Posted on 01/08/2017 9:47:00 PM PST by Olog-hai
Former Secretary of State James Baker on Sunday warned that President-elect Donald Trump’s new administration “cannot be Israel’s lawyer” if it expects to successfully broker peace in the Arab/Israeli conflict.
In an interview aired Sunday on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS, Baker said he hopes Trump “will immerse himself” in the issue of peace in the Middle East because “it takes leadership at the very top of America’s government if that’s got any chance of succeeding.” […]
Baker said he doesn’t know Trump’s choice of David Friedman as ambassador to Israel, but does not agree with annexing the West Bank or moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. …
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Baker has long been an Anti-Semite.
He’ll rue the day he was born if he continues down that path.
BAKER had his chance at peace and failed miserably. It is best for him to refrain from opining.
Baker is a full on Globalist NWO cabal member, just the Bush flavor on the buffet line to hell,
Trump needs to treat his ‘advice’ same as from that vain bottoxed frog-tongued John Kerry
Washington Free Beacon Staff
March 20, 2015 10:56 am
Leading talk show host and best-selling author Mark Levin assailed Jeb Bush last night over the revelation that one of his top foreign policy advisers, James Baker, will keynote an anti-Israel conference this weekend.
The annual conference of the activist group J Street features an array of anti-Israel speakers, including proponents of the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divest (BDS) movement, which seeks Israel’s destruction, and advocates for the terrorist group Hamas.
Jeb Bush’s selection of Baker as a foreign policy adviser has sparked concern among conservatives and in the Jewish and pro-Israel communities.
Baker is infamous for his hostility to Israel, having said during his tenure as secretary of state in the George H.W. Bush administration, “F—k the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway.” Baker is also a supporter of President Obama’s Iran negotiations.
“Jim Baker, much like Barack Obama, has always had a hate on for Israel,” Levin said. “This antipathy toward Israel is well documented.
Baker wanted the U.S. to punish Israel for destroying Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor [in a 1981 airstrike]. He hated Netanyahu as early as 1990, barring him from entering the State Department’s building.
And last but not least, Baker co-wrote the Iraq Study Group’s 2006 paper that recommended among other things that the United States tilt its foreign policy away from Israel and toward Syria and Iran—advice that Obama seems to have taken to heart.”
“This is the guy, the leading advisor to Jeb Bush on foreign policy, who Jeb Bush asked to be his leading adviser, and now he’s the keynote speaker to this left-wing hate group J Street,” Levin said.
Baker is a shit stain in Americas underwear.
I love it when these totally failed fools try to advise anyone else how to do the job they couldn’t do. The only good advice he could possibly offer is not to do anything the way he did.
Losers continuing to lose and trying to inflict their loosing ways on others.
These people are our enemy folks. They intend to destroy our way of life. I intend to facilitate the destruction of their way of life.
Eh? What issue? He’s being anti-Israel.
The way I see it, he's asking for both Israel and the U.S. to live up to the agreements both nations signed back in the 1990s.
What agreements?
I notice that he gives the “Palestinians” a free pass.
The U.S. should distance itself from that whole mess completely. One caveat I would offer is that I would be fine with the U.S. getting involved if both sides ask for us to serve as some kind of intermediary -- much like the U.S. role in the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt.
I'm not sure what you mean by giving Palestinians a "free pass." He's suggesting that the U.S. shouldn't be taking one side in this dispute.
I'm referring specifically to the standing U.S. policy on this issue as laid out in the Declaration of Principles (1993) and the Interim Agreement (1995) on Palestine. Both Israel and the U.S. are signatories to those agreements.
I'm not sure what you mean by giving Palestinians a "free pass." He's suggesting that the U.S. shouldn't be taking one side in this dispute.
There is only one side to take. The “Palestinians” are not a valid “side”; they are the enemy of both Israel and the US.
Neither Oslo 1 or 2 are valid thanks to the actions of the “Palestinians” to breach them, including what they did in Area C where they are supposed to have zero presence and involvement, never mind the continuous “from the River (Jordan) to the (Mediterranean) Sea” rhetoric out of the Palestinian Authority.
Are the 14 countries on the U.N. Security Council that voted to condemn Israel for constructing settlements in the West Bank enemies of the U.S., too?
How do you account for the fact that the United Nations Charter follows the format of the Russian (USSR) Constitution of 1936 rather than the format of the (Covenant of the) League of Nations? Would you feel there was any significance in the fact that the general secretary for the organization which drew up the charter was Alger Hiss? …That should tell one all that one needs to know about the UN, including its Security Council.
— The Naked Communist, Chapter 8
2. I never knew the U.S. had avowed enemies such as New Zealand, France, and Great Britain.
The countries you refer to would fall into the second category I mentioned. France certainly has been ruled by open socialists for the past four years; and the actions of the leaders of the UK and New Zealand, especially socially, have spoken volumes.
The UN has been a vehicle for pushing the world farther left since the end of WWII. That includes the so-called “Muslim world”, whose countries govern according to Islamic socialism (Islamic national socialism, to be specific; take note of that).
My comment was not aimed at converting Jews.
“Jim Baker is a major, bigtime Jew-Hater from way back.”
Yep, and an anti-American globalist,elitist POS to boot!
Then there’s a complete disconnect there, in U.S. political discourse today. If the U.N. is filled with enemies of the United States, then why would anyone care about a 14-0 Security Council resolution on any matter?
That particular one was directed against an ally of the US, attempting to say that areas that belong to them do not belong to them.
Like Netanyahu said to Obama recently, “Friends don’t take friends to the Security Council”, and this in the context of Obama not being the USA (and/or of the USA) in spirit although holding the reins of US power.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.