November 26, 2007
November 25, 2007
Former chief of staff General Moshe Yaalon - dismissed by Sharon for his security warnings against the Gaza surrender - says that Israel's press and media will always protect corrupt politicians so long as they support the peace camp in concessions to the Arabs.
This corroborates the unrepentant confession of Haaretz editor David Landau in boasting that his newspaper had "wittingly soft-pedaled" alleged corruption by Israeli political leaders including prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, when, in the opinion of Haaretz, the policies of those leaders were advancing the peace process.
When participants challenged him concerning the morality of such an approach, Landau responded with the extraordinary assertion that "more immorality happens every day at a single roadblock [in Judea and Samaria] than in all the scandals put together."
He then unashamedly assured those present that Haaretz was ready to repeat the process in order "to ensure that Olmert goes to Annapolis."The second revelation comes from deputy Labor Party leader, Ami Ayalon. When asked how the government would deal with Right Wing opposition to territorial concessions at Annapolis he said that the Shabak [Secret Police] would have to deal with that problem.
No doubt this means more broken bones and smashed skulls in mounted police charges on Religious Zionists and their womenfolk. Ayalon should know: he was once head of Shabak - an organisation with many questions to answer over the Rabin assassination and how its own agent provocateur incited Yigal Amir and provided him with the murder weapon.
With a corrupt media, a brutal secret police and a supreme court that routinely overrules the elected Knesset, what chance is there for democracy in the State of Israel?
Perhaps none. But the godless establishment of the Left will not prevail. Just this week they were presented with incontrovertible evidence of the decline of secularism and a 20% rise of religious and traditional observance in just the last 7 years.
Israel will soon have a government of the people and for the people and a media and security service that puts the rights and welfare of Jews way above those of our Arab enemies.
And Haaretz will wind up exactly as its name suggests. In d'rerd!
[That's Yiddish for: in the ground]
November 24, 2007
It's hard to believe that Charles and his new spouse would 'never' visit the world's epicentre of monotheistic faiths in their lifetime.
So the subtext must be: there was no chance ever of Prince Charles accepting "an Israeli" invitation to visit Jerusalem.
Doubtless the British Foreign Office waits for the day Jerusalem is restored to Arab rule. It's hard to imagine 'King' Charles passing up an invite from the next mufti.
The way Olmert and Livni are behaving in the runup to Annapolis, Charles and Camilla won't have long to wait. Here's the one-liner I posted on the JC Letters section:
"Why should Israel expect Prince Charles to visit Jerusalem when its own government is in such a hurry to give it away?"Personally I think that Charles should accept an invitation from Olmert, as they have so much in common.
For all his pre-Annapolis pleas for Arab recognition of Israel as 'a Jewish State' Olmert has more time for Palestinian rights than the wellbeing of his own people. To Abbas and his murderers in Ramallah and Nablus he sends million-dollar checks, guns, ammunition and now armoured jeeps. To Judea and Samaria he sends mounted police to beat Jews into submission while ignoring the continued rocketing of Jewish homes in Sderot. So much for his cares for the 'Jewish' state.
But just as Olmert has let down the home team, so has Charles. A while ago he announced his intentions to be crowned as 'Defender of Faith' as opposed to the accepted 'Defender of the Faith'.
Now there's a whole different subtext to chew on!
November 18, 2007
“A nation which, for two thousand and five hundred years, has faithfully adhered to the vow made by the first exiles by the waters of Babylon not to forget Jerusalem, will never agree to be separated from Jerusalem. Jewish Jerusalem will never accept alien rule after thousands of its youngsters liberated their historic homeland for the third time, redeeming Jerusalem from destruction and vandalism”.
Alas it is not so.
These words were indeed spoken by a former prime minister, but not Netanyahu and not last week.
These are the bold words of David Ben Gurion spoken nearly 60 years ago at a time when he had no inkling that, within two decades, Israel would recapture Jerusalem in such spectacular style. This was a speech Ben Gurion made to a sitting of the First Knesset in December 1949 when, after the War of Independence, the United Nations was debating the ‘internationalization’ of holy sites in Jerusalem, which was then under Jordanian rule.
How ironic that today happens to be Ben Gurion Day and Ehud Olmert has had to postpone the usual Sunday morning cabinet meeting in order to travel down to the Negev to speak at the celebratory events in the old man’s home town of Sde Boker.
That cabinet meeting was to have discussed the release of further terrorists to appease Mahmoud Abbas and kick-start Condi Rice’s Annapolis conference. Both Olmert and Rice are in this for their own personal reasons. Olmert:
to divert the nation’s attention from his reputation as the most corrupt and inept leader of the Jewish State. Rice: to salvage something from her lackluster performance as Secretary of State and her disservice to a well-meaning president.
Where Ben Gurion spoke from a battle-worn Tel Aviv with words of defiance, Olmert speaks from a secure and flourishing Jerusalem stronghold with words of capitulation.
As I write these lines, Ehud Olmert will doubtless be gushing with platitudes over Ben Gurion’s leadership and vision from a podium in Sde Boker. But his very appearance there must surely represent the most awful disgrace to the memory of the old man and his legacy.
But, like most things in Israel, it will all be forgotten the next day, when the cabinet meets ‘to discuss and approve’ the latest prisoner release. Do you think there is a chance that someone at the table will ask: “… and what about our own boys, Shalit, Regev and Goldwasser?”