Thursday, August 6, 2009
Cause he sure isn't going to be with the Israeli Foreign Ministry long, at least if this description of a three-page letter he sent to Netanyahu's office is accurate. Tamir is our local Israeli Consul, last seen in...uh...discussion (I wouldn't call it much of a debate) with PLO representative Husam Zomlot.
Israel's consul-general in Boston sent a blunt and extremely critical letter of Israel's policies toward the US to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, Channel 10 reported Thursday, saying that Israel's policies were causing damage to strategic ties with the US.
In the three-page letter, entitled "Sad passing thoughts on Israeli-US relations," Nadav Tamir wrote that the perception of a conflict between Israel and the Obama administration was harming US public support for Israel, and causing it more damage than the Second Lebanon War or Operation Cast Lead.
"The way in which we are conducting the relationship with the US government is causing Israel strategic damage. The distance created between us and the Obama administration has clear implications on Israeli deterrence," Tamir was quoted as writing.
The Israeli consul went on to say that narrow political considerations were contributing to the deterioration of the ties. "There are people in the US and Israeli politics who ideologically oppose [US President Barack] Obama, and are willing to sacrifice the special relationship between the two countries in order to advance their political agenda."
He also took the government to task for making differences with the US public, while Washington was trying to downplay them. "There have always been differences in the stances of the two countries, but the governments were careful to make sure they were coordinated," he reportedly wrote.
According to Tamir, many in the US were lumping Israel together with Iran and North Korea as disobedient governments that Obama had to deal with.
The current situation, he said, is hurting American Jewry as well.
"The atmosphere of confrontation between the Israeli government and the Obama administration puts the American-Jewish community, which is so important to us, in a difficult position," he wrote. "Many of them are distancing themselves from the state of Israel because of this conflict."...
Which Americans are those? The lefties at J-Street perhaps? The Democrat Party hack Jews at CJP who are comfortable with supporting Israel only when doing so is useful to their party and completely compatible with their far left of center political views? Don't forget, this is the Boston Consul General, after all. What American Jews has he been talking to? One can easily imagine Tamir protesting, "But none of the American Jews I talk to support Netanyahu or Lieberman!"
The article doesn't describe what particular policies Tamir believes are splitting us apart, but this American Jew sees things exactly the opposite. In fact, what I'm seeing (and also hearing from an increasing number of people and groups who are traditional Democratic constituencies -- there have been so many recently that it's hardly worth reviewing) are that it's the Obama Administration's naive and reckless policy choices and their unprecedented public conduct that are causing rifts between the two countries and within the domestic community. I haven't seen any lumping of Israel in with Iran and North Korea, at least not beyond the usual suspects (and they'd probably consider lumping Israel in with those other two as a compliment).
So again I ask, who has Nadav Tamir been breaking bread with? Many of the people in so-called Jewish "leadership" positions are there by virtue of their checkbooks and connections, and many of those would sell Israel down the river in a heartbeat if it made them uncomfortable at their Cambridge cocktail parties. Have they got their hooks into the local Israeli rep? Is he waiting to pull the rip-cord on a golden parachute? If so, who packed it for him? Inquiring minds want to know.
Update: Full text of the letter as it was forwarded to me is below...
> Subject: Pondering American-Israeli relations
In Brief:
During a visit to Israel, I became more aware that we have a damaging misunderstanding regarding the intentions and policies of the American administration. I must note that even if I am wrong in my assessment of the American administration, the way in which we manage our relations nowadays is causing strategic damage to two very important aspects that make up our special relationship and they are the level of intimacy in coordinating policies, and the support of US public opinion towards Israel.
Details:
Many who read this telegram have a more extensive perspective than I do regarding the history of these relations. However, at least during the 16 years in which I have been following the relations, the Israeli attitude was characterized and rightly so by emphasizing the partnership of values and interests among both countries. This attitude favored downplaying tactical differences, and dealing with them in private, in order to create an atmosphere of strategic partnership in the administrations and public opinion.
This attitude has resulted in a high level of trust and a willingness of the [US] administration to coordinate various policies with an effort to overcome differences behind closed doors. The Israeli attitude always favored saying Yes to the Americans, rather than a strict No. It was clear to the [Israeli] decision makers that we were dealing with the most important superpower on earth, as well as our closest ally, which meant making sacrifices in favor of strategic relations on various tactical issues. For example, one might mention Prime Minister Sharon's positive answer to the Road Map despite a long list of reservations, in order to preserve the level of intimacy and coordination. One must note that the two countries have always had differences of opinion regarding the settlements, for example, or the issue of Hamas participating in the Palestinian elections, but the level of coordination between administrations and US public perception of the special relationship were maintained.
The damage to US public opinion is already evident from recently held opinion polls, and is expected to worsen. In my estimation, the media coverage, which presents an image of conflict between the Israeli government and the Obama Administration, damages Israeli support in the public eye more than the criticism due to violence and harming civilians during Cast Lead or during the conflict with Hizbullah in 2006.
Throughout the years, opinion polls have shown that the two most significant factors in US public support are the perception of a partnership in values and interests, and the perception that Israel seeks to end the conflict with its neighbors (hence the consistent public support of our right to self defense). These two parameters have suffered greatly recently. In many American circles, there is a feeling these days, that while the Obama administration tries to resolve global conflicts, it must deal with the refusal to cooperate by governments in Iran, North Korea, and Israel. Aaron Miller's words, spoken after the Obama-Netanyahu meeting, clearly show this feeling. He said it was a meeting between Obama yes we can and Netanyahu no you won't.
The sense of conflict between the Israeli government and the Obama administration places the American Jewish community, which we care so much about, in a problematic position, in which they are forced to choose between the two. You must remember that most of the American Jewish community supported Obama (78 percent), and this conflict distances many of them from the State of Israel.
There are, of course, players in American and Israeli politics who oppose Obama ideologically and are willing to sacrifice the special relationship between the countries to further their own political agenda, but we cannot let these players damage the bipartisan attitude that rightly characterized the conduct of Israeli governments toward the US. In this context, we should look at a positive example, like the success of PM Tony Blair, who was an ideological partner of Clinton, and managed to maintain the strategic alliance between the US and the UK despite the change of governments in the US, due to an understanding that this alliance is more important than minor differences between a Labour-led UK and the Conservative Bush administration.
The distance that emerged between us and the American administration has clear consequences regarding Israeli deterrence in our region, and our global status. The astonishing fact that only 8 percent of Israelis see the Obama administration as friendly, while in the rest of the world he enjoys unprecedented popularity, is very disconcerting. This is no doubt a failure by the Obama administration to communicate with the Israeli public, but we at the Foreign Ministry have an interest in changing this situation, which jeopardizes our ability to present ourselves as the US's only true friend in the Middle East.
Some claim it was the Obama administration that preferred to distance itself from us in order to better its relations with the Muslim world. In my estimation, the administration indeed emphasized these differences before the Cairo address in order to get more attention in the Muslim world. However, since then, they have been making an effort to downplay our disagreements, and we have become the source of public displays of disagreement. Even if those who claim that the Obama administration is trying to distance itself from Israel are right, it is unclear to me why we are doing everything in our power to assist it.
As for our suspicions towards the Obama administrations intentions and willingness to supposedly sacrifice Israeli interests in order to appeal to the Muslim world I do not see any indication of this. In my estimation, the Obama administration realizes that the most significant challenge to American interests stems from the Middle East. Their analysis of the Middle East situation matches the one we have heard from our intelligence community in recent years, namely that during the Bush administration, the US lost its influence and levers in the region for various reasons. The intention of the engagement policy is to renew those levers in order to reverse the decline of US influence in the Middle East in the face of a rise in radical influence, led by Iran and Al-Qaeda.
I do not detect any naivte in the attitudes of the Obama administration. On the contrary, I believe they are much more realistic than their Neoconservative predecessors. An example of this is Obama's refusal to fully support the post-election protesters in Iran and speak out against human rights violations, knowing that these statements will only help the [Iranian] regime, and his preference to focus on a response that will preserve American options regarding the Iranian nuclear program.
The Obama administration is determined to take leadership and create influence levers in order to deal with the two most significant strategic challenges to the State of Israel -- the threat posed by Iran and its minions, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The fact that they are unresolved poses a threat to our way of life as a Jewish and Democratic state.
There is no country on earth that has more to benefit from the American move than us, and I am surprised that we would rather emphasize negative tactical issues over the positive strategic move, and that we focus on the trees instead of the forest (evident in the Israeli responses to various utterances in the Cairo address). Despite the fact that it is hard to isolate the influence of various factors in foreign policy, I think that the engagement policy deserves at least partial credit for the sorry state of the Iranian Mullah regime, and the fact that the Lebanese elections were at least a departure from recent negative trends.
Recommendation:
In order to restore the intimacy and coordination between us and the American administration, and in order to restore our status in public opinion, I suggest that we dramatically change our conduct regarding the Obama administration. Even those of us who suspect the administration's intent (as stated, I am not one of those people) must be reminded that we do not have strategic substitutes for the US, at least not in the foreseeable future.
I suggest that we declare publically that we share the Obama administrations world view and that we are interested in helping promote the policies of empowering moderate forces in the Middle East via an honest attempt at engagement, which will restore American hegemony in the Middle East, and deny radical forces the popularity they enjoyed during the Bush administration.
I suggest that we talk of our ambition for peace and our support of the two state solution more convincingly, and not like we are bowing to American pressure, but like those who understand that this is first and foremost an Israeli interest. I recommend we deal with disagreements regarding construction in the [disputed] territories away from the eyes of the media. History proves that when we present a political initiative, we do not have to deal with other problematic or uncoordinated initiatives.
This does not mean surrendering to every American dictate. As you remember, Prime Minister Sharon refused to promise that we would not respond to missile attacks from Iraq, which meant that the Americans favored destroying rocket launchers placed in Western Iraq in the early days of the American invasion. We shouldn't promise that we won't attack Iran if we feel that all other options have run out because it is indeed a strategic matter, but we must save these discussions for intimate meetings, not the media.
We can continue influencing American policies on Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians far better if we restore our status as partners in the administration's moves, and not a country with which to communicate through State Department briefings, as is done with Venezuela and North Korea.
Sincerely,
Nadav Tamir.
After reading this I'm thinking I should have entitled this post "Nadav's Gone Native." I'm struck at the similarities among so many foreign service people (of whatever country) who end up taking on the persona of nation they're stationed in. Tamir is doing the same thing that so many American government hacks did during the Bush years when Bush policies (supposedly) were making us unpopular abroad -- rather than doing their job and representing the United States to the world, they got embarrassed and uncomfortable and started blaming America for the difficulties and demanding that WE were the ones who needed to change. Tamir is suffering from the same loss of nerve.
Update 8/10/09: The Boston Globe picks up the story, and there is a letter from the Boston Russian Jewish Community calling for Tamir's recall, here.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Is Nadav Tamir Bucking for a Job with J-Street? (Updated with Text of Letter).
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/16696
Author: SolomonIs Nadav Tamir Bucking for a Job with J-Street? (Updated with Text of Letter)... Read More
Fatah: All of Jerusalem must be returned before negotiations... Read More
He's got some 'splainin to do: FM fumes over Boston consul's remarks Israel's consul-general in New England has been summoned home to "clarify" a letter he wrote to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman blasting Israe... Read More
[Welcome Globe readers. If you are looking for my original posting on Israeli Consul General Nadav Tamir that includes the text of the letter, click here: Is Nadav Tamir Bucking for a Job with J-Street? (Updated with Text of Letter).]... Read More
Indeed, and, as Herb Keinon points out, contrary to the warnings of Boston Consul General Nadav Tamir: Poll shows surge of support for Israel in US In stark contrast to the cable leaked last month by Israel's consul-general in Boston... Read More
So says that story in the North Shore Jewish Journal: Consul General Reaches Out to Constituents After Memo Flap The uproar over Israeli Consul General Nadav Tamir's leaked three-page memo in which he criticizes the Netanyahu government blew over more... Read More
Hear, hear! (for you, Martin, not for that schmendrick Tamir).
Nadav Tamir is representative of the heart and soul of Israel's Foreign Ministry: Hashomer Ha'tzair, socialist bred and virtually impossible to remove from his position. He talks the talk of Zionism (occasionally) but won't walk the walk. There's a reason he was posted to Boston and that is because here he can make common cause with the JCRC and CJP.
I suspect we have an ambitious politician in our midst. Watch out, you'll see his name on a Labor Party (or even better, Meretz) roster soon. Or, as Sol so presciently suggests, he may be next in line for a fat, George Soros paycheck signed by Jeremy Ben Ami.
Time to clean house.
Nadav's analysis of the decline in support for Israel among the US public is exactly correct. It is becoming more and more common to hear Israel described as an "apartheid state" by people who are in no way radical, or even Democrats. In the past such an opinion would have meant you were part of the lunatic fringe. No more.
There is also in the US the persistent suspicion that under the Bush administration Israel hijacked US foreign policy for its own purposes. After all, the only country that has benefited from the invasion of Iraq is Israel, not the US. So the attitude of the Obama administration needs to be seen as the simple, and inevitable, correction of this imbalance. The US is now using its foreign policy to pursue its own interests, not Israel's.
If Israelis are surprised by this, they need to put the bong down and get real. Indulging in public hostility towards the US will only harm Israel, not us. I'm thinking of that ridiculous recommendation by some clown in the current Israeli administration that Israel should prepare to "punish" the US economically for its settlement policy. Like, by no longer buying US weapons. Since Israel buys our weapons with our money, this was a particularly ridiculous suggestion, but one that got lots of publicity in the US.
Wake up guys. You have everything to lose, and nothing to gain, by acting like stupid, spoiled children.
Niall, you conveniently forgot a few talking points...
- 9/11 - 15 of the 19 were Saudis
- 1993 bombing of the WTC
- Londons 7/7/05 bus and underground bombings
- bombing of Pan Am 103
- Mumbai India massacre
- Madrids 3/11 bombings
- Bali bombings
- Beslan school massacre
- Saddam Husseins WMD poison gas massacre of 5,000 Kurds of Halabja Iraq
- Saddam Husseins invasion of Kuwait
- Saddam Husseins 8 year war with the islamofascist regime of iran
- bombing of the USS Cole
- Saudi Arabia funding extremist wahabbist schools and mosques
- Saudi Arabian prohibition of ANY non-Muslim house of worship, yet, SA funds and builds mosques all over the World (like Boston, New York, London...)
- Islamist gender apartheid
- Convert to Islamofascist richard reid - failed sneaker bomber
- Assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy by a palestinian
- Racist depiction of Jews as "sons of pigs and monkeys"
- Muhammed cartoon riots
- Death fatwas on Salman Rushdie, for writing a book of fiction
- Islamofascist demos in the UK with placards saying "UK You Will Pay, Your 9/11 Is On Its Way"
- Islamofascist cursing a spitting on returning British soldiers in Luton
- Female genital mutilation
- Honor killings
- Rapes
- Plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt
Islamofascist and Socialist hijacking of faculty of leading US universities
Islamofascist hijacking of the United Nations
Islamofascist hijacking of Lebanon
I'm sure Nadav will be very pleased to see the type of support he's attracting.
Eddie -
How do any of these events have any relevance to the argument I made in re the current belligerent attitude of the Israeli government vis-a-vis the US? Please advise, because I can't find any relation at all.
Nadav Tamir is an employee of the government of Israel.He should be fired immediately.Opinions of Boston's "Jewish leaders" are not relevant when dealing with an employee that is sabotaging his employer.
Niall, why do you ignore murderous Islamofascism that threatens, attacks, murders people all over the World?
Do you fear that your handlers will call you reactionary, counter-revolutionary???
Just to remind you a bit more...
- Kidnapping and video taped beheading of Journalist Daniel Pearl and others
- almost daily bombings in Iraq - read todays Globe for details
- near Nuclear War between Hindu majority India and Muslim majority Pakistan
- Death threats against Hirsi Ali
- Death threats against Wafa Sultan
- Death threats and murder of Theo Van Gogh
- Beltway sniper
- Fort Dix plotters
- Google undercover report "Undercover Mosque" - it's on YouTube
- "Asian" doctors explosive laden SUV attack on Glasgow airport
Niall, which group is responsible for all these atrocities and more?
Eddie -
Once again, if you can just try to make a connection - any connection - between your litany of "islamofascist" minutiae - and the contents of Tamir's letter and its recommendations, please do so. Otherwise you're not contributing anything to the debate about the contents of that letter, and the circumstances of its publication.
Niall, I wonder why you are unable address islamofascism, islamosupremcism, islamofascist imperialism, islamofascist apartheid, islamofascist misogyny, islamofascist female genital mutilation, islamofascist racism.
If Israel were "the problem", then islamists would be living in peace with their non-muslim neighbors elsewhere.
That clearly is not the case.
Yesterday 100+ Arabs were killed in Iraq at the hand of islamofascists. Why is that?
If islamofascists can't get along with fellow muslims, can we expect islamofascists to get along with infidels?
Eddie -
I'm happy to address islamofascism. Barfing out endless lists, however, is not how one does this. Tamir's letter raises important issues for how Israel can most effectively secure US support for its interests and needs. Tamir's recommendations seem eminently rational to me, and beneficial to Israel.
What do you think about his recommendations, and why?
Hint: the answer to this question won't be another list.
It appears that Nadav is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. (Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in abducted hostages, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger or risk in which they have been placed.)
Nadav Tamir is towing the liberal party line...while throwing Israel under the train. He should be recalled permanently - and replaced. Boston's Zionist community deserves better. There is a serious rift in the Jewish "community" that needs to be addressed - the rift between Left-wing Jews who pander to Palestinians, and Zionists who are committed to Israel's security and survival.
Cheryl M-
So you think that Israel's being publicly belligerent towards the US is going to ensure the success of its political agenda vis-a-vis the US? Particularly when it has nothing to back that belligerence up with?
Niall, you said "Eddie - I'm happy to address islamofascism. Barfing out endless lists, however, is not how one does this."
Good for you Niall!
Which islamofascist, islamosupremecist, islamo-imperialist, islamofascist apartheid, islamofascist misogynist atrocity do you want to examine?
- 9/11
- 1993 bombing of the WTC
- bombing of Pan Am 103
- bus and underground bombings in Londonistan?
- video taped beheadings of infidels while masked islamofascists should "allah akbar"?
- muhammed cartoon riots
- assassination of Robert F. Kennedy?
Niall, do you think that Arabs/Muslims can be held to the same standards of behavior as infidels, or do you consider Arabs/Muslims too backward?
Eddie -
COuld you please respond to the actual content of Nadav's memo? Otherwise I don't know what there is to talk about.
Cheryl M,
Your note seems unclear and a little incoherent. How in any way does Tamir's memo "throw Israel under the bus"? His entire memo is an effort to provide an analysis of the current situation that would assist the current Israeli government in achieving its stated strategic objectives.
Now, you may disagree with his analysis -- either of what Israel's goals are or should be, or of his take on popular opinion or the Obama administration .. in which case a constructive contribution would be to identify exactly what about his analysis you find wanting -- rather than throwing non-sequiturs like "Stockholm syndrome" around.
John
John -
As you may have noticed, most of the posters to this thread have not spent a moment actually reading or thinking about Tamir's memos and its implications. They're just robotically repeating their favorite slogans and soundbites.
They are, inadvertently, proving his point.
Niall, that's mere projection you're indulging.
Or, if not, prove me wrong and advance your own most salient argument that is in agreement with Tamir's. The problem with "responding to Tamir's memo" is that his memo is reliant upon all manner of underlying assumptions and the fact is it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with it in its entirety, in a manner that encompasses those underlying assumptions. Tamir doesn't truly explicate and render those underlying assumptions in a transparent manner himself. Most generally and most prominently, those assumptions include the idea of Obama rather than Israel and Netanyahu holding the more responsible and more reasonable position. Tamir's isn't really an "analysis" as you seem to imagine, it's more a set of statements reliant upon a set of underlying assumptions.
But hold yourself to your own purported standard and advance something, transparently and more concretely yourself. Take a specific or more general thread of Tamir's position and underlying set of assumptions and form a statement, an argument. Let's see what you've got.
Niall, why do you FEAR to address the BIG PICTURE, that islamofascism is the greatest threat, the dominant perpetrator of atrocities, of mass murder ALL OVER THE WORLD TODAY?
I have presented a list of notable atrocities perpetrated by Arabs/Muslims/islamofascists,
9/11, 1993 bombing of the WTC, hijacking of the Achille Lauro, 8 year iraq/iran war (no "zionists" there niall), near nuclear war between India and Pakistan (no "zionists" there niall)...
yet you can't bring yourself to condemn, to renounce, to even CRITICIZE the perpetrators.
What is it about "progressives",
a nicer sounding word than "leftist",
that as you amply demonstrate here,
makes it IMPOSSIBLE for them to hold Arabs/Muslims to civilized standards of behavior?
P.S. Do "progressives" condemn the 50 year Castro family business?
Michael -
The only responses I have received to my initial post was a series of posts listing charges against "islamofascism" which did engage any of the points Tamir made in his memorandum, and none of the points I raised in my post. Hence my judgment about the respondents to this forum.
"The problem with "responding to Tamir's memo" is that his memo is reliant upon all manner of underlying assumptions and the fact is it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with it in its entirety, in a manner that encompasses those underlying assumptions. Tamir doesn't truly explicate and render those underlying assumptions in a transparent manner himself."
And this would form a basis for a rational critique of Nadav's memo? Yes? Which is precisely what you have yet to provide.
How difficult can it be to take up the question of whether Israel's open disputation with the Obama administration is detrimental to Israel or not? Particularly since Nadav meticulously provides historical precedents and documentation for the path he is proposing?
So, again, the knee-jerk, content free responses to his memorandum I see on this thread just prove him right.
But feel free to prove me wrong on that.
Niall, all of your posts PROVE that you can't deal with the fact that islamofascism is at War with people all over the World.
Islamofascists attack Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Bali, Spain, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark, US, commercial aircraft, cruise ships, commercial shipping, women, gays, engages in current day slavery,
yet you just can't bring yourself to address the issue.
Niall, you may have heard of the saying:
"When you are kind to the cruel,
You are cruel to the kind".
Think about it.
"Open disputation"? Your "initial post" was a set of assertions, not an argument in any constructive, premise-to-conclusion building sense. Tamir's memo is similarly a set of assertions, underlying assumptions and bromides. It's one thing to end an organized and concerted effort with a crescendo, Tamir's memo is nothing but crescendo, one clamorous crescendo after another. Feel free to prove me wrong on that, however.
Michael B:
"Disputation" means precisely the exchange of assertions. And my initial post did in fact contain several "premise to conclusion" arguments.
I have not, however, seen a single one of these from you or your acolytes.
Niall, you are a dick. But feel free to prove me wrong on that.
Iow, nothing purely personal is intended, but that's what your wouldbe argument, your underlying assumptions and your sniffs and barbs concerning "acolytes," etc. all reduces to.
So, again, form a basis for your position and argue it constructively, rather than merely asserting and positing and assuming that it's true while additionally using someone like Tamir as a crutch (i.e. as an argument from "authority").
Niall, we have yet to see a single instance of you taking your Islamofascist terrorist buddies to task.
On the other hand, if you can direct us to websites, blogs where you denounce islamofascist atrocities like 9/11, bombing of Pan Am 103, beheadings, suicide bombings, hijacking, current day slavery in Sudan, executions of gays in the islamofascist regime of iran, honor killings, you can correct our picture of you - but based on your posts here, I doubt it.
BTW, have you read the news of the latest islamofascist atrocity in Iraq today. I'm guessing your filtered news sources give it scan attention.
Niall, sometimes I think you are suffering from Aspergers syndrome.
Michael B -
Oh, now it's name calling time. LOL. Again, you're just proving Nadav right.
Anyway, let me ask you the obvious question: If Nadav's argument is too complicated for you to understand, then how can you possibly know that you disagree with it?
Kind of a Catch-22, isn't it?
No, you miss the point all around, you miss the point absolutely, 100%. I was typifying Tamir's argument via a reductio ad absurdum analogy - and I specifically and overtly indicated it was not intended personally. I put it in the direct and pointed language I did for effect, similar, imo, to Tamir's "argument," which is all underlying assumption rather than a better explicated and more transparent argument and which serves a similarly pointed effect, absent substance.
(Likewise, I know what 'disputatious' means, you were uncomprehending as pertains to that earlier comment as well.)
Never mind. Relax, have a good weekend.
Dude, you called me a dick. Own it.
If Nadav's argument depends on underlying assumptions (what a shock!), why can't name what you think those assumptions are, and analyze them relative to your own assumptions and worldview?
Dude, you called me a dick. Own it.
If Nadav's argument depends on underlying assumptions (what a shock!), why can't name what you think those assumptions are, and analyze them relative to your own assumptions and worldview?
In fact, I intended it precisely as stated. Tamir's b.s. "argument" relies entirely, relies 100% upon a layered sediment of unexplored assumptions; it's all "presentation," it's like a polished automobile up on blocks with no wheels, no engine: nada, nothing but a shiny facade. And precisely because its a shiny facade with such a layered sediment of preformed and unexplored assumptions, that's why I took the tack I did. Honest.
But on a purely personal level, I do apologize.
Niall's a putz over from either the Obama zoo or from Stormfront.org - either way, its hard to tell the difference with these Muslim-loving Communazi girlieboys these days. Pay him no mind.
Yes, Tamir, who doesn't mind 900 mil going to Hamas courtesy of cheetah's bastard cousin and the silly shrew at state, but does seem to have problems ala Mikey Ratner and Jeremy Ben-Kapo with 900 Jewish homes built in Jerusalem has smelled Soros blood money, and is angling for it.
That's the bottom line, hook, and sinker.
The Lib and Leftard "Jews" give solid creedence to that saying "we're our own worst enemy".