Ding dong, the dhimmi's gone: Olmert to quit

Proud of the achievement of exchanging cold-blooded murderers for the bodies of two tortured Israeli soldiers?

Much too late, and not a moment too soon.

I've previously advocated the view that if Israel were to enunciate a policy in which an attack by Hezbollah on Israel would be considered tantamount to an attack by Syria (since the Syrians are the conduit for Iranian arms and money to Hezbollah), this would force Bashir Assad to reign in the behavior of Hezbollah and keep a lid on things in the region.

I firmly believe this is one reason the Syrians have recently engaged in diplomatic contacts with Israel vis-a-vis the Turks...offering the possibility of a "final settlement" to peace-craving Israelis. The Syrians anticipate another round of Israeli-Hezbollah fighting and want to deter a broadening of the conflict by giving Israel a reason to exercise restraint towards Syria.

Assad is perfectly willing - perhaps even eager - to see Lebanon destroyed in a new Hezbollah-Israel war, but he'd never risk his own country. Sadly, the Israelis appear all too eager to fall for his gambit, and the result will be a new round of fighting that will result in the destruction of significant portions of both Lebanon and Israel while the Syrians sit on the sidelines, watching with great satisfaction.

Cornelius,

Great point. And in the event that Israel holds Syria accountable during an Israeli-Hezbollah war, the media will condemn Israel for "destroying the possibility of peace" by a senseless and inexplicable attack on Syria, a country that was making "serious peaceful overtures" to Israel (can't you just hear the BBC report on this). This will then be pointed to as proof of Israel's evil nature.

More recent Israeli governments seem more concerned with avoiding criticism from Europe than in protecting the lives of their own citizens.

4infidels,

Excellent point...Syria's diplomatic gambit may also be designed to elicit pressure on Israel from other quarters (EU, America) to contain the coming conflict.

People don't realize that this last war with Hezbollah caused more destruction to Israeli cities than the four previous wars combined ('56, '67,'73, and '82). Another round will have the effect of dispiriting the Israeli populace and facilitating the emigration of the more faint-hearted. The rocket barrage is just the latest strategy in the un-interrupted Arab/Muslim goal of destroying the Jewish state.

Who are the potential replacements?

What improvement? A tiny country surrounded by jackals and hyenas, sworn to it's destruction, now armed to the teeth and much more of that on the way, courtesy of the thugs in Iran. Never has it been this precarious, worsening since Olmert took office.

In our dreams we can hope for another Sharon to come along and finally help Israel to come even close to where it was during its long list of victories over Arab detractors. Although even Sharon wasn't that great; in fact, I'm not sure Israel, for all its reputation for being tougher on jihadists than Western Europe or America, has ever had a prime minister, military commander, ambassador or any other figure of influence who trully understood conceptually that the Israeli-Arab conflict is not about land, but about whether or not the Jews are entitled to live as an independent entity and not as a protected minorty under Arab Muslim Nationalists. Maybe Benjamin Netanyahu, but that's pretty much it.

Or course, I don't think the majority of Israelis never actually grasped thsi either.

In our dreams we can hope for another Sharon to come along..."
-- from a posting above

Ariel Sharon did great things for Israel as a soldier, over many decades, beginning with the 1948 war as a teenager, and then as the creator of Unit 101, and then later as a spectacular commander -- never more spectacular than when, in the Yom Kippur War, he had the Egyptian Third Army surrounded (by Israeli troops and the Suez Canal) and could have destroyed it, had Henry Kissinger, with his tinpot shallow short-horizoned machiavellianism, not intervened to save it.

He also uprooted Jews from villages and towns, playing on his presumed unassailability as "the tough old soldier" (same phrase, same banality, for descriptions of Yitzhak Rabin), and what he did in Gaza was unforgivable.

In fact, whatever good Sharon did as a soldier, he undid when he assumed the highest political office in Israel.

No, no more Sharons, no more of anything but clearsighted understanding of what Israel has always faced but not allowed itself to acknowledge, and that for its own sake, it has to recognize, and what's more force its so-called allies to recognize, the permanent Jihad against it, one not to be assuaged in any way by further concessions by Israel for the "sake of peace."

Any more concessions will merely feed into, and encourage, Muslim triumphalism, and that triumphalism will be felt not only by Israel, but by Infidels elsewhere, especially those in Western Europe, as Muslims become convinced that "Islam is on the march" because of the concessions wrung, not least by its unthinking allies, paralyzed or even stupefied by the problem of Islam, who think and prate of a "solution" when there is none, save for keeping the only peace-keeper in the area, the IDF, not only overwhelmingly strong, but overwhelmingly much stronger than any potential Muslim military threat. As for the non-military threat to Israel's survival, that threat is the same one that threatens other Infidel lands, and in those lands, especially in the countries of Western Europe, there is growing recognition of the nature, and instruments, of Jihad, which in time will lead to a re-thinking of the hostility, and incomprehension, of Israel's plight, one that was of course encouraged by Arab propaganda and misleading, tendentious, vicious reporting by so many Western journalists who need to be, and eventually will be -- sooner rather than later -- either replaced or mocked to scorn.

No, a new Ariel Sharon would not be a good idea.

No, Olmert, you are no King David, don't pretend you are. Oh how I wish there were another one of those aruond!

To Hugh above,

I already knew about how Sharon removed the Jews from Gaza and made concessions like most other Israeli Prime Ministers before him. That's why I said pretty much every Prime Minister Israel ever had, sans Benjamin Netanyahu, did not get and still does not get why Israel is still fighting. Sharon is obviously not great, per se, but someone like him I imagine would be preferable to Olhmert or Livni, in the same vein that Ms. Clinton or McCain, though I'm not crazy about either of them, would be terrfic if analyzed in comparision to the Obammessiah, America's doomsday. What Israel needs is most is soemone aware that its enemies can't stop, won't stop until its dismantled and its Jews returned to their portected status under Arab leadership, (in some cases, ownership).

I have heard this for the last year. I'll believe it when I see it and not before.

Since Olmert was consistently besieged by accusations and investigations into his conduct since day one, then he should have kept his nose clean. Good riddance to bad rubbish. But Israelis would be smart to keep a can of Lysol handy in case the next PM turns into a heaping pile of excrement. I know many of us in the US are doing just that.

בִּנְיָמִין "ביבי" נְתַנְיָהוּ‎, Binyamin Netanyahu!!!

Olmert was always very confused. He remains so today, a dull uncomprehending pitiable figure. He somehow could never quite grasp, perhaps could not allow himself to grasp, what he had a duty to know, and a duty to share with those whose lives depend on their government's leaders understanding of the source (Qur'an, Hadith, Sira), duration (forever) and instruments (terrorism, traditional combat or qitaal, economic and diplomatic pressure, media propaganda, Da'wa, demographic conquest) of the Jihad against Israel.

Olmert never knew how to make Israel's case. He never knew how to correct grave errors, in the minds of those who make policy in the United States, about the history, cause, and therefore likely duration -- forever, but a manageable forever -- of the conflict. Possibly the hapless Olmert may have forgotten the history of the area, or may be one of those who, like Ms. Livni, so enjoys his own personal history as "the child of Revisionists who has become realistic by abandoning what parents and grandparents believed in" (when, in fact, though even Jabotinsky did not understand Islam, he did understand that "the Arabs" would never willingly accept the Jews, or acquiesce in the existence of a Jewish nation-state -- Islam was simply too weak at the time, and for those who, like Jabotinsky, were preoccupied with defending Jews from Arab attack (starting in Jabotinsky's case with the Jews of the Old City who were attacked in 1920) in Mandatory Palestine, or rescuing them from Europe (rescue efforts that in the 1930s became more frantic, and culminated, perhaps, in a speech by Jabotinsky given in Warsaw in 1938, when he warned the Jews that they should all get out, because otherwise they would all be killed), there was no time to study Islam.

The life-histories of Livni and Olmert are of interest to others only insofar as their psychic journeys, and their pride in their abandonment of what they regard as the "foolish certainties" of their parents and grandparents (oh, those silly followers of Jabotinsky, they say to themselves, all those naive people who, unlike, say, Shimon Peres or Ariel Sharon or Ehud Olmert, had no idea how to deal with the Arabs), have led them to confusion, and far greater distancing from realism, from understanding the nature and sources of the Jihad being waged against Israel, means that they are dangerous to the wellbeing of the state. And they are. For though their parents and grandparents may have been innocent of Islam, they at least had a solid sense of the legal, moral, and historic claims of the Jews to the Land of Israel -- at the very least, to all of Western Palestine -- and, furthermore, they understood, even without having investigated Islam, that for some reason the Arabs would never accept a Jewish state, never except Jews unless they continued in the role of permanently humiliatied, degraded, and insecure dhimmis. And that, the Zionist pioneers were certainly unwilling -- unable -- to do.

Olmert will be out in a month. But then what? Who will prevent the ascendancy of Olmert-in-skirts (and hold the secret payments), Tzipi Livni, or of others like her who presume to protect and instruct the people of Israel, but simply cannot figure out, cannot comprehend, what is going on. And will go on.

Olmert leaving is good news but isn't it the case that almost any viable candidate for the prime ministership of Israel is more or less tainted by scandal or corruption? Anyone know of someone strong and capable who isn't? Really, I would appreciate more info here.

Is Binyamin Netanyahu the best option for Israel?

He makes the case better than any other Israeli I've heard.

However, he was bullied at Wye by Albright, Berger and the other Arafat fans into making concessions he swore he would never make. When it comes down to it, will he choose acceptance by US leaders over doing what is best for Israel (and ultimately also for the US)? Or will he stand up to the state department and explain to them why there is no solution to the conflict and that a Palestinian state is against the interests of both Israel and America?

Netanyahu is great at making the case for Israel in context of Jewish history and its security needs. Does he, or any other Israeli politician, understand the nature of Muslim treaties? There are some Israeli academics who get it (though most are hopelessly left), but is there anyone who could reverse the tide in government?

The premier lashed out at his political adversaries without naming any of them - either from Kadima or other parties - personally.

Olmert opened his speech by expressing
"But instead I found myself subjected to constant investigations and criticism. Almost from day one, I had to repel personal attacks and postpone decisions that are pertinent to the security of the State."

Olmert then proceeded to recount the successes of his premiership: "And yet, Israel's position has improved.

"The North enjoys tranquility; Israel's deterrence has immeasurably improved. I am proud of these achievements," he said.
------------------

This clod, this self serving, want to be who helped destroy the best of Israel by helping to destroy segments of the religious by sending them to destitution and worse (the gush katif refugees who he without mercy, helped to push into helplessness, from self sufficiency and being amongst the most devoted, self sufficient of Israeli's), and who said what he said above about the status, which is an utter plate of lies.

I'll present Rabbi lazar brody's far more accurate assessment. Note that Rabbi Brody is a very religious jew, a rabbi, a former special commando who served in the IDF, and who uses the word 'emuna', or faith as a rabbi who expresses the idea that belief in God, in doing the right thing is part of the right to live in Israel, rather than mere political strength or toadying to the europeans or anyone, who dream like the left in Israel, and the secularists, that Israel can be a cafe technocrat society, and survive by merely 'fulfilling' that role, rather than following the 4000 yr old commandments to be a people, in their land, living according to their teachings. But it's a more accurate assessment that the bs of Olmert and the others who would pick israel apart for political expediency:

Foot-in-Mouth Disease

Ever since the start of the Second Lebanon War two years ago, we here at the Beams and Emuna News have been howling like coyotes at midnight about the baseless and dangerous bravado of our anti-emuna leaders, particulary PM Olmert. At the beginning of the Lebanon War, he strutted like a rooster crowing to everyone how he was going to teach Nasrulla a lesson. A fish stinks from the head - the political leadership, the military leadership, civil defense, and the police functioned miserably during the war. Were it not for private benevolent organizations sponsored by such groups as Chabad and Zaka, the people of Tzfat (those who remained in the city) would have starved. Nasralla and 2500 of his bandits made fools out of Olmert, his government, Israel's intelligence community, and the IDF leadership. How? Hashem despises bravado.

Olmert claimed that UN Resolution 1701 was a victory over Hizbulla, and we said 2 years ago, it was capitulation. Olmert bragged that he would free Goldwasser and Regev, and of course he didn't at the time. Instead, he freed Kuntar. (Simply type in the word "bravado" in the search box on the left-hand toolbar, and see how everything we warned about 2 years ago materialized to the letter - Hizbulla's rearming, Israel's lack of deterrence, etc.).

Every time one of our anti-emuna charlatans in government opens up his mouth in bravado, a catastrophe happens. That's what scared the daylights out of me yesterday. Olmert, who in addition to all of his other sins, arrogance, dishonesty, and shortcomings, declared during a meeting of the Knesset Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee, that Hizbullah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah is afraid and is therefore refraining from avenging the death of the organization's senior commander Imad Mugniyah. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Olmert, in all his arrogant blindness, can't see a single speck of reality. He really thinks he can double-dare the Hizbulla? He's either childish or a total imbecile. Hizbulla and Nasrulla keep their cards very close to their chest, and won't reveal what they plan and when they plan it. Yet, Olmert's continued bravado is an invitation to tragedy, G-d forbid.

Bravado, or to paraphrase veterinary medicine "Foot-in-Mouth" disease, is the direct result of fantasy-oriented lack of emuna. Nasralla wiped the floor with Olmert two years ago, and today is much stronger than he was then. The only reason Hizbulla doesn't initiate a new war is that big brother Syria won't let them.

Syrians are sharp wheeler dealers. Assad knows that he can dislodge the entire Golan from the vain, self-serving Olmert for a 30-day illusion of peace, and he doesn't want Nasralla to spoil Syria's sugar-coated negotiations. If G-d forbid Syria does get the Golan back, then Nasralla will want the Galilee and all chaos will break loose. I cried my eyes out in personal prayer today begging Hashem to save us from such a scenario, that all begins with anti-emuna leaders that can't keep their feet out of their mouth. They probably use Desenex to brush their teeth. May Hashem (G-d) have mercy on us.

And Hugh wrote:
"Of course, the equally clueless Livni will probably succeed him".

Actually, Hugh, I believe is incorrect here.
This bit was engineered by Chaim Ramon, a leftist, who wanted all of Gaza surrendered in 01', was defeated by 85% of the Israeli electorate in 03' elections which elected Sharon to not do that... and then Sharon did it anyway, under threat by the west, and we got what we got, Hamasastan, and the destruction of any peace, and any dignity, except the feeding of the homicidists who knew they were winning, now.

And this bit with Olmert resigning is designed to save Kadima's ass, it's motto being, 'we stand for nothing' and helping to destroy Israel but feel good about it, by giving away all the land they can, including Jerusalem, and returning Israel to 1948 size and pretending it all means peace, not war.

Ramon, is the one who wants Livni out too. They want Shau Mofaz, as he can be made too look less like Kadima and more like Labor and keep labor in their government. In other words, a liberal leftist move to prevent anyone other than a leftis agenda from surrendering Israel and begging for peace.

Mark

4infidels said,

"Is Binyamin Netanyahu the best option for Israel?

He makes the case better than any other Israeli I've heard.

However, he was bullied at Wye by Albright, Berger and the other Arafat fans into making concessions he swore he would never make. When it comes down to it, will he choose acceptance by US leaders over doing what is best for Israel (and ultimately also for the US)? Or will he stand up to the state department and explain to them why there is no solution to the conflict and that a Palestinian state is against the interests of both Israel and America?"

Well, yes, no politician or military general in Israel, not even Netanyahu, has truly been able to stand their ground in the face of pressure from the Rest of the World. To be truly fair, though, that comes naturally as a result of how minute and vulnerable the Empire of Israel is. And as for Albright and Berger, representing a nation of 250 million people, being "able" to bully 7 million strong Israel is sort of akin to suggesting a lone lioness is weak when its food is stolen by a huge pack of hyenas. It also flies in the face of everyone who suggest the Israel Lobby dictates our foreign policy. Truth be known, America really isn't the great,dependable ally of Israel that people say it is.

Anyhow, this is about who has the strongest conceptual understanding of Israel's enemies taking charge, even on occasion when they do get coerced by Israel's *all powerful" allies. That's why Binyamin Netanyahu, or someone like him, is, if not the best possible option for Israel, certainly the best that Israelis could possibly hope to have at this point.

I'm not an expert on the parlaimentary form of government, and know less about Istaeli political minutae, but I do know that by saying his successor would have to form a coalition; Olmert assumes the winning party will not have enough members seated to rule.

How do we spell assume?

Maxwell4682,

I agree with everything you wrote. I have complete admiration for what Israel has achieved against all odds. Still, if you can't make your own case for the justice of your cause, and be willing to expose the your neighbors for the thugs that they are, you have no hope of others understanding your situation?

Yes, I know that no matter what the justice of Israel's cause, most support for the Arabs has to do with their oil, their money and the fear of their terror. However even many of Israel's friends are left shaking their heads as Israel says and does things that seemingly empower their enemies and undercut their own cause.

It is sad to think..but if Israel were to have to fight again...it would include Hamas, Hizbollah, Al-Quieda and all their proxies.

Israel's poition is becoming increasingly difficult and once you add to the mix that they can no longer produce leaders of substance eventually it's position will become untenable.

Like a bull surrounded by hungry young and fit lions with several tactically astute leaders, the bull will succumb to bites from all sides, desperately attempting to fight back whilst trying to arrest the bleeding.

I love America, and I hope America can ultimately ensure such a depressing and terminal situation can be arrested for the betterment of all our futures.

If the taliban get involved too...well god help us all.

Fred

Please refrain from criticizing me while I am busy being a liberal and giving away the store.
My God is there a more dangerous mental disease?

My God is there a more dangerous mental disease?

Posted by: pismopal

No, pismopal, there isn't. I believe that liberal's have become a liability. Good point!

Olmert is so full of himself he can't see through his own fog, a fog he's waded in throughout his time in office. Decadent and as close to a traitor as one could be is what legacy I would pin on him.

Isn't Ariel Sharon responsible for Ehud Olmert? Didn't former Prime Minister Sharon betray the Jews?

To 4infidels,

Frankly, I wouldn't actually argue with anything you said either. Israel has been taken over by suicidal self-hating "academics" just as much as America and Western Europe. The arrival of Socialist JINOs into Israel from Europe in recent Aliyahs doesn't help much at all either. The only states that haven't completely caved are Italy, Serbia, Australia, Ethiopia, Gujarat in India-but definitely not the rest of India, the Central Asian republics(Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan etc)-whose leadership and majority are nominally muslim but Communist and/or atheist in practice, Singapore and Burma. And some of these places are genuine human rights abusers we shouldn't get behind even if they are dealing with Islamist/jihadist elements properly.

Didn't George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon establish Prime Minister Olmert?

Jul 30, 2008 22:02 | Updated Jul 31, 2008 0:49
Bush calls to comfort departing PM
HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, WASHINGTON

"And some of these places are genuine human rights abusers we shouldn't get behind even if they are dealing with Islamist/jihadist elements properly."
-- from a posting above

Why not? This is a world-girdling war, even if not one being conducted the way that previous world wars were conducted.

In World War II, the American government extended every assistance, beginning with those weapons-laden convoys to Murmansk, to the Soviet Union and its otherwise intolerable regime, and was fully justified, given the circumstances, in so doing.

Is it just a coincidence or did Israel's decline begin, however slowly, with the end of the Cold War?
Cornelius suggested that "if Israel were to enunciate a policy in which an attack by Hezbollah on Israel would be considered tantamount to an attack by Syria (since the Syrians are the conduit for Iranian arms and money to Hezbollah), this would force Bashir Assad to reign in the behavior of Hezbollah".
The Middle East was a focal point of the Cold War. The war between Iran and Iraq might not have occurred under the shah. Once Iran was no longer a US ally, Saddam felt free to operate. Once the USSR broke up, it seemed as if everything began to go haywire. The balance of power that had previously existed was no more.
They seem to be convenient targets but did the Clinton administration's policy of courting Yasser Arafat hasten Israel's decline or was it just a matter of time?
Were Israel's previous leaders made of sterner stuff or do they just look good by comparison with Olmert and Sharon?

A very wise choice, Olmert. A little late in coming, but better late than never.

"Olmert then proceeded to recount the successes of his premiership: 'And yet, Israel's position has improved.

'The North enjoys tranquility; Israel's deterrence has immeasurably improved. I am proud of these achievements,' he said."
-- from the article above, quoting Olmert's gaga view of how things stand with Israel and the "successes of his premiership"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdLUV0hhYZY&feature=related

Yup, everything's gone great. It could go even greater with Tzipi, I'm afraid.

PMK,

Israel's strategic position improved dramatically at the end of the Cold War when Syria and the PLO lost their Soviet patron.

Factors that have eroded that position since...

1) the quintupling of oil prices since 2005 has given new vigor to Iran and other radical oil exporters

2) the transformation of Russia from a democratic ally of the West into a strategic competitor...(the Soviets appear hell-bent on re-establishing Syria as a client and establishing Iran as a major customer for strategic goods)

3) Post Cold War policy failures for Israel: First off, the failure of Oslo; the failure of the occupation of southern Lebanon; the failure to accrue any benefit from withdrawing from Lebanon and Gaza

I believe it Olmert who once said of Israel: "We are tired of winning".

This kind of malaise - born of the collapse of false hopes that peace with an implacable foe was ever possible - is suicidal. Only a seriously jaded mind couldn't see that the alternative to Israel's winning is a new holocaust.

Here's your hat.

What's your hurry.

Dont let the door slam you on the way out.

This fool claims to have no clue why he is worse than useless.

But is he hanging around to make sure no one effective follows him ?

The evil that men do lives after them....

JOHN BOLTON gets

My Vote for Israeli P.M..!

PMK: You raise an interesting point when you ask if Israel's decline began with the end of the Cold War. The first "intifada" began in 1987, and this was just about the true beginning of the end for the USSR. But I think this particular phenomenon is mere coincidence. But there's more out there to substantiate your basic hypothesis.

By the late 1980s, the Arab Muslim world had finally figured it out that it could never beat Israel in a conventional military conflict, thus the terrorist option was amped up. Then there was the Hayakawa assumption (quite wrong as it turned out), upon the demise of the Evil Empire, that history was over and the democratic/capitalistic model had won out. Ah, but Hayakawa didn't take into account that primoridal hate (best exemplified by many Islamic believers) would take advantage of Western folks (e.g., Israelis, Americans and even the forever dim-witted Western Europeans) who were desirous of putting all conflicts behind them to build a better world. Big mistake.

In the enthusiasm of the moment, with the end of the most overrated intellectual idea of all time, Marxism, decent folk who cherished freedom, democracy, tolerance and other good and wonderful things, made the error that Muslims thought the same way as the rest of us. Well, they don't. They hate (or they're "moderate", confused, useless cowards). They want everything. They are not gracious. There is no true Golden Rule among them. They are not like the rest of mankind. They are followers of a brutal, fraudulent, malicious, excessively lascivious man, whom they believe is the greatest messenger ever sent by the deity to earth (please, Muslims of the world, will you finally wake up about this guy Mohammed). Thus we have the continuing problem that we do. So, the ending of the Cold War, which banished one evil to the trash heap of history, allowed the great smouldering evil, Islam, to take center stage. That's my read. So, your basic assumption that the ending of the Cold War allowed for the mess we're in now has merit----as I see it.

Oh, one last thing. I think Israel has more resilience to it than many may think. I'd put my money down on Israel surviving the evil which is radical Islam. After all, Gary Cooper (as Will Kane) prevails in High Noon against great odds. The Jewish state will too. Long live Israel.

Correction: I meant Fukuyama, not Hayakawa. No excuses. Sorry. Don't know what I was thinking.

"...Is it just a coincidence or did Israel's decline begin, however slowly, with the end of the Cold War?"

It might be quibbling but I think writers of the history of the 20th century, haven't dug into the betrayal of Israel since _before_ it was created, as well as some few have. One, Prof Eugene Narrett, has written several books and authored articles on the subject that I think expose the west's betrayal of itself, and it's own history by cutting out it's perhaps most important root- which is Israel, and the Torah.

I think for instance, if one looks at the very first suggestion for the reformation of the State of Israel, which everyone knew was the _least_ the civilized world could do back in 1922, when it reformed the arab and muslim states, also, it then began to do the reverse and take away the land- 80% of the original mandate went right back to the arabs, muslims, and it never stopped. It was merely the extension of the European disdain and even jewhatred, under the guise of world polity by eviscerating the nacient possibilities of the existence of a viable state.

Anyway, Narrett's books are worth a look- his
World War III-The war on the jews and the rise of the world security state is a very interesting analysis.
He's not a ph'd historian but a ph'd who's deep knowledge of both ancient and modern history and Torah, Talmud understandings and putting them all together make for a fascination read.

But, yes, the next phase of Israeli betrayl actually began after 1967' when they were preventing, again, as in all the wars against them, from winning. And with the 'cold war over' it became the next phase of the evisceration of Israel, in the name of the 'peace' process.

You know- the same one that has us all now disallowed of using Islam and terrorism in the same sentence, or Islamism, or Islamic fascism or tyranny, but allowed to speak of Israeli 'intransigence', and so on.

Mark

"I meant Fukuyama, not Hayakawa. No excuses."
-- from a posting above

Sure there's an excuse. Why should one whose native language is English not misremember, or have one's memory mistakenly confuse, one Japanese (or Chinese, or Congolese, or Spanish, or French, or Hebrew, or Russian, or any number of other possible languages) name for another one shaing the same linguistic source. It is perfectly understandable.

Remember your namesake, Mr. Wellington, the man who, with a "name like a boot," declared: "Never apologize, never explain." Or am I confusing him with Lord Nelson, or someone else still later ? Could be. I am, you see, an American, and English war heroes, especially those of the Napoleonic period, tend to get jumbled in my brain.

I adduce, m'lud, as evidence to support my conceivable mistake, this excerpt from "The Singing Detective":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKrC9Tu8gpo&feature=related

"Never apologize, never explain."

My sister in-law in spades.

Bibi's the MAN!

Thanks, Hugh, though your post made me momentarily think I had done the Iron Duke a disservice. Next time I'll remember, unless I forget.

Actually, I think it was Disraeli who said 'Never apologise, never explain', or something like that.

My source is Dorothy L Sayers, in her 'Busman's Honeymoon', in which she assigns the following to one of her characters, who describes another in these terms:

"Harriet very sensibly said 'No' and 'Certainly' to everything, without any explanations or apologies, which are always so dangerous (dear Disraeli!)".

When are Israelis going to drop their pair of family jewels into their adolescent sack and elect an adult who will make the enemy pay for their intransigence?

The Left has ruined Israel, just as it has ruined our country and the key to our survival against the jihad going forward is the humility to admit we were wrong with the long refrains of kumbayah.

I agree, Bibi is The Man. But first the people of Israel have to realize they've been on the wrong path.

Leftists are perpetual adolescents who never get to age 18.

Welll, I don't think it was Wellington -- hence my excuse, the one supplied to "Wellington" for his error, was also meant to excuse any misremembering on my part. What I remembered was not that Wellington -- not to be confused with "Wellington" -- had had correctly attributed to him the famous phrase "never apologize, never explain" -- but that Dennis Potter, in "The Singing Detective," had had the character played by Michael Gambon mention "some English duke, with a name like a boot" who said "never explain" and "never apologize."

I thought that feat of memory would more than compensate for a likely lapse, in the same memory, apparently assumed to be acquiescing in, because adducing quasi-comically -- boys just want to have fun -- the same potterish, possibly on his part deliberately or indifferently mistaken, attribution.

Apparently I was wrong.

Olmert goes, but there remains no shortage of corrupt leftist scumbags to replace him. The Knesset is a cancer.

I heard they plan to make Zvi Livni his successor.

"Meet the new dhimmi. Same as the old dhimmi."

Could be even worse, actually. WHEN do they have elections next time? Where's Bibi when we all need him?

@Mad Zionist.. You're mad but you're definitely NOT crazy! Please get your compatriots to realize what danger all of you are in. I know it's practically impossible to talk to the leftists in a rational manner!

"Zvi Livni"

You mean Tzipi Livni.

Zvi Livni is a common name in Israel, I have been led to believe. But the Zvi Livni who right now, at this site, should be recalled was once a commando in the most highly-trained and elite unit of the Israeli army. After his army service, he received his doctorate at MIT in economics, game theory and negotiation strategy, and then he returned with his wife and daughter, to teach in Israel. It was in Cambridge, at MIT, through a mutual friend, that decades ago I happened to meet the unforgettable Zvi Livni.

The Times of London headline this morning:

Middle East peace process in turmoil as Ehud Olmert announces exit

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4431869.ece?Submitted=true

I had a good laugh when I read this headline. It seems that James Hider is the Times correspondent from Io, the satellite of Jupiter, and not Jerusalem. With 84 percent of the Palestinian population in support of attacks on Israeli civilians http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/world/middleeast/19mideast.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin, two Sudden Jihad Syndrome attacks in Jerusalem in a month, and Abbas praising the child-killer Samir Kuntar, what peace process had he in mind?

"Never say you are sorry, mister..." - John Wayne, in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbbon". Admittedly post Wellington.

Is there a world of difference between being sorry and saying you're sorry ?

Well both are, in the real world (as against in ones private life), probably a waste of time, and counter productive.

Gazooks ! Heaven forbid !

One can actually agree with Hugh (alias "tarbaby" Hugh) in this !

Gotta accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.

Remember that Wellington was originally a musician.

dgene: I think you might mean "Ellington."

Just to give a context to this resignation.
Olmert knew he was guilty and we'll hear of a sleezy deal he cut to get out of prosecution and still pull strings for the land giveaway for 'peace' in Israel so the world can say, 'Isn't he a great man' as Israel is to be cut apart for the 'palestinians'.

Anyway.... the scenario is a bit more complicated. He's not leaving today and it gets to be something like this:

The winner in the Kadima primary will have until October 26 to submit his new government for approval by President Shimon Peres. In case the elected leader fails, the president customarily grants another 90 days to form a government; after the 90 days are up, if no coalition is formed, a general election is scheduled, thus theoretically enabling Olmert to remain in power until March 2009.

After the primary Olmert will remain in office as prime minister of a transitional government, until his successor in Kadima manages to forge a new coalition or until general elections are held.

So, he gets to hand around, and Peres, the really sleezy leader of the whole leftist movement is the one who is supposed to be merely the figurehead of president, but he can stymie and work the strings for the kadima party continuation at his leisure this whole time.

Mark

Wellingtom:

Wellington's dad was a musician (violinist) and Wellington himself played the violin and only abandoned the instrument when he took up soldiering full time, I believe, when he went to India.

Ellington is also a Duke, jazz royalty.

dgene: Thanks. I had almost forgotten about that. I seem to remember that he gave up card playing, the violin and certain other pursuits around the age of thirty so that he could concentrate on the art of war, studying it most assiduously. Paid off-----for him, for Britain, for the course of history, for civilization.