Start A Petition

Netanyahu: The ENEMY of PEACE

World  (tags: Netanyahu, enemy, peace, process, Palestinians, negotiations, talks, stalled, French, proposal, Israel, rejects, UN, security, council )

- 1333 days ago -
Netanyahu poised to reject a French peace proposal by saying foreign powers were trying to dictate terms to Israel for a deal with the Palestinians. Apparently, he thinks their ONLY ROLE is to CONTINUE their HANDOUTS to the JEWISH STATE.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Past Member (0)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 9:19 am
One can never trust Arab propagandists, they lie openly even when they know they will get caught.

Look at Sam. Right here, he faked the article title, the real one says "Israel's Netanyahu takes aim at French peace initiative", while knowing well that this fake will be thrown back to his face.

Their terror master Arafat became notorious for his ability to lie, when he knew that everyone in the room knew that he was lying...


Kathleen M (211)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 9:23 am
Shared and noted. Thanks, Sam. Netanyahu sucks. Really sucks. Effing boneheaded war criminal!

Sam H (410)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 9:31 am

Past Member (0)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 11:27 am
Should we be surprised--NO. He's a war monger. thx Sam

Carol R (11)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 11:45 am
Thanks Sam...

Angelika R (143)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 12:44 pm
Hard to not run out of comments here! The French together with whoever they can win for partners should just go ahead with that resolution at he UNSC, enough time wasted! Only then will we know the true value of Obama's vague hints to stop sheltering Nutyahoo. I believe that when I see it, not before then!
The alternative is another war and/or Intifada III.

Sam H (410)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 1:00 pm
OR would Obama be turned into another Stephane Richard?

Angelika R (143)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 1:50 pm
We really cannot rule out anything, can we... Corporate America has control over his govt., so when they feel they prefer to see another war initiated and conducted by Israel, there's a high chance he'll cave again.
We know Nutyahoo NEVER runs out of reasons for war, usually called "retliation for self defense". Even for pre-emptive strikes.

Maria Teresa Schollhorn (42)
Sunday June 21, 2015, 11:15 pm
Noted. Thank you Sam.

fly b (26)
Monday June 22, 2015, 8:31 pm
I agree. Netanyahu: The ENEMY of PEACE --- absolutely!!

Thanks, Sam

Stan B (123)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 2:19 am
Bibi is definitely the best world leader.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 6:21 am
Stan, I would say Netaniyahu is the best Israeli leader possible. For the best international leader I put our Stephen Harper.


Janet B (0)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 12:21 pm

Birgit W (160)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 1:00 pm

Lois Jordan (63)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 2:53 pm
Noted. Thanks for posting, Sam.

Stan B (123)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 6:05 pm
Ros. Your comment at 3.55 am. is a rather silly one. If I said the best golfer in the world is Jordan Spieth rather than Adam Scott, would that be an unpatriotic comment? There is also a total disconnect in your next comment which has no relevance to either me or Bibi.
Unfortunately, like many of your Care 2 buddies you tend to forget that Israel faces an existential threat on a daily basis. It's a tiny country in a very tough neighbourhood and this is why it needs a strong leader determined to protect his people.

Bob. I agree totally with your comment about Stephen Harper especially as he gives dumb liberals apoplexy.
I would rate our own Prime Minister as third best and Obama at 499th.


Past Member (0)
Tuesday June 23, 2015, 6:37 pm
As one Arab journalist said in the most brightest way, Obama received a wrong award. He got a Nobel Peace Prize instead of Oscar.

By now, I think that Barack by far outdid Borat.

If someone shot a comedy "Barack", showing what Obama promised, what he did and what he got, there would be several Oscars to pick.


Roslyn McBride (30)
Wednesday June 24, 2015, 4:41 am

Stan B (123)
Wednesday June 24, 2015, 2:11 pm
Ros G. With the greatest respect I can't follow your train of thought on this so please have the last word.

Stephen Brian (23)
Wednesday June 24, 2015, 10:32 pm
Hi all :)

I hope I can help clarify a few things here. Netanyahu is not opposed to peace, but to initiatives promoted as being for peace, but which he predicts, for good reasons, are far more likely to just spark another round of violence and prolong the conflict. There have been multiple cases in the past where the international community effectively forced a resolution to a conflict, particularly in the case of international war, and also to specific rounds of violence between Israel and Palestinian militias. These all led to further violence.

Perhaps the most relevant cases are the ones where the "peace" was enforced by France, between Israel and Lebanon, with the French-led UNIFIL. the United Nations Interim Force In Lebanon stopped armies from crossing borders, but permitted Hezbollah to launch rockets across its zone and was even caught allowing the terrorist group to launch from within its supposedly controlled territory. There was then a major diplomatic incident when Israel struck at Hezbollah's launchers, as is the standard globally accepted procedure because it struck the U.N. post next to which the rockets were launched. Eventually France's absolute failures to establish peace escalated until the war in 2006. That war ended when the international forced a resolution in which France again inserted forces into the middle of the conflict. Now I'm waiting for the next war. Almost more troubling than their failure is the fact that foreign forces have repeatedly crossed the Mogadishu Line and could no longer be considered neutral. The political shielding of Hezbollah's forces by UNIFIL, attempting to deter Israeli responses so that the terrorist group could strike with impunity, is just one example. UNIFIL also broadcast Israeli force-movements in 2006, operating effectively as scouts for Hezbollah in the conflict. The most severe such case was the behaviour of UK forces put in place to end the Sinai War. Israel was striking into Egypt and the UK inserted forces to end the war, protecting Egypt after it crossed a well-established Red Line by taking control of the Suez, but its forces withdrew on the understanding that the UK forces would prevent any cross-border aggression in the future. When the time came, however, in 1967 those forces withdrew upon demand by Nasser without firing a shot. It's the same story every time: Foreign forces may be inserted with the best of intentions, but all they do is grant impunity to groups which threaten or strike at Israel, driving pressure for response to rise within Israel until the only way to restore accountability for actions is through full-scale war. There is no wonder Netanyahu opposes European-led peace-initiatives. Any honest student of history sees only war in them.

Hi Stan and Ros :)
I think I can follow Ros' line of logic, but please correct me if I am mistaken. A lot of countries claim jurisdiction over people who may not consider themselves citizens of that country, and can either seek to enforce "universal jurisdiction" over their claimed citizens even for acts beyond their borders, or seek extradition. Vocally promoting an enemy entity is illegal, I understand, in Australia. This was recently used against an ISIS recruiter. Ros seems to be concerned that if Australia deems Israel or even the Netanyahu government an enemy, Stan's vocal support of Netanyahu could become illegal.

Ros, I seriously doubt this would happen in the near future. Looking at the past seventy years, just about every war in which a Western country engaged was about ideology. Israel and Australia are, for reasons foundational to their cultures, ideological allies. One or the other would have to change to the point where it is unrecognisable before a state of war is declared. That said, in the slightly more distant future, I would not rule it out. There are some very troubling things happening in Europe, from which Australia and North America both take cultural cues.

Sam H (410)
Wednesday June 24, 2015, 11:33 pm
You may have a point in there, Stephen, about “the international community” forcing a resolution that may create conflict where none exists. As a case in point, consider UN Resolution 181 and all the conflicts that ensued in its wake.

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday June 25, 2015, 1:46 pm
Hi Sam :)

To some extent, 181 certainly is responsible for some of the tension. While it never actually went into effect, the lines it drew gained credibility despite the fact that they would have produced two states which would not have been viable in the Middle East, and forced the hands of those involved to act immediately even if no peaceful resolution had yet been found. Who knows? Without it, perhaps Israel could have been established at a time when tensions were lower and the resulting conflicts could have been far less intense. On top of hat, the U.N. should have expected disaster to follow just as it followed the Indian partition on which the Palestine Partition was modelled. The mass-migration of Hindus and Muslims to the countries where they were the majority following the Indian partition was far from bloodless.

Hi Ros :)
That threat of incarceration sounds pretty brutal. So long as it's acquired honestly, the citizenship of immigrants to a country should not differ from that of native-born people. Thanks! I had no idea there was this sort of trouble in Australia.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.