Sunday, May 07, 2006

Olmert, Ehud

Ehud Olmert ... pussy-whipped by his Peace Now Meretz wife

Olmert, Ehud
Is this acting Israeli Prime Minister pussy-whipped by his dominatrix wife, Aliza? We think so! In a speech last summer [2005] to a dovish American group, the Israel Policy Forum, Olmert claimed that Israelis long for peace because
"we are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies." This defeatist rhetoric reflects his leftist conversion... or, more specifically, his wife and daughter's. His Aliza wife is a supporter of the left-wing Meretz party and has taken part in numerous Peace Now demonstrations. One of his five children, a daughter, is an outspoken lesbian and active in Machsom Watch, a pain-in-the-ass group monitoring Israeli checkpoints in the territories. One of his sons is a deserter from the Israeli Army and is a member of the extreme leftist group called Yesh Gvul. Another son never bothered to serve in the Israeli Army and has already resides abroad. If Ehud Elmert cannot even stand up to his wife and children, how could he possibly stand up to Hamas! Now this here is some fantastic Zionist household!!!

Amona Down - Now Olmert needs to go down.

Written on 02/01/06 at 19:54:18 EST

by TooJewish

The Sharonian Occupied state of Israel, under the Gestapo-like "Leadership(?)" of Ehud Olmert has once again turned against the Jews of Israel and used violence to further their political agenda. Olmert proved once again, but without as much style and class that the Sharonian Occupier still lives on when he and the rest of the traitors in IL had the Police instigate confrontations with the Citizens living in Amona.

The actions of Olmert prove he is not the same Olmert who was Mayor of Jerusalem but now a sold-out fool who shouldn't be washing the Knesset floors but somehow is in there "running things". Sharon had something Olmert will never have. As much as I can say Sharon turned traitor to Israel before he was stricken with his stroke, he did it in such a way that you cant really blame him.

Sharons reign as Prime Minister proved that a minimum of 90% of the politicians in Israel are dirty and corrupt. When things looked bad, he would change dance partners and keep the government together with promises and lies. As Sharon ran the country and the country started to turn against him, he played the political game as a champ and even though he should have been thrown out of the Knesset and arrested for all of the illegal actions he is guilty of, such as the backroom money deals, casino agreements, theft of property.

Lieing to the citizens of Israel and Stealing Jewish land to give it over to our Hitlerite Hamitic Enemy. Sharon being a traitor doesn't feel so bad because he didn't do it alone. He managed to show the Israeli people who aren't blind, and the rest of the world just how pathetic the "polticians" in Israel are. Its not enough he played one end on the other, and had interlopers amongst all parties playing his game, taking control of the country in an unfair and incorrect manner.

He even had the nerve to go public with this when he formed the Kadima Party!!!! Look at Kadima? What is it??? a Group of "Ideological Centrists" who came together from the other government groups to move Israel forward into a brighter day? NO!!! Kadima is the spotlight on political corruption in Israel. The major players who were all working against the Jewish people and against Israel as a country all now formed PUBLICLY under one umbrella of "power"???

Sharon, during a little meeting with Peres falls ill and ends up with a 2nd stroke... Makes one wonder... Peres at it again? c'mon man, dont be so obvious when you play your old "Rabin" games again!!! Who ends up in charge? Ehud "the Hood" Olmert. A once respected mayor, now a disrespected joke. Olmert has now proven himself a traitor to the Jewish people by his antisemitic actions of backing the enemies of Israel above protecting his own citizens, as well as his anti-Jewish actions of removing Jewish people from Jewish land and destroying Jewish property Illegally.

But thats OK... Cause Olmert here can just get the den of vile snake traitors... you know, the Supreme Court to rubber-stamp anything these traitors want to happen. What the last while has shown is that Olmert is no leader but a sad follower. Only problem is he now has noone to follow and is not worthy or capable to lead. The current Government of Israel is a sham and must be crushed.

Only problem I see now is, when will the rest of Israel wake up and see the folley of the way of the traitors in power and get rid of these low-lives? A Free and Jewish Israel must be Strong and proud to be "Israel, the Heart and Soul of the Jewish People". And not just the "Israel" of today filled with "Israeli's" and not proud Jewish citizens who understand what is correct. Olmert a leader?

no thanks, even BiBi is better then this!!! Israel needs a revolution, the Citizens need to stand up and say, enough is enough, we are Jewish and Strong and will crush anyone that comes to kill our citizens. Then the true battle will begin for the Jewish soul when Israel Judifies itself and actually decides to fight in the "right" and not bend over the rear to the "left" like the traitors are doing today.

Olmert's Hard Road

P. David Hornik Front Page May 8, 2006

Since 1992, you can calculate the amount of damage an Israeli prime minister causes by the grandiosity of his plans. Yitzhak Rabin came to office in 1992 promising a variant of “peace in our time.” The situation was ripe, people said; the Cold War was over, America was the sole superpower, the Arabs had lost their military option. Rabin soon hitched onto the Oslo train, and brought a reign of terror to Israel’s streets that killed four hundred in four years.

The next elected Labor prime minister, Ehud Barak, similarly promised that he would wrap up this silly conflict post haste. He yanked Israeli forces out of southern Lebanon, turning it over to Hizbullah while abandoning Israel’s allies there; then at Camp David he offered Yasser Arafat the store, and instead received an even worse reign of terror that killed four hundred in one year (2002) and continues to this day.

Although Ariel Sharon’s disengagement has subjected a region of pre-1967 Israel to a constant rocket barrage with no military solution in sight, brought Al Qaeda to Gaza and the West Bank, opened the way to Egypt’s remilitarization of the Sinai, and led to the Hamas victory in the PA elections, there is at least
much evidence that Sharon would have been far more careful about any further withdrawals.

Not so his successor, Ehud Olmert, who made his convergence plan the centerpiece of his speech on Thursday inaugurating his new government. Olmert wants to realize his plan fast—before presumed supporter George W. Bush leaves office—and in breathtaking defiance of coalitional, economic, security, and much other logic.

1. Coalition. Olmert’s coalition now stands at 67 of the Knesset’s 120 seats. Of the 67, 55 seats belong to three more or less pro-convergence parties, Kadima, Labor, and the Pensioners. (Although many in Kadima and Labor have serious reservations about the plan, based on the precedent of the “Oslo process” they can be expected to fall in line—unlike many Likud opponents of the disengagement who did stick to their guns.)

The other 12 seats in the coalition, though, go to Shas, an ultra-religious party with a hawkish electorate that will not take kindly to Olmert’s idea of forcibly removing tens of thousands of Jews from the heart of the Land of Israel. Indeed, the deal between Shas and Olmert’s party, Kadima, specifically exempts Shas from supporting the plan.

Even if Olmert can eventually get the one other more or less pro-convergence party, leftist Meretz with its five mandates, to join the coalition, between Kadima, Labor, Pensioners, and Meretz he would still only have 60—one short of a majority of the Knesset. If push comes to shove, with Shas leaving and Meretz (possibly) in, Olmert will not be able to pass the plan except by relying on outside support from the three Arab parties with their 10 seats.

These parties include MKs such as Azmi Bishara, who
said last December at a book fair in Lebanon: “I will never recognize Zionism, even if all Arabs do… I will never concede Palestine. The battle will long continue”; and Taleb A-Sanaa, who recently drew the Knesset’s ire for a solidarity meeting with a Hamas member in East Jerusalem.

It would be appalling for Olmert to push through such a divisive plan based on outside support from these parties. But that is what he would have to do.

2. Economy. As Caroline Glick
“Olmert has put a price tag of $10 billion on his withdrawal plan. Many Israeli economists have claimed that this is a gross underestimate of the actual cost of the massive withdrawals he has planned and the dislocation of between 50,000-100,000 Israeli civilians. Nonetheless, Israel’s new prime minister is hoping that the Congress will agree to have US taxpayers cover the bill.”

Even if there is any chance of Bush agreeing—which seems unlikely, especially since funds that were supposed to assist Sharon’s disengagement never materialized under the pressure of the Hurricane Katrina crisis—Israel’s pride and independence are at stake here. It is one thing for a small democracy outnumbered by its enemies to receive military and economic aid from a superpower. It is another thing for this small democracy to build dozens of communities in areas considered sacred by many Jews as well as Christians, then announce: “We changed our minds—we’re destroying them. Would you pay for this, please?”

But in his visit to Washington three weeks from now, that is more or less what Olmert will be saying.
3. Security. Olmert’s new minister of internal security is Avi Dichter, former head of the General Security Service (GSS) and key strategist of the counterattack on terror that Israel began to mount in 2002, which significantly reduced the terror’s success rate and had Hamas on the ropes in 2004 before it was allowed to recover.

Although Dichter accepts the removal of West Bank settlements, Yossi Klein Halevi in The New Republic
called him the Kadima Party’s “most outspoken opponent of unilateral [military] withdrawal in the West Bank” and quoted him as saying: “You can’t compare the West Bank to Gaza. . . . Gaza is not close to major [Israeli] population centers; the opposite is true in the West Bank. . . . There’s no chance we will allow the West Bank to become a kingdom of terror.”

Last February 6 Dichter’s successor as head of the GSS,
Yuval Diskin,

“expressed opposition to the government’s policy of unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip…’The political echelon can decide what it wants,’ Diskin said. ‘But from a security point of view I am against giving land to the Palestinians, even that territory that is [already] under their control, unless we know that there is a Palestinian source that assumes power and imposes order. If there isn’t such a source, from a professional viewpoint, I am against the transfer of territory to Palestinian control.’”

reported last week by Haaretz’s military correspondent Amir Oren, a new internal study by the Israel Defense Forces agrees. The study concludes, in Oren’s summary, that

“following the [Gaza] evacuation, operations of the kind mounted [in Gaza] from 2000 to 2005 are no longer effective. . . . It follows from this also that the IDF, even if it will not dare say so explicitly, for fear of invading the political echelon’s terrain, believes that the pullout from Gaza—in the chosen format—was a mistake. A more correct evacuation, and the model for the future, occurred in the northern West Bank [where settlements were evacuated without a military withdrawal]. If there will be another evacuation, by government decision, the IDF will recommend using that model."

In other words, Israeli top brass explicitly oppose withdrawing Israeli forces from the areas supposed to be cleared of both civilians and soldiers under Olmert’s plan.

One may ask, then, how Olmert can keep pursuing a plan that so egregiously flouts political, economic, and strategic reality. And there are yet other grave problems with it. One is the totally unfounded assumption that the U.S., and even the EU, would put a stamp of permanency on the settlement blocs that would remain after the “convergence” so that Israel would not someday enter final-status negotiations with not much left to give except Jerusalem itself. Another is the
destabilization of Jordan.

Still another is the horrendous civil strife that is certain to result from evicting such a large number of settlers. One has a right to oppose settlement for demographic or other reasons; one does not have a right to pursue settlement, encouraging people to build their lives in places they consider sacred, then come one day with thousands of troops to drag them away and pulverize their homes and synagogues.

To understand why an Israeli prime minister is capable of contemplating all this, it helps to grasp that Israel is a community under stress where leaders like Rabin, Barak, and Olmert seize upon an idée fixe and then pursue it without regard for results, no matter how dire these turn out to be. The best thing George Bush can say to Olmert in three weeks is: “Your plan is a formula for strife and the further empowerment of terror. Go home, have the courage to tell your people to dig in and be strong, and that you have no magic solution for the siege.”

Blog Archive