
Well, about time someone in the Israeli government states the obvious. And the obvious is that we have an ignorant and incompetent or even malevolent US administration whose ignorance/malevolence, it is almost irrelevant which, has created a trail of disasters in the Middle East with its support of the Muslim Brotherhood and appeasement of Iran. The Egyptians managed to reverse the US administration’s serial bungling, but Iran’s acquisition of the bomb due to US administration’s stupidity and obsession with the “peace process” would be catastrophic. Of course, Israel will never permit that.
But it is almost surreal that the very survival of Israel is so influenced by people who have no knowledge of what they are doing, supported by so many sycophants and questioned by so few. The American people have finally begun to catch up with the disasters Obama has created on the domestic front, but they have no idea how their electoral choice has placed the entire world under threat from an Iranian nuclear bomb.
Given the gravity and imminence of the threat we are under, it is surprising that it took so long for someone in Israel to state that The Emperor has no clothes. Finally a perfectly sane reaction to an insane and dangerous policy.
http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2014/01/bravo-bogie.html
Peace in our times means " who rules from Jerusalem."
So messiah is the operative word. Hint: it's not Obama or Kerry. Sharon died. He was the Lion of Judah that won the 1967 war which made Israel the political ruler in Jerusalem. And that is what cannot be negotiated away.
"The American people have finally begun to catch up with the disasters Obama has created on the domestic front, but they have no idea how their electoral choice has placed the entire world under threat from an Iranian nuclear bomb."
We need to worry about the nuclear bombs that actually exist in countries that have them, including one that hasn't ever officially admitted to having them, (ahem, Israel), before we start fearing nuclear bombs that don't exist in countries that don't have them...such as Iran.
I don't think one can credibly claim that the bloodfest in Syria has anything to do with Israel or the USA. If the Shiites and Sunnis, can't settle their differences without creating millions of refugees and thousands of deaths, what's the chance of resolving the Israeli Palestinian hash with a peace conference under John Kerry's guidance.....Could it possibly be that Middle East problems are caused not by Mossad or the CIA but rather because so many of the people that live there are ignorant, fanatical assholes.
We need to worry about idiots that think Israel and Iran are morally equivalent.
They're not; one has a deadly cache of nuclear weapons and the other does not.
But was Kerry actually offended?
Usually, you would expect see someone who had been offended, walking around with a long face.
Robert Cook said
We need to worry about the nuclear bombs that actually exist in countries that have them, including one that hasn't ever officially admitted to having them, (ahem, Israel), before we start fearing nuclear bombs that don't exist in countries that don't have them...such as Iran.
By all accounts, Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades. They've yet to use one or threaten to destroy other countries. When Iran says that it wants to destroy Israel, it makes good sense for Israel to take them at their word. Should Israel be wrong, they cease to exist as a country and as a people.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
They're not; one has a deadly cache of nuclear weapons and the other does not.
1/15/14, 11:58 AM
___________________________________
Who are they (Israelis) threatening to nuke?
Larry J.,
First, Iran never said it "wanted to destroy Israel." That is a misrepresentation of something said by their former figurehead president known for making outlandish statements, and, as with so much political rhetoric, it cannot be taken as anything but political rhetoric.
Second, even if Iran had ever made such a formal statement of intent, it remains meaningless if they do not have the means to carry through with it.
They do not have those means.
LarsPorsena,
Who is Iran threatening to nuke?
A nation that has nukes is, by definition, more dangerous to the world than a state that does not have nukes.
Correct, Robert. Because the Iranians will be much easier to deal with after they get nukes.
Well, Patrick, by that metric, we should go ahead and contain--or even attack--Fiji, or Haiti, or Malaysia, because, in the fullness of time, one of them may somehow develop or obtain nukes (or some other presently unknown weapon of mass destruction). How much easier to neutralize them now while they're helpless, before they become theoretical threats in some unknown future, than when they potentially might?
"We need to worry about the nuclear bombs that actually exist in countries that have them..."
Not really. I don't worry in the least that France, the UK, the US, or Israel has the bomb. None of those nations will use such a weapon wantonly. None of those nations is obsessed with destroying another nation.
Robert Cook: how do you function on a daily basis being as stupid as you are?
That idiot in Iran, Ahmadinejad would not have kept saying things like we would like to wipe Israel off the face of the earth if the idiots who are REALLY in control in Iran, (Khamenei),did not approve of it.
"None of those nations will use such a weapon wantonly. None of those nations is obsessed with destroying another nation."
You don't pay attention to the world much, eh?
We used nukes wantonly, and could or will do again eventually, and more than one of the nations you mentioned is obsessed with destroying another nation (or has participated in the destruction of other nations)...unlike Iran, as far as we know.
hawkeyedjb said, "I don't worry in the least that France, the UK, the US, or Israel has the bomb. None of those nations will use such a weapon wantonly."
Lefties hold dear the notion that America's bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wanton acts without justification.
Oh, wow, Robert Cook just proved my point while I was typing.
Robert,
It isn't the existance of nuclear weapons that's the real issue. The US, Russia, England, France, Israel, and China have had nuclear weapons for decades. The only ones ever used were the two that helped end WWII. India, Pakistan, and North Korea are more recent entrants into the club. They cause a lot more concern than any of the older members.
Possession of nuclear weapons is less an issue than the likelihood of an unstable nation actually using them. Israel has reportedly had nuclear weapons since the late 1960s or very early 1970s. They have never used them even when attacked. There are reports that they might've been preparing to use them during the 1973 Yom Kippur War when their existance as a nation was in doubt.
Paminwi,
Ahmadinejad said, "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
You may consider that a statement of intent by Iran to destroy Israel, but this would demonstrate only your own poor skills in reading for comprehension.
Robert Cook, ten steps and then fire! No, no, not at your own head!
Possession of nuclear weapons is less an issue than the likelihood of an unstable nation actually using them."
Then we ought to be really fucking scared about Pakistan and India, because they are unstable nations, and deeply hostile to each other. (In fact, a nuclear catastrophe emanating from the other hemisphere will most likely be a result of one or both of these nations letting loose with their nukes.)
Then we ought to be really fucking scared about Pakistan and India, because they are unstable nations
And we aren't?
"...Kerry, who served in Viet Nam"
Who is also in year 9 of his vow to release his military records for open viewing.
I know I'm still waiting!
First, Iran never said it "wanted to destroy Israel." That is a misrepresentation of something said by their former figurehead president known for making outlandish statements, and, as with so much political rhetoric, it cannot be taken as anything but political rhetoric.
Famous last words said about all demagogues.
"And we aren't" (scared of India and Pakistan)?
Apparently not. Iran seems to loom large as the boogeyman of all boogeymen of evil nations, the one that--despite its lack of means or stated intentions--is the ultimate menace to the survival of the world and which we are constantly warned we must preemptively attack.
Maybe Obama and his beard, Jay Carney, and SOS Kerry have been relying on Robert Cook for their translation of Iranian statements into common English. That would explain a lot...
"Possession of nuclear weapons is less an issue than the likelihood of an unstable nation actually using them."
Guys, Fen's Law. Cook doesn't really believe what he's lecturing you about. Waste of time to argue against something he doesn't believe in anyway.
What Cook objects to is possession of nukes by America and Israel. He wants both countries weaker and more vunerable to nuclear blackmail.
hey cook, you never supported your moronic claim that the Nazi's weren't socialists. I provided you their party platform twice.
You disappeared.
How again are Nazi's not socialists? Nationalize industry? Check. No right to inherit? Check. Confiscate profits? Check. Strong central governmental controls? Check.
And that's just a sample.
Or are you gonna run again? Like a vampire from a cross?
You just can't face it that socialists governments inevitably fall into corruption and tyranny.
Apparently not. Iran seems to loom large as the boogeyman of all boogeymen of evil nations, the one that--despite its lack of means or stated intentions--is the ultimate menace to the survival of the world and which we are constantly warned we must preemptively attack.
Not heard anybody call for an attack outside of you right here.
And it's not that foreign a concept that dealing with a problem BEFORE it occurs tends to be easier than dealing with it AFTER it occurs.
Apparently not.(scared of India and Pakistan)
Well the politics of the Iran situation may lead you to think that but there is a lot of attention paid to what's going on there. And money.
@ Robert Cook
The use of nuclear weapons against Japan was not "wanton". It was calculated as a better alternative than the million or so casualties that were predicted when we invaded Japan. It may not have been pretty, and certainly has raised a lot of ethical considerations since 1945, but it was necessary, effective and ended the war.
Livermoron,
I don't have the time or the inclination to hang around threads forever trying to get in the last word. If I have the time and something more to add, I continue to participate. If I get busy or see no reason to keep continue with tit for tat, I don't.
You're welcome to persist in your wrong-headed belief the Nazis were socialists; what purpose is there for me to continue to argue the point with you?
@khesan0802
The use of nukes on civilian populations in Japan was calculated...calculated to show the Russians our new weapons and our capacity to annihilate them.
We murdered noncombatants to illustrate a point to the Russians. Our calculations were wanton.
And it's not that foreign a concept that dealing with a problem BEFORE it occurs tends to be easier than dealing with it AFTER it occurs.
But if a problem hasn't occurred how do we know it ever will? Where does preemptive "problem-solving" stop?
Kerry, whose SAT score and college grades were lower than W.'s, lost the 2004 Presidential election to W.
Robert Cook said...
Possession of nuclear weapons is less an issue than the likelihood of an unstable nation actually using them."
Then we ought to be really fucking scared about Pakistan and India, because they are unstable nations, and deeply hostile to each other.
We are concerned about India and Pakistan, especially Pakistan. As you note, they really don't like each other and have already had to pull back from the brink at least once. That hasn't happened for a while so perhaps cooler heads are taking control. The big issue with Pakistan is that the country itself is unstable. If the government falls, who gets control of the nuclear weapons is a major, major cause for concern. There are some seriously bad actors running around in Pakistan. There's also the issue of Pakistan selling nuclear technology to other countries.
The government of India appears far more stable than Pakistan so it's less of a concern. North Korea having nuclear weapons is a major concern. Kim Jun Un is nuts and may be in a power struggle.
@ Robert Cook
Are you just making that last comment up or are you overwhelmed by scholarly treatises saying we dropped the bombs to impress the Russians. You need to read a little - only a little military history - or even easier, read the pertinent parts of David McCullough's "Truman".
Geez
You guys been trolled by Bobbie Cook again.
Fkr's like shingles, scratching won't make it stop itching.
There are 19 comments after his first comment(excluding additional RC comments).
All but 4 are responses to RC.
I think I gave him 8 out of 10 on the troll scale.
Gonna hafta bump him up to 9 today.
Kerry deserved a politically correct apology.
Cook, you never argued. That would require you making a case and justifying it.
You simply made grand statements suffused with ad hominids without any actual evidence beyond your opinion.
You are a coward running from a real argument. Did you even read their official party platform?
You are just here to hate...and when busted for it, you grabbed your apron and scurried off.
You have no intellectual integrity. I am surprised that Ms. Althouse approves of your dishonest commentary. I thought she had tried to raise the standards here.
Khesan, cook is dishonest. Do not expect him to be either consistent in his opinions or diligent in his quest for knowledge.
Kerry's plan for Israel to disarm and for Israelis to convert to Islam will never work. What if they convert to the wrong sect. I wouldn't want to be a Jewish Shiite when the Sunnis take over.
Is an ad hominid anything like a ad troglodyte?
Robert Cook said...
@khesan0802
The use of nukes on civilian populations in Japan was calculated...calculated to show the Russians our new weapons and our capacity to annihilate them.
We murdered noncombatants to illustrate a point to the Russians. Our calculations were wanton.
I went over this one before with you in great detail.
You're a waste of effort.
Lol Inga. Damn spellcheck, I clicked on the wrong one!
Well, we arrrre hominids.
Too funny.
We need to worry about the nuclear bombs that actually exist in countries that have them, including one that hasn't ever officially admitted to having them, (ahem, Israel), before we start fearing nuclear bombs that don't exist in countries that don't have them...such as Iran."
Nice fantasy world you live in. The rest of us who live in realityville beg to differ.
Is an ad hominid anything like a ad troglodyte?
It's a special case, as in throw the banana at the chimp, and not at the gorilla.
This response made my day! It's exactly what Kerry merits in all its glib, insincere, glory.
"...how do you function on a daily basis ... "
OBJECTION! Asserting facts not in evidence!
kerry offers solutions, he lives 6000 km away, if a bomb explodes in in israel with his peace accords written all over it, but he didn't hear it, DID IT REALY HAPPEN ?
this guy is obviouly on some kind of mission, maybe he wants another run at presidency, and israel will be the pavement for him.
And Robert Cook, faced with facts, gathers up his skirt and hustles his bustle out of here.
Post a Comment