Olmert - Who needs enemies, when you have….
Above cartoon from Cox & Forkum: Bloody Hands
Recently I posted about Tony Blair’s move to Jerusalem as the special peace envoy for the quartet. It’s obvious to me that Mr Blair is going to have to do some pretty fancy footwork as it seems that Iran is not too happy with him being the representative for middle east initiatives. No surprises with the following really.
Arabs have also said they doubted Blair could succeed as regional peace envoy because of his unpopularity and because he is too close to Israel and the United States.
They said Blair had little credibility in the Middle East because he took part in the invasion of Iraq, opposed an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon last year and failed to follow up on many promises to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Anyway, this got me thinking about Olmert and Blair’s political relationship and how it will pan out in the coming months ahead. I personally think Blair, will be walking on egg shells with Hamas, whose charter is to annihilate any trace of Israel — Olmert, by the way, is happy to help in a more indirect way of course — and now Hamas brazenly says… Thanks for arming us America!
Is there any country that supports Israel really, or has every country decided to talk out of both sides of their mouth? Say one thing, do another seems to be the order of the day. Olmert, who has a history of selling out Israel over and over again, has his hand in appeasing the enemy when he recently released prisoners and just a small wad of cash to a terrorist organisation. Nice one!
I am sure that there are a lot of you out there that know a great deal more about the underhanded negotiations that Olmert has been involved with of late. I bet the list is getting longer and longer!
The prime minister announced the prisoner release and a series of steps aimed at easing the situation in the West Bank, where Abbas’ Fatah faction and the new emergency government he set up hold sway.[...]
He said the release of 250 Fatah prisoners “who do not have blood on their hands” was meant as “a gesture of goodwill toward the Palestinians.”[...]
And as Michael from Oleh Musings recently pointed out in regards to Olmert’s really idiotic statement that …“A country cannot protect itself ad infinitum, because there would be no end to it.”[...]
Michael says…”You say that Israel cannot protect itself ad infinitum, but that is nothing more than an abdication of your responsibility as Prime Minister. I understand that your Kadima Party was elected to a Knesset majority on a platform of withdrawals in the face of terrorism, but we have seen, from the unending rocket campaign out of Gaza, that the withdrawal policy was a costly failure.
I submit to you that, while an impenetrable and absolutely permanent defense against terrorism may be technically impossible, a country had damn well better try if it wants to remain a living, viable, human endeavor. Defeatism like yours, especially coming from the top levels of government, will only encourage the terrorists, and make the defense against them that much more difficult.”
And if that’s not enough Israel has President Shimon Peres firmly in place and all this without a general election taking place. Please read the below amendment to understand how the President is elected.
Amendment to this post:
President Shimon Peres was made President by a ballot inside the Knesset, an indirect election. It was the first election that Peres has ever won in his entire political career. Michael from Oleh Musings who corrected me on the election process has also said that there is a joke in Israel “that no matter who we vote for, we get Shimon Peres.”Thanks go to Michael from Oleh Musings for pointing this error out to me.
I am sure we are likely to see some dialogue behind closed doors with terrorist nations, remember engagement means encouragement to certain people.
Where’s Golda Meir when you need her? How true are her words when she said…
“The Egyptians could run to Egypt, the Syrians into Syria. The only place we could run was into the sea, and before we did that we might as well fight.”
My question is, who is fighting for Israel nowadays? Will the real allies please stand up!
And I thought that I didn’t like Olmert… At least I had the pleasure of not voting for the man!
About Peres’ accesstion to the Presidency, it’s important to the remember that President of Israel is a figure-head post. He’s the titular head of state, but that’s all.
And there was an election; the President is selected by a ballot within the Knesset. An indirect election is still an election.
And you’re not the only one pining for Golda; I posted about that a few days ago!
http://olehmichael.blogspot.com/2007/06/i-need-hero.html
Michael… thanks for clearing that up
In fact, I only learnt a few months ago that there was a President of Israel. I didn’t even know that you had a President!
I think that perhaps your President is a lot like our Governor General.
No people election at all for the postition, and pretty much just a figure head, although our GG can sack the Prime Minister.
The above said by Gough Whitlam, the only Prime Minister of Australia ever to be sacked by the Governor General (John Kerr).
Classic!
The Governor General is a matter for the Prime Minister who may or may not consult his staff, and then the Queen appoints the position. The Governor General is the Queen’s representative.
I am going to amend the post. To clear it up more, thanks again!
I think a lot of former British possessions seperate head-of-state and head-of-gov’t this way; Canada also has a Governer General appointed by the Queen.
Funny quote by Whitlam; it reminds me of what General Hooker said before the Battle of Chancellorsville:
May God have mercy on General Lee, for I shall have none.
Lee went on to win his most spectacular victory….
Barak says Olmert Must Go!
I thought I would just put the link up for reference.
Barak is right about Olmert, but let’s not forget that he (Barak) wasn’t so hot as PM either. In fact, after he pulled out Israel out of S. Lebanon, and offered Arafat everything on a platter in 2000, all he got in return was a terrorist campaign.
He was a great soldier, but a not-so-hot PM, and his tenure in that office was the shortest in Israel’s history. We’re still dealing with the repercussions of his mistakes:
1) rise of “disengagement” policy
2) perception of Israeli defeat by Hezbollah
3) over-appeasement of palestinian demands
But remember this:
Barak is now Defense Minister; he wants to be PM again.
If he makes good on his word, and pulls Labor out of the coalition gov’t, forcing new elections, one of the few certain results will be a loss of seats for Labor (tho not as drastic as for Kadima). Israeli politics is shifting rightward, and those on the left will not come out ahead if elections are held soon.
So here is the question:
Will Barak act against his own self-interest?