Friday, February 20, 2009
2/20/2009 12:55:00 AM | 
Posted by
JoeSettler
"In light of the scope of the challenges Israel faces – Iran, terrorism, the economic crisis and unemployment – a broad unity government is a must," Likud Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu said on Thursday evening.
Color me confused, but let's examine that statement in context.
Iran. The Likud-led majority coalition of Right-wing partners stand behind whatever actions Bibi will decide. So why does he need Kadima or Labor? As a fig leaf? To justify himself to the world? Does Bibi really think that Kadima or Barak would be so short-sighted or stupid to attack him in the world press as he defends Israel against a nuclear Iran?
Terrorism: The Likud-led majority coalition of Right-wing partners stand behind whatever action Bibi will decide to take to definitively fight terrorism. So why does he need Kadima or Labor? As a fig leaf? To justify himself to the world? To prevent him from taking decisive action against terrorism? So what if Kadima or Barak will be so short-sighted or stupid to attack him in the world press as he defends Israel against terrorism?
The Economic Crisis: The Likud-led majority coalition of Right-wing partners stand behind with whatever action Bibi will decide to get us out of the recession, with minor modifications so as not to hurt the poorest sectors that got beaten up badly last time by his corrections. So why does he need Kadima or Labor? As a fig leaf?
The socialist Labor party could hardly agree to Bibi's capitalist reforms, and we already know that Kadima supports Bibi's plan (even from the opposition) as they adopted it for themselves. That would look rather hypocritical to attack it when its built into their party's platform.
Unemployment: The Likud-led majority coalition of Right-wing partners stand behind with whatever action Bibi will decide to take to reduce unemployment. So why does he need Kadima or Labor?
A broad unity government is a must: Why?
The Likud-led majority coalition of Right-wing partners stand behind with whatever action Bibi will decide to take.
His natural partners support him. Bibi has a clear Knesset and popular majority.
The Left wing parties are in a binary relationship with Bibi, either they support the Likud's positions as it is their same exact position, or they entirely oppose them and there is no middle ground.
In fact, the only logical reasons for a broad unity government are as follows:
1) The assumption that without it, the opposition might traitorously go overseas for support in blocking Bibi, never having heard that politics stops at the border (something the far Left never learned). And if that's the case, can you really trust them in your coalition either, imagine the damage they will do from the inside (I know, "...keep your enemies closer", but there is a limit).
2) Bibi really is afraid to boldly lead the country, and is looking for Kadima and Labor to provide him with a fig leaf.
3) Bibi really has gone Left, and needs/wants Kadima/Labor to pull him over the edge, as opposed to the Right Wing parties which will keep him balanced and fulfilling the will of the voters.
4) Bibi plans to do something that will seriously annoy the Likud's natural partners (and not part of the Likud's platform), and needs a safety net.
5) Bibi is afraid of what the Left will say when he does what he has won the mandate to do.
None of these explanations are particularly comforting.
Color me confused, but let's examine that statement in context.
Iran. The Likud-led majority coalition of Right-wing partners stand behind whatever actions Bibi will decide. So why does he need Kadima or Labor? As a fig leaf? To justify himself to the world? Does Bibi really think that Kadima or Barak would be so short-sighted or stupid to attack him in the world press as he defends Israel against a nuclear Iran?
Terrorism: The Likud-led majority coalition of Right-wing partners stand behind whatever action Bibi will decide to take to definitively fight terrorism. So why does he need Kadima or Labor? As a fig leaf? To justify himself to the world? To prevent him from taking decisive action against terrorism? So what if Kadima or Barak will be so short-sighted or stupid to attack him in the world press as he defends Israel against terrorism?
The Economic Crisis: The Likud-led majority coalition of Right-wing partners stand behind with whatever action Bibi will decide to get us out of the recession, with minor modifications so as not to hurt the poorest sectors that got beaten up badly last time by his corrections. So why does he need Kadima or Labor? As a fig leaf?
The socialist Labor party could hardly agree to Bibi's capitalist reforms, and we already know that Kadima supports Bibi's plan (even from the opposition) as they adopted it for themselves. That would look rather hypocritical to attack it when its built into their party's platform.
Unemployment: The Likud-led majority coalition of Right-wing partners stand behind with whatever action Bibi will decide to take to reduce unemployment. So why does he need Kadima or Labor?
A broad unity government is a must: Why?
The Likud-led majority coalition of Right-wing partners stand behind with whatever action Bibi will decide to take.
His natural partners support him. Bibi has a clear Knesset and popular majority.
The Left wing parties are in a binary relationship with Bibi, either they support the Likud's positions as it is their same exact position, or they entirely oppose them and there is no middle ground.
In fact, the only logical reasons for a broad unity government are as follows:
1) The assumption that without it, the opposition might traitorously go overseas for support in blocking Bibi, never having heard that politics stops at the border (something the far Left never learned). And if that's the case, can you really trust them in your coalition either, imagine the damage they will do from the inside (I know, "...keep your enemies closer", but there is a limit).
2) Bibi really is afraid to boldly lead the country, and is looking for Kadima and Labor to provide him with a fig leaf.
3) Bibi really has gone Left, and needs/wants Kadima/Labor to pull him over the edge, as opposed to the Right Wing parties which will keep him balanced and fulfilling the will of the voters.
4) Bibi plans to do something that will seriously annoy the Likud's natural partners (and not part of the Likud's platform), and needs a safety net.
5) Bibi is afraid of what the Left will say when he does what he has won the mandate to do.
None of these explanations are particularly comforting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
FROM CAROL HERMAN
Until a replacement government for Olmert's "caretaker status" actually forms, all the blah-blah you tend to read is nothing more than sub-titles, on events you all recognize.
Here's a helping hand:
America just went plop, again. Dubya lost his legacy. And, we lost in Irak. (I've told you that! Homecoming soldiers are first glad they're home and uninjured.) And, next they want to bring back the dogs; who were rescued pups. Other than that? Irak's not part of the saudi dream.
And, America really doesn't have an arab policy. It has, however, a saudi arrangement. And, it's been a failure; since Dubya couldn't figure out what hit the USA on 9/11.
As to the "tired dogs" you see marched out by Obama; I think he's doing something behind the scenes; where he's putting up these democratic pieces of crap; hoping they get shot down on their own.
You think I'm kidding?
Let me give you a history lesson. Back in 1988, in the run up to the way primary politics gets played; George H.W. Bush, had to promise the governor of New Hampshire the Chief of Staff's job. In the White House. In return for New Hampshire not killing Bush's fledgling campaign, outright.
And, as you know, #41 ran against Dukakis. Giving him a one term win.
And, true to his word, John Sununi was offered the Chief of Staff's job. Guess what? James Baker, by leaking to the media, that Sununu was using the president's plane, to get to a dental appointment in New Hampshire. And, then, again, to fly from the White House, to NYC, for a stamp show. Actually forced John Sununu to resign. Well.
Bush #41 accepted the resignation, saying "how sorry he was."
Trust me on this. When lips move and you know a person's lying ... you're onto something.
Meanwhile, because the saud's paid for the assassin who killed King Faisal, back in the 1970's, what blew into Irak was Saddam.
When Saddam was in Irak, the Iranians and he held an 8 year war. Lots of dead people. But no winnah. Still, Iran and Irak weren't friendly neighbors.
Until Dubya went after Saddam. This was supposed to be the big move for the saud's.
Guess what, folks. There are arabs who hate the saud's. But it doesn't seem to get printed in the English lanuage.
And, now? Iran has mustered a friendship with Maliki; so that those who are in control in Irak, are now friends with Iran. Whether or not nukes come into play? Dunno. But I see no reason to compliment American diplomacy.
It seems that it's not a stretch to think Bibi actually won the ability to pull "something" together. While Livni is just looking after herself.
And, sometimes? Being in #1 seat? It can mean you're so close to the exit, it wouldn't take much of a musical chairs arrangement to get you tossed out the door.
Some people say Bibi Netanyahu "didn't win enough." Enough of what? In the election before last the Likud dropped to 12 seats.
Now, it's just a case that Shimon Peres is just dragging his feet. Doesn't mean that Bibi won't be handed the reins of power. Or that anyone can rule a country from the right. You gotta be in the middle!
Now, here's a line I stole today (reading an article that had been up on the Jerusalem Post.) But I'm saying it can go into another context. It's just so beautiful.
(When the left and right argue), what's often not said is: "two sides don't want to be logical. They like their fights better than they like solutions."
Ain't that the truth?
FROM CAROL HERMAN
Oh, let me help you out. Remember this statement is in ENGLISH. So, yes. I understand the political undertones well.
Here's Bibi's ideas: He can get Kadima to split open. Leaving the shell to the opposition, and in fewer seats. He can grab hold of Ehud Barak. Just where Olmert tried to make Barak "damaged goods."
So, yes. It would be called a "unity government" if it held some people from Kadima. How many? Three or four. But that knocks the chair out from under Livni's feet.
Livni also does not speak English. You tell me. How can Livni go out on any speaking tours? Bibi's got that covered! He can win just by using the English language, correctly.
And, yes. Shimon Peres is a master politician. He was supposed to "hold back" the nod to Netanyahu till after Shabbat. Till Sunday. And, he didn't.
Can I compose up a unity government? You bet! "YVET" which is Avigdor Lieberman's nickname is gonna be in Bibi's camp. (There was an article, yesterday, that's already disappeared from the Jerusalem Post's Internet site), about how this very religious man discovered, back in 1996, that "YVET" was the best operative inside Netanyahu's PMO office.
What about Ehud Barak? Why would he keep Labor in the opposition? Didn't Olmert just give him a good, swift kick in the pants? Where was Barak wrong? Bibi needs "diplomats" who work with Egyptians. (Even though all the egyptians do is drag their feet.)
What price comes with that swift kick at Barak? (Yes. Olmert did it. But it was like exposing a rather weak hand. He did it with anger, too. He just couldn't stand it that Cast Lead worked well enough; and the costs to the IDF ran small. While the IDF has everything on film. And, can repeatedly expose the liars in hamas.)
Barack Obama is the most inexperienced politician to land in the Oval Office. (Maybe? Well, all Lincoln had prior to being elected president, was a single term in the House.) Barack Obama had two-years' worth of a first term senator.
By now most people should know that if you can win an argument with words, women would be the controlling agents in this world.
NOT.
Actions speak louder than words.
And, at the gambling table, Dubya really crapped out! He left no avenue with problems solved. Just terrible stuff. Including a military that was used ineffectively in both Iraq and Afghanistan!
For all the t'zuris ahead, the last thing an American president has to do is piss of the Israelis. Why? Because every one that did ended up going into the crapper. Here's the list: Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and both Bush's.
You could say Bill Clinton holds on because he dropped his pants; and people sort'a like a guy who has no control over his zipper. While he's married to a harridan. No one even thinks these two share a married life! Get a grip. Face time in front of photo-ops doesn't compare with real genius.
Besides, most Americans have already figured out that our dipomats only play with the sauds. It's the reason we lost Iraq! And, don't think it's gonna be easy to win this back! Americans know the sauds are behind terror. And, also behind the politicians that have been trying to destroy Israel's will to live.
God gets to laugh. Or as the old expression goes: Of mice and men, their plans often go awry.
See?
Plus the old media is losing money. That's a double-hitter.
FROM CAROL HERMAN
I know, not too many people are commenting; but I want to share something with Israelis. Because I think it's a puzzle piece that needs to be said.
Where did those flying missiles out of hamas, come from? The answer: FROM ACCEPTANCE! The USA, in charge.
And, what has America's state department been doing for decades? They've labeled it "squeeze Israel." While it's been nothing but TERROR! Since Eisenhower used the "first bomb," back in 1956. Even though this crushed England. And, sent her to the poor house.
(You see, while Americans get upset at the thought that the Panama Canal "belongs" to Panama. Another "beautiful" misstep by Jimmy Carter). What Americans really want is to KEEP WHAT THEY BUILT!
Well? England built the Suez. And, profitted from it, too. When Eisenhower lobbed his bomb, he was putting into action EVE$YTHING ELSE. And, there hasn't really been a friendly president, here in the USA, since.
Anyway, Israelis "took it." American "diplomats" said all the missiles were "falling into empty fields, and hurting no one4."
So? Go look. The arabs do the same. They're good at lobbing missiles, and then crying, when finally there's a reaction. And, then? It gets said that "slamming back" is disproportionate.
Well? What's up next?
You know I call all the media hoopla just "sub-titles" for the silent "films" that have been flying around for decades. Where only the Internet works at sorting through these puzzles.
That Dubya lost a whole lot of treasure? You bet. So did his dad. If you remember, correctly, when "Gulf War 1" started; that Bush told the Israelis to hold their fire. "Ignore Saddam's SCUD's." Shamir behaved. But he really got angry! So every time the stinker, James Baker took a trip to Israel; "lobbing his bombs," Shamir built another settlement. Well? What's an Eye for and Eye? When you go "virtual?"
Anger in the White House, led the elder Bush to deny "loan guarantees" to Israel. And, here we're talking about the absorption of Russian Jews; finally freed to leave Russia. Israel had to pay the banks more. (Loan guarantees would have reduced the interest rate. That's all.)
And, to Shamir, after "absorbing the SCUDS; which I think killed two people, and injured others, to boot. The White House had no trouble "squeezing" Israel.
Well, that's the lesson for today. Hamas still hasn't figured out that the ploy of "lobbing missiles" into Israel has proven to be counter-productive. And, for a dangerous part of the world, it's been stupid policy.
How can you change stupid?
I have no idea.
All I wanted to do was make a comparison. Between "missiles" that you're told "only fly into empty space," and America's vacuous foreign policy; since before you were born.
In the dozen years Hitler rose; FDR did nothing to prevent, or even stop the Holocaust. It sticks there. As part of the Allies war. Just as it sits there for Truman, to have lobbed 3 bombs: Two on Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). And, one on the arabs, by coming out within ten minutes to acknowledge American support for Israel's new state.
Sometimes? Politicians never consider what history will say.
For Dubya, however, America is in such straits, and has lost so many wars, and diplomatic battles, that I can see no way, ahead, that watching diplomats dance and step around just like Chamberlain. Waving worthless papers.
On the other hand? When Israel now picks to respond to attacks, "sans needing cease fire paper-weights" ... and fancy, arranged, White House visits; you may see that the future holds more answers than has been let out of the bag.
Oh, yeah. Americans are now aware of the failures in Iraq. And, also in the opium capital of the world: Afgahnistan.
Nothing America ever did changes the people on the ground; especially those linked to their tribal ways. While, all along, in Iraq, Maliki hated Bush's guts. And, it was Maliki who works with Iraqis. We just spent lots of money for nothing.
Maybe? One day, if Dubai slips back into the sands ... people will understand, symbolically, what it means to flush treasure down toilets.
One thing Bibi has! Is an ability to speak, clearly, in English. Thank goodness Livni's been sidelined. (For no other reason that she can't speak English.)
The rest? What Israel will put into place, to STOP diplomats from lobbing "bombs." And, saying "no need to get angry, they're just exploding in empty fields."
Yossi Sarid said it best last week on one of the morning radio shows. He asked why when the left wins election, it rules, but when the right wins it cannot or will not rule without the left. Maybe the right is afraid of itself? It's about time the right tried to carry out it's policies on it's own.
I am on the opposite end of the political spectrum from Yossi Sarid, but couldn't agree with him more. Either he is intellectually honest or wants to see the right fail; either way, his analysis and suggestion is right on.
Post a Comment