I saw this online (from the Elder of Ziyon) and had to share it.
I saw this online (from the Elder of Ziyon) and had to share it.
Let’s put Bibi’s narcissism, hunger for power, and hypocrisy to one side. I mean, this is the man who told Olmert he couldn’t be Prime Minister when charged with a crime. But, let’s put that to one side.
Let’s put Gantz’s treachery to one side. After all, this is the man who said:
“I am not able to sit [in government] with Netanyahu…[snip]…I am telling you, we are speaking about a corrupt man who is destroying the country, and I cannot sit with him.”
But let’s put that to one side too.
Let’s instead look at what Bibi and Gantz have delivered: a cabinet of 34 ministers. 34? That’s more than Britain, or the USA, or Germany, or France, or probably more than any other country. (If you know differently, tell me!) 34!
Don’t forget the 15 or 16 deputies.
Time to listen in on the conversation Israelis would be having, social distancing guidelines permitting:
Q: Why do we need 34?
A: We don’t.
Q: So, why do we have 34?
A: It’s the price of doing a deal.
Q: Excuse me?
A: All the parties in the coalition needed to be rewarded.All that support needs to be, er, paid for.
Q: You mean they need to be bribed?
A: You said it, not me.
Q: Whatever happened to being a politician to serve the public?
A: Oh, they serve all right. But they also serve themselves.
Q: And what’s this about two Prime Ministerial homes?
A: One for Bibi, and one for Gantz.
Q: And who pays for all of this?
A: Look in the mirror. The Israeli public.
Q: So, at a crisis period in world history, with economies buckling under pressure from the effects of the pandemic, mass unemployment, many businesses on the edge of collapse, the ruling parties have decided to lead by example by stealing from the public purse.
A: Oh, I wouldn’t go that far.
Q: What else would you call it?
A: Let me get back to you on that.
Laughter is the best medicine.
I suppose if you have been brought up to believe that it is fair, reasonable, and right that people’s life and liberty should be sacrificed solely in the interests of demonizing the Jewish State, it’s no great leap to sacrifice the chance to visit your grandmother to keep the fires of hate burning. What a great example of citizenship that is!
Oh, and in case you missed it, the Obama administration banned an Israeli MK from entering the USA in 2012 for his extremist views. Sauce for the goose… Pretty rich of those USA parliamentarians to cry wolf now.
I’ll give you one guess what’s missing from this report.
OK, I’ll tell you. It’s the parts of the tirade the woman gave that referred to her work for the Palestinians and the BDS movement. (See here, for example.)
No need to tarnish those noble (ahem) causes with the drunken insults of this lout, is there?
No need to do anything to interfere with the Guardian world view which says – in effect – the Palestinians and their supporters are perfect.
What a crew of bastards they are!
Another in the ‘you could not make it up’ department of true stories:
The people who are so upset over Israel’s supposed crime of “pinkwashing” LGBTQs by treating them well is now on a tour of Iran…
The extent of the ability of so called liberal or leftist proponents of human rights to turn a blind eye to almost anyone’s crimes – so long as they are anti Israel – is shocking. Why should anyone believe a word these people say? Why should anyone believe they have any morality left? They are enablers of hate.
As the Elder says:
It is difficult to imagine a more hypocritical organization than CodePink.
The New Scientist (20 January 2018 issue) has an editorial on the cover story: the “worrying signs that civilisation has started to collapse.” The editorial includes the following:
THE idea that we are living in a historic, even apocalyptic, age exerts a powerful pull on the human mind. Eschatology – the theology of end times – is a religious concept, but crops up in many other systems of thought. Marxism and neo-liberalism were both driven by an “end-of-history” narrative. Scientific thinking isn’t immune either: the technological singularity has been called eschatology for geeks, and the study of existential risk even has its own centre at the University of Cambridge. You don’t have to believe in the four horsemen to see the apocalypse coming.
After noting that the end may not be so imminent after all, the editorial points out that a real threat to our world – climate change – has been badly handled. Why? The threat was politicized: used as a stick by political faction alpha to beat political faction beta about the head, and of course the other way round.
The point is not that the activists’ answers are wrong. Business as usual is a sure way to climate catastrophe. It is that they prematurely politicised the science and hence provoked pushback from people on the other side of the fence.
Evidence for an impending civilisational collapse is much weaker, but is already being politicised in a similar way. The causes being offered are familiar bugbears of the left: inequality, population growth and resource depletion. The proposed answers are equally predictable and contentious.
That’s the backdrop.
The main article on the topic includes this:
“The idea that Western power and influence is in gradual decline, perhaps as a prelude to a precipitous fall, has been around for a while. But it has gained a new urgency with recent political events, not least the election of US president Donald Trump. For some, his turning away from international commitments is part of fulfilling his promise to “make America great again” by concentrating on its own interests. For others, it’s a dangerous move that threatens to undermine the whole world order. Meanwhile, over in the old world, Europe is mired in its own problems.”
So the editorial cautions against politicization of the issue, and the main article politicizes the issue!
Let’s be clear: Donald Trump is not the best man to be president of the USA. Will he be the worst? It depends on what media you base your judgement. But the suggestion that it is tenable to hold the end of the world is nearer because of Trump’s election is scaremongering in the extreme. It’s reckless, and panders to the same narrow focus of thought that says only socialism has the answer.
In short, the New Scientist‘s contribution to the discussion is tainted by politicization.
The following is from the Elder of Ziyon:
“There are more NGOs in the Palestinian-administered territories than anywhere else on Earth. But they get their money from those who only want to bash Israel, not to protect Palestinians from human rights abuses by their own people. So most of them take their EU funds and rehash the information they have to write yet another anti-Israel reports while actual victims of daily human rights abuses have nowhere safe to turn for help.”
Sad. True. Awful.
(You can read the original here.)
We have known for a while, that in this politically correct world, the use of language has become as much a political as a linguistic exercise. While not quite as bad as Orwell’s 1984, there are certain aspects that come damn close, and often the attitude and intent are entirely in keeping with it. This post is about the words terror and terrorist.
Reading about much of the mad violence that has taken place, you may well hunt in vain – except in Israel’s own media coverage – for those words. People are decapitated, run down, blown up, tortured, butchered, and killed. But that is rarely described as terror, and the actors are not terrorists.
Occasionally, you might see these words encased in quotation marks. This stylistic exercise is carried out to convey a clear message: someone else said this, and we certainly don’t agree, because we would never use such a word.
The BBC are on the most influential media outlets on the planet, and (very regrettably) they seem to be leading the charge (to mix a metaphor or two) in sanitizing terror from their reports on such incidents.
However, over at the excellent BBC Watch, they have a post that highlights how the BBC does actually use these words, and their hypocrisy when it comes to using terror and terrorist.
That post explains the BBC’s public stance on the use of these words. In short, they claim they are unable to make a value judgement, and so avoid doing so. However, as BBC Watch points out:
In other words, when it comes to terrorism in Europe the BBC apparently has no problem with “value judgements”.
So, apparently the BBC can make a value judgement if it wants to.
After reading the BBC Watch post, you might not unreasonably form the conclusion that so far as the BBC is concerned, terror is something that happens in Europe, but never in Israel, unless it comes to Jewish terror.. Strange that. On the other hand, after reading it, you might conclude that the BBC is a vengeful, hateful beast, ridden with antisemitism and a distaste for the Jewish State.
The USA is not happy about Lieberman’s appointment. Put to one side whether it’s any business of theirs, or Lieberman is a nice guy or not. Just contrast and compare with the USA’s attitude to the appointment of an Iranian leader (Ahmad Jannati – of the Death to Israel! Death to the USA! type) and what do you get? Silence. Here’s the excellent David Horovitz on the position:
“Raising questions about Israel’s direction, after Liberman, promising a commitment to peacemaking, joins the coalition. But staying silent about Iran’s direction, after Jannati, a man who declaredly seeks the destruction of the United States, is elected to head the Assembly of Experts.
Have at it, guys.”
Read the whole thing here, and cringe at the cheek, the arrogance, and the hypocrisy. Whatever has happened to the USA?