Nixon like Bush had come to Israel in 1974 as a weakened President on his way trying to shore up some support for peace negotiations and create a legacy at Israel's expense. After the devastating Yom Kippur War when Nixon and Kissinger prevented Israel from repeating the preemptive attack that had brought Israel victory in 1967, Nixon arrived in Israel with a plan to offer Egypt a nuclear reactor and pressure on Israel to make concessions in the name of peace.
Nixon arrived to a shattered nation that he had helped to shatter. He came to a nation still mourning its young men and grumbling reluctantly he visited Yad Vashem. Heavy security cordons and bulletproof glass protected him against angry crowds. After following Kissinger's plan to "cut Israel down to size" by bringing it to its knees in a war and letting the Arabs have their victory, Nixon came pressuring Israel to negotiate with its enemies while promising them a nuclear reactor, the one method of deterrence Israel had left.
In private talks with Rabin, Nixon said that "the days when Israel felt very comfortable with a relationship . . . where we supported Israel . . . were going to be Israel's best friend... where your immediate warlike neighbors, Syria and Egypt were considered enemies of the United States, those days are over. I don't think that's a policy. I don't think it's viable for the future."
Rabin replied that "Peace had to be related to security... it could not consist simply of a series of Israeli withdrawals; there had to be reciprocity; Israel could not tolerate terrorist attacks." (Heroic Diplomacy - Kenneth W. Stern)
As in 1974 and as 34 years later in 2008 such statements by Israeli leaders went ignored.
At Yad Vashem Bush, like Nixon before him, stood in a place dedicated to the knowledge that there is an enduring global paradigm dedicated to the extermination of the Jews while on a mission to empower those who are dedicated to killing Jews today.
In 2008 Bush came to Israel, disdained addressing the Knesset as this might show partiality to Israel, brought a raft of armed military personnel to Israeli soil and delivered a list of conditions to Israel while praising Abbas as a good man and a man of peace.
For all the friendly facade, Bush came bearing the same message that Nixon had. Bush's statements clearly call for carving up Israel, dressed up as they might be in euphemisms.
Bush began his Palestinian tour with lavish praise from Abbas, leader of one of the world's largest terrorist organizations
Our people will not forget Your Excellency, your invitation and your commitment towards the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. You are the first American President that confirms and reiterates this right.and indeed Bush had. It is a sad legacy to those Jewish conservatives who who argued that Bush would be friendly to Israel, only for Bush to wind up pleasing those Jews who voted for Gore or Kerry while spitting in the face of those who supported him.
Bush meanwhile spoke openly about applying pressure, not even bothering to hide it behind more diplomatic language
"Is it going to be hard work? You bet. And we can help support these negotiations, and will. I was asked yesterday at a press conference, you know, what do you intend to do; if you're not going to write the agreement, what do you intend to do? I said, nudge the process forward -- like, pressure; be a pain if I need to be a pain -- which in some people's mind isn't all that hard."
It of course only got worse from there with gems like Bush's emphasis on modernizing the same force that is continuing to participate in the murder of Israelis
And so my message to the Israelis is that they ought to help, not hinder, the modernization of the Palestinian security force. It's in their interests that a government dedicated to peace and understanding the need for two states to live side by side in peace have a modern force.
and of a contiguous Palestinian state, despite the obvious impossibility of a contiguous Palestinian state without cutting Israel in half, it would be like calling for a contiguous state between Mexico and Canada while pretending that you still intend to preserve the territorial integrity of the United States.
Now, the vision of the Palestinian state is one of contiguous territory. In other words, as I said earlier in my administration, I said, Swiss cheese isn't going to work when it comes to the outline of a state. And I mean that. There is no way that this good man can assure the Palestinians of a hopeful future if there's not contiguous territory. And we -- that position is abundantly clear to both sides.
In his statement Bush said;
I know Jerusalem is a tough issue. Both sides have deeply felt political and religious concerns. I fully understand that finding a solution to this issue will be one of the most difficult challenges on the road to peace, but that is the road we have chosen to walk.
and of course the "hard solution" will not involve the Arab side abandoning its demand for Jerusalem, we know that ahead of time. It will instead demand more Israeli concessions to the terrorists in exchange for nothing.
All this revealed Bush's statement at Olmert's conference to be a blatant lie
It's essential that people understand America cannot dictate the terms of what a state will look like. The only way to have lasting peace, the only way for an agreement to mean anything, is for the two parties to come together and make the difficult choices.After all Bush was busy dictating exactly what that state would look like. And once again pushed the idea of pressure...
But we'll help, and we want to help. If it looks like there needs to be a little pressure, Mr. Prime Minister, you know me well enough to know I'll be more than willing to provide it. I will say the same thing to President Abbas tomorrow, as well.
Bush repeatedly equated the idea of Israeli settlements and Palestinian Arab rocket attacks as if people living in a place is equivalent to murder.
You know, one of the concerns I had was that -- whether it be the unprovoked rocket attacks or the issues of settlement, that the leaders would be so bogged down in the moment that they would lose sight of the potential for a historic agreement.
and of course we wouldn't want to get so bogged down in the war being fought against us that we fail to recognize this "historic moment" which seems to come every few years when a President flies over to Israel and promises that everything will be hunky dory once the terrorists get more land and more guns to play with.
Much has been made of Bush's widely publicized statement at Yad Vashem wondering why America didn't bomb Auschwitz. That statement is an obscenity and an abomination. It would be the equivalent of FDR turning his backs on the Jews of Europe while asking why America didn't intervene in the Russian Pogroms of the early 20th century. It is not Auschwitz that needs to be bombed today but Gaza and Tehran and yet again an American President is selling out the world's most persecuted people to cater to its enemies and America's enemies as well.
Nixon lied when he claimed that some sort of magic time had ended when America and Israel were on the same page, because that time never existed. For all of Israel's existence, America has been hoping to win over the Arabs, supporting Israel only because the United States does not have a single reliable ally in the Arab world it can actually count on.
America's role in Israel's creation was lukewarm at best and the pressure for territorial concessions began from day 1 when Israel took the Negev and has never let up through all those years. As long as America continues catering to the Arabs in the hopes that the devotees of Islam will eventually learn to love America, any alliance with Israel is built on the same shaky legs.
Since Suez, American administrations have placed the Arabs first and their allies, whether it be England and France or Israel, second. That has not changed under Bush and will not change under any President. If the sun is setting on Israeli-American relations it is only because America is pushing Israel even closer to the brink than it did under Nixon presenting it with a choice between survival and following American dictates.
Israel cannot survive the growing cancerous expansion of a terrorist state within its borders, a terrorist state president after president is determined to fund, arm, train and implement. For too long Americans and Israelis have grown comfortable with the illusion of a close relationship in what is actually a frustrated abusive relationship in which America is certain that if it slaps around Israel hard enough, the middle east will somehow be stabilized. That route is a dead end for both America and Israel. Unless both countries wake up to that, neither country will survive the Jihad.
The three stooges look silly in those tiny little 'out of the box' kippot. Or is that the points on their heads?ReplyDelete
Olmert and dumb pal don't care about Israel at all. After all , Israel is for Jews and they don't like Jews.
Bush is lead around by the nose and has no idea what he is doing or what the results will be.
By the way, Peres is very yellow , looks jaundiced. He ought to cut out the booze til his liver dries out a bit.ReplyDelete
Bush and Olmert wearing those cheap little cardboard covered kippot that they hand out to visitors no doubt. There costumes, no doubt.ReplyDelete
Well, that's all the are, visitors who should leave. Leave now, and leave the government to be ruled by G-dly people who actually care about the welfare of the Jewish state.
The entire situation is like some dark and perverted grand opera. Each actor playing the roles they played during the prelude to WW II.
But which opera? I'd liken it to Paglacci. Bush is the clown Paglacci who in his performance acts out killing his wife after learning of her affair.
But once the performance commences he kills her for real because she really is having an affair, betraying her husband. It's no act.
Bush being ALMOST moved to tears at Yad Vashem? Nothing more than Bush putting his make-up on as he sings Vesti La Giubba...
It is my fervent hope that Peres triples his intake of alcohol and sleeps with the fishes.ReplyDelete
As for Bush, I regret, and will regret to my last dying day, ever voting for him. To Bush, conservatism was a mask he had to wear until he was safely at the end of his term. And the same goes for his Evangelism. Merely a vote getter. GWB is going to bring the wrath of G-d onto America.
I know you don't want to hear this but read Ezekial 38. Tell me that what is happening isn't described here.
I made use of your comment on the bombing of Auschwitz to the editor of American Thinker, Thomas Lifson.ReplyDelete
American Thinker published two apologetics the past couple of days on this topic.
Wonder why the editor is on the defensive at this particular point in history?
because the history in question is ugly and ugly histories require apologeticsReplyDelete
the AT piece you linked to doesn't even require a response, the first half is just an outpouring of sarcastic remarks devoid of argument, then there are the strawmen
allied bombers hit targets near concentration camps, the bombing did not have to be precision as the AT piece keeps insisting and collateral damage would not have been an issue, it had to only somewhat slow the ability of the german machine to continue transporting and maintaining the camps
it would not have 'prevented the holocaust', but it would have saved thousands to tens of thousands of lives
but had the FDR administration had any real interest in saving Jews, there were easier ways to save more Jews such as by say letting them come into the country
but the doors were closed, locked and sealed shut, we might look toward the St. Louis or Breckenbridge Long threatening countries in the Hemisphere near the US who might consider taking in Jewish refugees
as far as the British were concerned, the more Jews died in the Holocaust, the fewer would remain to disrupt their plans for the Palestine Mandate
as far as FDR was concerned, Jews were unpleasant and pushy characters who cared only about money and needed to be kept in their place and reminders about the deaths of jews would undermine support for the war
as far as plenty in the military were concerned, the Jews had begun the war in the first place and were probably behind WW1 too
as far as the diplomats were concerned, the jewish issue was an annoyance and the US should follow the British line on it
Interesting. Since Bush made the statement, I've been doing a little study over the past few days in books I have collected on this topic.ReplyDelete
Lifson will forward my letter to Mr. Dunn. I will be interested in hearing his response; if he responds. My concern is not so much what the Allies did not do to help the Jews during the war but what Bush is doing to Israel as we speak. If Dunn answers me, I would like to see his defense of Bush.
Dear Mr. Lifson,
I read J. R. Dunn's piece this morning, "Bush wrongly blames America." This is the second apologetic run on your web site in the past two days. I read Mr. Kemp's piece yesterday. I hope you will forward this to Mr. Dunn.
A couple of questions occurred to me. Why is American Thinker defensive to the point that you publish two apologetics in as many days on this topic?
And why now, as Mr. Bush is working tirelessly to establish his vision of a Palestinian Muslim terrorist state in Israel's heartland? A jihadist-killer state will be dedicated to Israel's annihilation. Shouldn't Mr. Dunn be more concerned about the existential threat to Israel's survival and the long-term survival of the west from the global jihad, rather than America's non-response to the Jews' plight during the second world war?
The editor of "Sultan Knish" web site put Mr. Dunn's concern in the following perspective: "Much has been made of Bush's widely publicized statement at Yad Vashem wondering why America didn't bomb Auschwitz. That statement is an obscenity and an abomination. It would be the equivalent of FDR turning his back on the Jews of Europe while asking why America didn't intervene in the Russian Pogroms of the early 20th century. It is not Auschwitz that needs to be bombed today but Gaza and Tehran and yet again an American President is selling out the world's most persecuted people to cater to its enemies and America's enemies as well."
Perhaps Mr. Dunn is unaware, American leaders, American military, etc,, simply did not care about, nor could they be bothered with the Jews (of Europe) by and large. I am inclined to believe Mr. Dunn might well fit in the very same category in terms of Israel's Jews, having read this piece. Yet Mr, Dunn is a "consulting" editor of American Thinker.
Perhaps Mr. Dunn has not read, most Jewish leaders in Europe and the United States -- assuming the use of heavy bombers and the consequent death of some inmates -- concluded that loss of life under the circumstances was justifiable. They were aware that 90 -- 95 percent of the Jews were gassed on arrival at Auschwitz. They also realized that most who were spared for the work camps struggled daily through a hellish, famished existence as slave laborers and were worn out in a matter of weeks. Once unfit for hard labor, they were dispatched to the gas chambers. Although those who appealed for the bombing did not know it, many Auschwitz prisoners shared their viewpoint.
Heavy bombers were not, however, the only choice. A small number of Mitchell medium bombers could have flown the missions to Auschwitz. The Mitchell had sufficient range to attack Auschwitz, since refueling was available on the Adriatic island of Vis, 110 miles closer than home base back in Italy. A few Lightning (P-38) dive-bombers or British Mosquitoes could have knocked out the murder buildings without any danger to the inmates at Birkenau. (David S. Wyman, "Abandonment Of The Jews") Historian Martin Gilbert was equally critical of the Allied non-response to the mass-genocide.
On August 20, 1944, 127 Flying fortresses, escorted by 100 Mustang fighters, dropped 1,336, 500-pound high explosive bombs on the synthetic oil factory areas of Auschwitz, less than five miles to the east of the gas chambers. Visibility was excellent. German artillery provided little protection. In early September, heavy bombers again hit the factory areas of Auschwitz.
According to historians, there was a total and complete absence of a will to act to help the Jews. "The army never attempted to acquire intelligence or make the necessary operational assessments to determine whether such bombing was feasible. The army never pursued any systematic examination of the proposals presented to it; nor did it ask theater commanders what might be done. The quick, repetitious responses to pleas for bombing from the army -- air operations were "impracticable" and a "diversion" of considerable air support -- without much inquiry suggest other reasons for these policy decisions, including indifference among highly placed officers to the plight of Jews." (Joseph Bendersky, "The Jewish Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army")
I hope, Dr. Lifson, you can see the irony in this. While American President George W. Bush is doing his utmost to dismember tiny Israel, thereby leaving her defenseless in the face of the jihadist onslaught (Israel's traitorous prime minister notwithstanding), we are debating whether America did enough to aid the Jews during the second world war.
I found Bushes statement about bombing the camp outrageous. Did he mean to kill all the inmates?ReplyDelete
LemonLimeMoon, when people talk about bombing Auschwitz, they are talking about bombing the crematoria.ReplyDelete
In Mr. Bush's case, I'm not sure.
Do you know about his grandfather, Prescott Bush?
In renewing his "Freedom Agenda" - Bush's grand ambition to seed democracy around the globe - the president declared: "We know from experience that democracy is the only system of government that yields lasting peace and stability as we see after the election of Hamas in Gaza."ReplyDelete
Since the Jews are greatly outnumbered in this part of the world it is incumbent on us to drive them out by the vote and the sword he said as he showed off his gold and jewel encrusted sword, a gift from the ruler of Bahrain where the US Fifth Fleet is docked.
Later he spoke about democracy in a deeply undemocratic country, the Emirates, where an elite of royal rulers makes virtually all the decisions. Large numbers of foreign resident workers have few legal or human rights, including no right to citizenship and no right to protest working conditions.Mr .Bush said he was content with this as he expects his puppet in Israel to do his will even if the rest of Israel was opposed to it..
This is my style of democracy where we do as we will and the lower caste people learn to suck it up said the President to reporters before leaving the royal residence of Sheikh Khalifa ben-Zayad.
Some human rights groups have accused the Emirates of tolerating virtual indentured servitude, where workers from poor countries like Sri Lanka are forced to work to pay off debts to employers, and have their passports seized so they can't leave.
The president admitted his version of democracy was not perfect but that it sold to the delusional masses pointing to the content classes of the U.S. as the example for all the world.
P.M. Olmert of Israel has already begun implementing his ethnic cleansing of much of Israel to prepare the way for another Islamic state,the President's gift to his close friends in the Persian Gulf.
Thanks Steve, wow (brushes back blond hair) how dumb am I? giggle giggle.Forgive me, I am not a real blogger, I just play one online.ReplyDelete
What would I do without some guy to point out my sarcastic remark to me?
Are you available Stevie? After all thats why we women are online you know. wink wink.
I think Bush has started drinking again. My his liver fail and may he never find a donor.ReplyDelete
Are you available Stevie? >>>ReplyDelete
You're funny. Yes I'm available. Are you a Jew? I've come to the point in life lemonlime, where I've got to wait on God.
That might mean remaining single for some time to come.
Don't you think that makes sense?
LemonLimeMoon, when people talk about bombing Auschwitz, they are talking about bombing the crematoria.ReplyDelete
Are you sure it wasn't the train tracks?
via Yad VashemReplyDelete
there were different plans proposed for bombing Auschwitz, even killing everyone in the camp would ultimately have saved more lives by preventing or at least slowing further deportations because the nazis had accelerated their rate of killing toward the end of the war
steve, there is no need to talk down to lemon and lemon's response to you was obviously sarcastic
dunn has gone the usual route of nitpicking details and lots of sarcastic remarks about the impossibility of the operation but the reality is that it was never seriously considered
by contrast Patton dispatched a Jewish officer on an insanely risky operation to liberate a POW camp that held his son in law
the operation all but inevitably failed
IMHO--No part of Auschwitz should be bombed. People that want it bombed want to wipe the Holocaust or at least some parts of it from their memories and ultimately from history. Out of sight, out of mind.ReplyDelete
I say keep every inch of it intact as it was 60 years ago; the barracks, cremetorium, tracks, all of it.
Steve, I am also very Lemony in addition to being Jewish. There is nothing quite like a Lemonlime Jew .ReplyDelete
I came here from your anti-Ron Paul blog.ReplyDelete
You make very good points, and I have to say I seem to be of very similar opinions to yours.
I shall enjoy reading all in full a bit later when I relax with a cigar.
Dear lemonlimemoon, what is a lemon lime Jew if you don't mind my asking?ReplyDelete
Sutan, I would like to return to an earlier point and discussion. Former Chief Rabbi Eliyahu made his pronouncements as far back as early June 2005, well before the expulsions were a fait accompli.ReplyDelete
It seems to me this ruling (or whatever we call it) had to have been demoralizing to the right in Israel, especially the religious Zionist right. I saw no rebuttal to his immoral ruling; not on Arutz Sheva. I was watching for a rebuttal. I read none.
Now we are facing a similar situation. Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef might order his Shas party to stay in Olmert's coalition even as Olmert negotiates "core issues" with our jihadist enemies. I read the following on Tamar Yonah's Arutz Sheva blog the other day:
6. You still pray to your idol O. Yosef.
What a pussycat you are. You don't mind walking up to a gay pride marcher and saying that "it's an abomination," but somehow when it comes to dividing the land, losing a unified Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, you join the other settler wimps and blag to the choir about gog.
Why aren't you all marching in $has Land with posters of O. Yosef in a kefiya? Hm?
sk, USA (11/01/08)
19. sk #6: You make a good point!
You wrote: "Why aren't you all marching in $has Land with posters of O. Yosef in a kefiya? Hm?"
Yours is a good question. Why aren't we marching in front of Rabbi Yosef's home with kefiyas?
Rabbi Yosef is betraying the Jews, isn't he? How can a rabbi justify remaining in this evil government? How can a rabbi support Oslo? Didn't Rabbi Yosef support the murderous Oslo accords with mass-murderer Yasir Arafat.
Didn't Rabbi Yosef command Shas to vote for Shimon Peres as president of Israel even though Peres has much innocent Jewish blood on his hands?
Why aren't Jews in Israel protesting this rabbi who is with our enemies?
I got a call yesterday from Arutz Sheva for my annual contribution.ReplyDelete
Actually it has not even been a year since my last contribution.
I put the man off, asking him to contact me in the spring.
I asked him this question about protesting Rabbi Yosef should the great rabbi decide to keep Shas in Mr. Olmert's Kadima government coalition even as Olmert moves forward with the removal of Jews from their homes, from our land.
If the Jews in Israel are willing to once again march into the gas chambers, why should I help them?
steve, first of all conflating jews and Arutz 7 is as wrong as conflating any particular media outlet and all of america or israelReplyDelete
secondly we've gone into this at length already, if you want to protest Yosef, take a trip to Israel and bring a placard. The right is not particularly organized and most of the effective protests run on individual initiative
thirdly, as to why you should care, I would hope you know the answer to that yourself
fourthly, and this isn't just to Steve, if you're only reading news about Israel in English you're getting less than 5 percent of the story
the english A7 is itself vastly inferior in content to its ivrit and other counterparts
most of what is going on in israel is not being covered
Sultan, you do not know anything about me, so I will share a little background. I am a fifty four year old politically conservative Jew. I spent eight years as precinct committeeman in our local Republican Executive Committee. My late father was a state party boss of sorts, state committeeman and chairman of our party; strong supporter of both former Governor Jeb Bush -- for whom Dad helped raise funds when he was in town -- and George W. Bush.ReplyDelete
Before my father passed away, we got into some disagreements over the president's Mideast policies. But that's another matter.
For a Jew, I am an oddity of sorts. I am pro-life, pro-traditional family. Pro-life Jews are a rarity. Most of my fellow Jews support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.
I recruited conservative pro-life Christians onto our Republican Exec. Committee. I would join these peaceful protestors / side walk counselors on Tuesdays. I am no stranger to political protest.
Then Attorney General, now Governor Charlie Crist was invited to speak to our local party at the Hilton at the time when Terry Schiavo was being judicially murdered by dehydration in a Tampa Hospice. Crist did not lift a finger to help her or her family despite pleas from all over the country.
We protested Crist as well as our anti-Semitic party chairman that invited him.
I say he was anti-Semitic because in late September 2004, I wrote a letter to the editor of our newspaper criticizing the president's anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian-jidadist policies. I also spoke out against him on the radio.
The officers of our party then sought my removal from the Executive Committee at our November 2004 meeting.
The president of our right to life organization and other activists resigned in protest. My father had passed away prior to this.
Sultan I am a small greenhouse nurseryman / grower. If you know anything about this business, you know growers are tied down seven days a week unless you have someone you can absolutely trust. I do not.
Consequently, it's been twenty something years since I was last in Israel. Until HaShem helps me sell this place or rent it, I will stay. I am trying to sell or rent my place.
Were I in Israel, I would protest in front of Rabbi Yosef's home or in front any rabbi's home in heart beat.
There are reasons why Jews are reluctant to confront this rabbi and I believe you alluded to some of the reasons earlier.
There is plenty of organization in Israel. Women in Green is a case in point. I have contributed to Women in Green. I just contributed to this "Building Israel Project" protest to the Bush visit. Women in Green was an active participant. Many groups joined in.
Lack of organization is not the problem. I believe there is a lack of will; perhaps fear.
I will get to the bottom of it. I will not let this rest until I do.
"MK Gilad Erdan (Likud) called upon Lieberman and Shas leader Eli Yishai on Sunday to "wake up at the last moment" and leave the coalition immediately. (Shas is Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's party -- S.K.)
Erdan said, "This is Lieberman and Yishai's last chance to show leadership, to make good on their promises and to defend the Israeli people from the going-out-of-business sale that Olmert is conducting for the State of Israel, just to prepare the ground for the final report of the Winograd Commission on the failed conduct of the [Second Lebanon] war."
"Lieberman and Yishai will no longer be able to hide behind the euphemism 'core issues' when everyone understands that these are concessions in Jerusalem, the destruction of communities and the return of 'Palestinian refugees,'" Erdan added.
Arutz Sheva --- today
Negotiations Over 'Core Issues' Begin
by Gil Ronen
Poignant and well-written. At one point or two, this brought tears to my eyes.ReplyDelete
As I have said before, America will sever its ties with Israel the minute that doing so is in America's best interest.
Anti-Racist Blog Supporter
thank you tova,ReplyDelete
steve, years of political protests have failed to achieve much of anything which is why they are dying off
standing with a banner in front of someplace does not accomplish very much except to make activists feel that they are doing something even if they are not accomplishing anything
the younger people are now building outposts and actively fighting for the land
the older people as well as some younger continue to participate in some protests and are arrested
Sultan, you wrote: "the younger people are now building outposts and actively fighting for the land"ReplyDelete
Are you of the opinion I think this unimportant? If you are, you are mistaken.
Both are important, protest, building and actively fighting for the land.
You have already explained to me why political protest of rabbis with great power could be counterproductive.
We will have to agree to disagree on that.
Steve, I'm not telling you what's important or isn't, I'm telling you what's actually going on, on the groundReplyDelete
as for protesting Rabbis, that's primarily a tactical decision as in a question of what can be gained from it
political protests until now have gained absolutely nothing, not since the creative protests of Zo Artzeinu under Sackett and Feiglin, who did succeed in getting their message out and rattling the regime
the Yesha style rally protests by contrast have achieved zippo
a 1000 people blocking roads might achieve something, 100,000 people at a rally have been proven to achieve nothing
again, facts on the ground
Sutan: "as for protesting Rabbis, that's primarily a tactical decision as in a question of what can be gained from it"ReplyDelete
Come on. You know what will be "gained" from it. We will anger and / or antagonize perhaps tens of thousands of Sephardi Jewish voters -- Israel's version of American "Reagan Democrats."
You say, "Oy Vey!"
At this point in our history, I say wonderful!
Sultan, I supported this. You wrote that it was worthless. How do you know it is worthless?ReplyDelete
LAST TUESDAY, to mark Bush's visit, a coalition of radical settler organizations planned to fan out across the West Bank with construction equipment to assemble crude houses and synagogues for outposts old and new.
"With God's help, we're going to add on a second floor," says "Ilan," 16, pointing to the pink-painted, concrete-block house at Shvut Ami, an outpost where a handful of teenagers sleep on mattresses spread over the house's dried mud floor.