Netanyahu has lost it

Netanyahu: Weiss remarks ‘incitement’ Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 12, 2007

Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday condemned Bar-Ilan University Prof. Hillel Weiss’s remarks during the evacuation of settlers from Hebron market apartments last week, calling them incitement.

“I am not prepared to accept any expressions of insubordination,” he told Army Radio. “The second the general gives his order, you carry it out. You certainly don’t curse and somehow or other wish tragedies on IDF officers and soldiers. This is intolerable…we need to condemn these things.”

Weiss is currently under investigation for cursing an IDF officer involved in the evacuation, saying that he hoped that Judea Division commander Col. Yehuda Fuchs’s “mother would be bereaved, his wife widowed and his children made orphans.”

At least a dozen soldiers refused to take part in the eviction of the settlers.

In the interview, Netanyahu also leveled criticism at Defense Minister Ehud Barak for his comments that there is no difference between Hamas and Fatah and that there is no partner among the Palestinians.

Barak is zigzagging again, Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu also criticized Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann, saying the latter was acting aggressively in his bid for reforms in the Supreme Court.

August 12, 2007 | 20 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

20 Comments / 20 Comments

  1. Yamit, I am afraid that you have given me more to disagree with you on.

    You say:

    Any opinion of me is irrelevant I really dont matter in any equation except maybe to become a negative statistic of those misguided politicians!

    To that, I say nonsense.

    Both your opinion Yamit and how you are perceived for that opinion is very relevant. It is not just what is said, but how it is said that can make the difference between convincing someone to your view or having them dismiss your view without considering it because they dismiss you for the way you expressed your view.

    I am not talking about avoiding using words like traitor or treasonous, to ensure your views are stated in a politically correct way. I still believe that such words are neither appropriate nor accurate to characterize Olmert and the other Israeli leaders. There are better choices to characterize politicians as regards specific statements, thinking and policies.

    I am very much against political correctness, but much in favor of polite correctness. There is a world of difference between the two.

    So Yamit, do not belittle your own relevance and importance to this ongoing discussion and debate. Saying the right things in the best possible way increases the chances that others who disagree with you or who just don’t seem to care about these issues will to your point of view. Therein lies your potential for making a difference and your personal relevance to that end.

  2. first off this piece was written re: Bbs condemnation Of Prof. Hillel Weiss and his comments re: Officer in charge of J&S. What no one seeemed to mention was that Prof. Weisses Children and grandchildren were the PEOPLE evicted and He I believe correctly viewed this as a political act by an antisemetic or at least anti Jewish (religious) act and carried out by Careerist Officers that either agree if they have any opinion or at the very least cooperate in an action against fellow Jews and Israelis. Weisses point of view is that any army officer may resign from the Army rather than carry out such instructions from a political echelon that is clearly anti Jewish in its declarations and behavior. His statements which he has since under duress retracted and opologized for are a matter of free speech in that he did not threaten nor incite any one else to do harm to said Officer. Many on the Left have said much worse including the daughter of Olmert who demonstrated in front of DM mofaz and called him a murderer.

    Now I have no power personal or political to change our situation one way or another but the people elected to represent us do and While they may feel it necessary to be politically correct and project appearances of moderation, for images sake I feel no such necessity nor inclination. I am a powerless nobody but they control the life and death scenarios of all of us. I dont want a Chief of Staff ten min. before going to war selling off his stock portfolio as was the case, or our min. of Justice french kissing by force a young soldier working in PM Office, as was the case. Or when Olmert ran a war of running scared bowed to American pressure got us tied down under a rain of Katushas for a month did nothing to stop it Brought in More UNIFIL ./ He got 150 people killed for nothing , brought regional war closer, weakened our international positions and totally disregarded we Israelis who always pay the price for the self interested leaders who put themselves above the good of the nation. If you take away the emotional word TRAITOR and replace it with What? Killer? murderer? Crook? Incompetent? Stupid?Coward?Is that better. How would you describe those Monkeys? Would terms like wrong headed, misguided; really do them justice? Any opinion of me is irrelevant I really dont matter in any equation except maybe to become a negative statistic of those misguided politicians!

  3. Yamit, there is a right way and a wrong way to say things.

    We appear to be disagreed on the linguistics and semantics of how best to express views we are in essential agreement with.

    In criticising Israel’s leaders for their thinking and policies, the linguistics and semantics we choose to employ are in a fashion a lens that shapes the optics and colors the view of whom you criticize and how you yourself may be perceived.

    One wants to have the optics for the target of your criticism to appear unfavorable while the optics for yourself as the critic to appear favorable.

    Using imprecise, loaded and emotive descriptive characterizations of the target of your criticism will cast that target in an unfavorable light, but it can also cast you in an unfavorable light.

    I know you disagree with me on this, but I am sticking to what I believe is right.

  4. BB beat solidly Feiglin as I predicted: with all Feiglins Bluster, after all the HYPE in the pro Israel Blogs and Arutz7, He could only muster a little over 9000 votes. This is pretty much what he garnered in last Likud primaries so he is really not gaining any ground and won`t so for all of the readers in Israpundit, I suggest we drop him as of no consequence in any positive sense and concentrate in supporting realistic people with a better chance of reaching a real position of influence to change our current and future national problems and threats. While BB for me is currently the Best of the Worst, I really believe that we need someone else but there might not be enough time for any alternative leadership to project itself on a national scale. Therefore the emphasis must be to get him elected but just barely: and support any party to the right of the Likud. This will not be an easy thing to accomplish as if my read of the Israeli public is close to correct the non vote may be largest in Israels History. Many more people who view all BB, Barak and Olmert as a TweedleDum TweedleDee choice will just sit this one out. That may open the race and Barak may get in. If In combo with kadima Likud and the right can easily lose next elections.

  5. While all politicians and diplomats may make legitimate mistakes including errors of judgment, when same leaders knowingly make decisions and or policies in direct contradiction of previously expressed commitments to the public, and placing personal gain and position above the national welfare,engaging the country in dangerous activities knowing full well the negative results, is not just traitorous but also criminal.

  6. A traitor is one who betrays his country, a cause , or a trust is definition of TREASON. Bill Narvey which of the following does not fit the description of BB, Peres. RAbin, and of course SHARON and BEGIN?

  7. T. Klein, I already answered in post #12 the question you posed in your post #13. Using words like treasonous and traitorous to describe the thinking and policies of Olmert, Sharon and Netanyahu do not reflect reality, but are descriptive words that writers sometimes resort to in order to express their sputtering outrage. Still, because these words are not fair and accurate they take away from the credibility of the person who uses them.

    The thinking and policies of Olmert are in fact neither treasonous nor traitorous. That does not mean I am not against his thinking and his policies which I believe are taking Israel down a path that will have a bad, if not disastrous ending for Israel.

    I have stated at various times that Olmert’s focus seems to look an awful lot like selfish political chicanery to hold onto power rather then his genuinely putting Israel’s interests first above all.

    I have also imagined that it may well be that Olmert, like past Israeli PM’s before him, were given no choice by the Americans, but to make more and more concessions.

    From all reports, that certainly seems to have been the case with Netanyahu who prior to his election in the late 90’s campaigned in part on not giving up Hebron, but soon after his electoral victory recanted and gave up most of Hebron.

    That also seems to have been the case with Sharon vis a vis the Gaza disengagement which Sharon probably saw as inevitable given where America was pushing him and his signing the Rafah Border Agreement in November, 2005 when as I noted a number of times, Condoleeza Rice made little secret that she forced Sharon to sign onto that agreement, which as you know began to go sideways before the ink was dry.

    Rather than incur the anger of the Americans who might still use their economic muscle if Israeli leadership were to say “the devil Americans made me do it and I had no choice”, Israeli leadership may be trying to rationalize bad policies as good policies to assuage their consciences and to ease the minds of Israelis.

    There is much that goes on behind the scenes that we are not privy to, so all we can do is make best guesses with what we do know as to what is really happening. It is best however to stay away from loaded descriptive language that is not factually correct, though it is pretty bang on when it comes to honestly expressing the writer’s emotional reaction to the facts.

  8. Bill, why do you have a problem with this analogy? You must know that attacking one’s own citizens in the manner Olmert, which apparently BB agreed with in his comments is treasonous and as almost, albeit not quite the caliber of orders given to the (german)soldiers but expresses the outrage that these two (not proven in a court of law), criminals may be compared.

  9. There is no purpose served likening Netanyahu to a German soldier during WWII or Olmert to being a traitor or committing treason by his policies.

    These over the top characterizations only rob the credibility of those who justly criticize both.

    Ted’s post #9 clears up some misconceptions about what Netanyahu said of Barak while Yamit’s post #10 also helps to explain why Israelis, so disillusioned by their lack of leadership, apathetically resign themselves to grumbling in private as opposed to shouting their disenchantment with their leaders and demanding better of them from the streets and the steps of the Knesset.

  10. But BB took both sides of the equation criticized Barak for speaking what BB knows is true and postulates ideas and opinions that are opposed by most of the LIKUD. So who to believe and trust? NEITHER OF THEM!!!

    This is why we do not have demonstrations in the streets today.. The public has no Politician or anyone else for that manner to give their support. So we all hunker down and hope for the Best!!


    This shortened out of context description of Netanyahu’s statement has been picked up on by a number of blogs as the Jpost reported it.

    “In the interview, Netanyahu also leveled criticism at Defense Minister Ehud Barak for his comments that there is no difference between Hamas and Fatah and that there is no partner among the Palestinians. Barak is zigzagging again, Netanyahu said.

    This made it appear as if Netanyahu was criticizing Barak for not supporting Fatah. Which is not the case. This is the full statement.

    “I welcome that he saw reality but the question is how long will he keep his point of view, because he is known for his zigzagging,” Netanyahu said. “Barak is proving once again his diplomatic amateurism and zigzagging. It’s shocking that a man who was willing to give up the entire West Bank and led the fleeing from Lebanon not too long ago has suddenly become more Right than the Likud.”

  12. Bill : How do you think BBs implementing Policies of Olmert in any way even if HE implements them be better or SAFER for Israel?

    Fieglin and Eldad are Ideologues and are not expected to be guided by any Polls.They both Expect that under their leadership they will Lead guided mostly in line with their beliefs and not fickle public opinion on any given day, week or month. That is what true leadership is supposed to be about.This is why I think if BB does infact win Likud Primary he will lose in Natioinal Elections. The Israeli Public is not the same as it was in 1996. They want strong leader to make the decesions and not wait for the poor slob in the street to voice his opinions first.
    dmark: unless the unthinkable happens, BB will win the Primaries and feiglin will ensure the Likud loses the Likud the next elections. I figure Kadima and Labor will run together on same ticket. I also think that coming elections will be the best oportunity for real Right wing party to win next elections. There seems to be very low embedded loyalty to existing parties by the general public.

  13. Netanyahu previously said he had learned from his past mistakes, and I just assumed that included the Hebron Accords, but guess not. Anyway, it’s better now (pre-Tuesday) than later to have clarity on where he stands.

  14. It is therefore becoming increasingly apparent that Netanyahu sees his best opportunity at leading Likud and then leading Israel after the next election by adopting the policies of the Olmert government and running on a platform that he can tougher and more effective at getting Israel to where the Olmert policies are taking Israel, but in a way that will be safer for Israel.

    In spite of many here and on other blogs suggesting that the majority of Israelis are against giving up any more land, I suspect Netanyahu and his political advisers have found that most Israelis support Olmert’s policies, but recoil from the way he is implementing them.

    If that is the case and Netanyahu has a more sensitive finger on the pulse of the nation, then those who are vying for power or influence such as Feiglin and Eldad and those scholars whose thesis is that Israel by international law is entitled to have Gaza and the West Bank as part of Israel proper will be reduced to irrelevancy regardless of how meritorious their views are.

    Things are not looking good for Israel.

  15. Bill Narvey- BB said what was quoted and more, I watched the interview! He also said we must strengthen, the moderate Abbas and Fatah against the Badies Hamas. He was for eventually a Pali State it was just a matter of the Palis living up to their end and fighting terrorists among them. Same as Olmert? Jerusalem Posts? Hell he is starting to sound like Peres and Barak is starting to sound like BB used to speak!

  16. Perhaps C Glick is the one who is starting to lose it…!

    This what one of her fans had to say:
    1. Ex-Glick Reader Now
    08/10/2007 16:12

    I’ll read again when Caroline apologizes for her hatchet job on Feiglin and the many, religious and non-religious, that he represents. I am very disappointed to see Caroline become Singer/Horovitz.

  17. Netanyahu may have been misquoted. One of the talkback commenters claims he listened to the whole interview and Netanyahu did not say what was attributed to him.

    Another talkback commenter suggested the C. Glick report on exactly what Netanyahu said.

    Since this article from the JP was posted here for comment, we really should be careful about getting our facts straight.

  18. It just goes to show that Netanyahu would be no better than Olmert as PM, but would still make a good foreign minister. I think we have to pin our hopes on a PATRIOTIC Israeli.

Comments are closed.