Opinion
What's different this time?
Hagai Segal
Published: 28.03.09, 16:30
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
24 Talkbacks for this article
1. Sharon was once a military hero
Steve   (03.28.09)
But Sharon melted before Jew-haters like George W. Bush and Colin Powell. Christian Bush once implied that all the Jews are going to hell. Both George W. and his father are deeply invested with our Saudi enemies. Bush is a traitor plain and simple. Immediately after the 9/11 Muslim terror atrocities, Bush decided to go to war against Israel. He unveiled his "vision" for a Muslim terror state in Israel. Sharon briefly protested but got in line with the Bush road map for Israel's destruction. Sharon displayed great courage on the battlefield but moral cowardice in the political field. Lkud MKs who stood against Sharon's treason acts were called "rebels" in Israel's media. Maybe Israel's enemies are right about the Jews. Maybe we do not deserve a state after all.
2. finally ! someone tells it as it is
(03.28.09)
it's obvious that since the left controls the media - Sharon's ultimate betrayal was praised and Barak's 'slight' shift to the right condamned...
3. thumbs up
Robertk ,   Jerusalem, Israel   (03.28.09)
Fine, pithy, spot-on op-ed.
4. To Comment No.1: Nonsense
Stephen ,   New York, NY   (03.28.09)
Stop blaming the US for Israel's own traitors. The US only accepted a palestinian state after Israel elected its own people who said the very same thing a decade earlier. Bush never betrayed anyone, he led a war against two muslim countries. Israel, on the other hand, was too undetermined and led by successive leftists who wanted to give away Israel with or without the United States. As soon as the americans realized that is what Israelis want(since the perpetually idiotic Israelis elected these leftists) then americans quickly agreed with the Barak/Sharon/Olmert platform. As the saying goes, we have seen the enemy and it is us.
5. Bibi is worse
adam eliyahu   (03.28.09)
I remember going to pre-Oslo anti-process rallies. They showed clips of Rabin condemning anyone who considered giving up the Golan. Yes, Sharon did abuse the faith of those who voted for him---and was generally praised. Bibi isn't any better. Consider his treatment of Feiglin. It probably cost him a clear victory. It is no surprise what Barak did. The only way a let wing politiican can get into power is by using and abusing the right wing votes. A large majority of the country voted right yet we are once again being faced witha left wing government. Is anyone complaining about that?
6. one led, the other hijacked
oferdesade ,   israel   (03.28.09)
sharon took his chances on a new party and won. barak hijacked a brand name (albeit a pretty tattered one, but still worth some votes). sharon proved himself to believe in his way, beyond ideology. barak has neither a way nor ideology (whether you agree with the way or ideology of either party or not is irrelevant). sharon stayed to fight. barak, well nobody really wants him to stay, so that too is irrelevant. shall i go on? the only thing the 2 had in common was their respective girth. and even here - one was acquired eating the cows he himself raised, the other dining at tables dishonestly invited to.
7. unity
zechariah   (03.29.09)
Really the meretz and human rights arab parties should have also joined to emphasize one nation for two people under a human rights security state . For one hundred years the jews would ensure security against the mad mullahs willing to destroy even jerusalem for victory .
8. No leftist will comment on this because that would require
Jae ,   Lynn USA   (03.29.09)
intellectual honesty. Not in vogue, apparently. Excellent article and no one can refute the facts of the article all they will do is the usual non-logic, non rationality: smear whoever is the author, by finding something in their past to distract from the article or sidetrack the points of the article entirely in broad defamation of the right. either way its impish tactics that only ask for emotion, non linear thinking, and intellectualy honesty; something which the radical left is full of- witness their chronic affinity for jailed arab terorists more than the Jews they murdered.
9. #1 Steve
David ,   USA, exile   (03.29.09)
Steve, A profession does not make a man what he professes to be. You call Bush a "Christian." I don't know what context you intend that to be. I can only assume it is a pejorative that you intend. If he were a Christian, he would have character and behavior of the one he professes to represent, which is Yeshua of Natzeret. I see no likeness in the two, therefore, he is not a Christian. He only uses the word to gain votes and favor of men. He may think he is a Christian and I will not judge his heart, only his fruit. Grapes do not grow on fig trees. Why do you want to insult a whole class of people who love Yisra'el by using the word Christian in a pejorative manner? Isn't that akin to insulting Jews by saying they all have big noses etc. You would call that anti-semitism. Aren't you doing the same to followers of Yeshua. I hear many scream anti-semitism at the slightest disagreement with something that is being done by Yisra'el but it seems to be very popular among Jews to insult the disciples of Yeshua. Sounds a little hypocritical to me.
10. Stephen #4: You are in denial. Aren't you?
Steve   (03.29.09)
George W. Bush boasted that he was the first U.S. president to make the establishment of a Muslim terror state in Israel a "formal goal of U.S. policy." Early October 2001 Bush unveiled his vision for a Muslim-terror state in Israel. Sharon's initial response: "“I call on the Western democracies and primarily the leader of the free world, the United States: Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938 when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs on our expense. This is unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terrorism.” Don't get me wrong. Sharon caved-in to immoral George W. Bush pressure. Bush wanted to appease the enemy at Israel's expense. Sharon expelled thousands of Jews from Gaza in order to help the U.S. appease our enemies, particularly the Saudis. Why are you an apologist for this tratior, Mr. Bush? Bush lied to the American people about our enemy. After 9/11, Bush told the American people: "The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics -- a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.....The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying in effect, to hijack Islam itself...." Why are you an apologist for this traitor Stephen?
11. Adam #5: Large majority of the right voted left
Steve   (03.29.09)
If a large majority in Israel voted right, they would not have voted for Likud, Israel Beieinu, Shas, etc. All these so-called Zionist / nationaist parties entertain territorial compromise. They all support a Muslim-terror state in Israel. Netanyahu and 3/4 of Likud (just before the elections) refused to sign a simple pledge to oppose the establishment of a Muslim state in Israel. Look what Netanyahyu did to Feiglin, just as you say. He moved Feiglin from the #20 slot he earned to the #36 slot. In spite of this Feiglin urged his supporters to vote for Netanyhu! Feiglin betrayed the right. Why then do you insist a large majority of the country voted right when Netanyahu, Israel Beiteinu and Shas are with the left?
12. Sharon Right/Barak Left
Golan ,   SL   (03.29.09)
its as simple as that. Which reminds me a the joke in the Bardak Sharon election. Israel went to vote between Smol and EXTRA LARGE!
13. Sharon & Barak there is no comparison in their actions
zionist forever   (03.29.09)
Sharon didn't leave Likud for personal ambition it was about politics and he wanted to move straight to a right wing solution to the palestinian problem. Gaza was a gamble that didn't pay off. He wanted to get rid of the huge cost of defending 8000 jews from over 1 million hostile arabs. The aim of HIS Kadima was we set our own borders unilateraly based on our needs and what we want and then say to the palestinians here this is what we don't want take it or leave it. Olmerts & Livnis Kadima was not Sharons which is something we forget. As for Barak he is motivated by personal ambition, he knows if he sits in opposition overshadowed by leftist Livni he will be sidelined bacause she is the only one anybody will be listening to as the voice of the left. Join Netanyahu your part of the government not rotting away in Livnis shadow. As for the Labour party he hasn't even betrayed them. The idealists hate the idea of sitting in a right wing coalition. They have forgoton the fact that other than the two and half years they spent with left wing Kadima every election because of the crooked political system it was always Likud / Labour coalition all that changed was who was running it. This is just another Labour Likud coalition. He couldn't choose to join a coalition run by Kadima because Peres had chosen Netanyahu so it was government with Likud where he even has a say in policy or play high minded do sit rot away in opposition with Livni. Barak has saved his party not betrayed them.
14. As
Ariel Ben Yochanan ,   Kfar Tapuah   (03.29.09)
B"H As politicians are liars and opportunists, Israelis are strongly advised to abstain from the vote: also, knesset is not a Torah institution. See www.thetorahrevolution.blogspot.com
15. #6 Barak, well nobody really wants him to stay?
redbourn ,   tel aviv   (03.29.09)
I would have preferred Boogie, but I know lots of intelligent Israelis that voted for Bibi who are delighted that Barak is going to be DM. And Bibi really wants him. So your statement is not 'quite' right :-) Mike
16. sharon was much worse
randi ,   jerusalem   (03.29.09)
sharon's central committeee voted against disengagement, and he did it anyway, against their wishes. Barak's central committee voted to join the gov, and barak did just as they voted. and anyway, disengagement is a much bigger betratl to party values than joining a gov, which labor and likud have done many times before.
17. Not so black and white
Ilan ,   Ariel   (03.29.09)
Barak has achieved some major accomplishments for Labor with this deal, both financial in a commitment to fund a social program they wanted, in gaining control of an important ministry (agriculture) for the party, and in changing the arrangements of the government. And all this while putting the agreement before the Labor party institutions according to their constitution. That is not a betrayal. What Sharon did, however, ignoring his party's rulings and then taking half the party into a Meretz type platform. That was a betrayal. Labor will come out of this stronger and relevant. It is a rotten deal for the right, but it seems good for the Labor party.
18. Bibi and his
(03.29.09)
supporters created the atmospherie that led to the Murder of Rabin. They killed and inherited and then Rabins own party joins them. Yitzchak must be spinning.
19. David #9: Bush and his Christian faith
Steve   (03.29.09)
Gernerally I write "self-proffessed" Christian, George W. Bush. This time I did not but I must confess, I am equally troubled by the many millions of American Christians who consistently supported President Bush even as they (you?) "professed" to support Israel. I saw no mass-out cry within the Christian community as Bush sold out Israel after 9/11. Even CUFI (Christians United For Israel) stood solidly by Bush. What did you do or say in protest? May I ask?
20. #15 & #8
oferdesade ,   israel   (03.29.09)
first the easy one #8: i am left, & that's why lots like me voted for sharon rather than barak. if bibi wants him, it's probably to make an already splintered party even more irrelevant so it'll split in time for next elections. your last para gives you away - slogans like those are about as analytic as a blank wall, about as intellectually honest as mao's red book, as logical as a horse's ass. now for the more intelligent ones amongst us: yes, 15 you are right. he makes a better DM than mofaz or (ha ha) peretz. i dont really know what pushes the guy, except what we read, and most of it's not good. i do know that gabi is a better COS than barak is a DM, and when the goyim start prosecuting, i have a feeling barak will let gabi hang for him. that makes him a bad DM, because i fear he puts his own interests before that of his mandate. my comment - though evil per se and a reference to barak barakh (on too many occasions) - referred to his party brethren, a bunch of impotent nothings whom not even someone as nice and enlightened as boogie can save. it's not the DM who preps the army. he's merely there to return party favors and make people lotsa money. yes, you certainly are right. there are lots of people who are very glad that barak is DM.
21. 17
zionist forever   (03.29.09)
Sharons vision of Kadima was not a Meretz type platform that was Olmert & Livni. The original Kadima was supposed to be we know that the wold is going to keep pushing us on the palestinian state so lets form a new party say that our policy is going to be we withdraw to borders of our choosing then say to the palestinians there is your state take it or leave it. Bush was in the White House and still in his war on terror phase, Sharon also unlike any other PM knew how to twist Bush around his little finger. Gaza is a shit hole so we give that away its great public relations it keeps the world off our back for a while. Unfortunatly it backfired but the thinking behind it was smart. We then decide what the final borders should be, build a fence around them. Built the Jerusalem barrier to keep the arabs out of Jerusalem and then we say to Bush look here is a 2 state solution and Bush who was so easy to push around would have backed it. The problem is Sharon had his stroke before the election so it was Olmerts Kadima that won the 2006 election and his vision was a left wing party that would do as it was told by the rest of the world.
22. Baraks crime was not to the party it was to the country
zionist forever   (03.29.09)
When he was at Camp David making all these generous offers to Arafat he amazed even Clinton when without consulting the Knesset or even his cabinet he offered to divide Jerusalem, the Old City & give up Temple Mount. Before then not even Peres had dared to put Jerusalem on the table, he kept making excuses that its a final issue issue problem to avoid having to negotiate the subject. Barak went to Camp David without consulting anybody offered Jerusalem and of course now the Jerusalem genie is out the bottle you can't put it back in so now the US have decided Jerusaelm will go. When she took over the leadership of Kadima she chose to fight an election rather than put together the coalition who she needed Shas for and their price was written garuntee she would not divide Jerusalem. Olmert boasts about how he had offered Jerusalem. So thanks to Barak acting like a dictaitor who treated the country itself like his private property he has created a whole load of the problems we have now and told the world Jerusalem is for sale.
23. Z. Forever #21: thinking behind mass-expulsion was smart?
Steve   (03.29.09)
Smart? Expelling thousands of peaceful, law-abiding Jews from their homes, farms and synagogues was smart? Can you explain your perverse logic?
24. the same game
........ ,   ......   (03.30.09)
once kadema was they said itis for no waybut etter than the right to the sea and the leftalso to the seaas if we are on a bridge now it is the right and leftit will be to no wayit is the samegame
Back to article