Powered by WebAds

Monday, March 29, 2010

Israel's Leftist media slams Netanyahu

You may have the impression from reading my blog that most Israelis are behind Prime Minister Netanyahu. And as I told the radio station in South Africa on Monday morning, I believe that most of them are. However, Israel's mostly Leftist Hebrew media has been slamming Netanyahu, blaming him for the shabby treatment he received from President Obama last week.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu vehemently denied Sunday morning that an aide commented, "We've got a real problem. You could say that Obama is the greatest disaster for Israel -- a strategic disaster.”

The alleged comment was headlined by Israel's largest daily, Yediot Acharonot, which also operates the Ynet website and has been a long-time foe of the Prime Minister while championing parties that favor eliminating a Jewish presence in most of Judea and Samaria. The daily is threatened by the freebie Israel Today that supports Netanyahu and is causing Yediot Acharonot to lose much of its circulation. Yediot also published the Shepard House acquisition as Obama and Netanyahu were about to meet last week, although it had been authorized in July 2009.
Along with the left-wing Haaretz newspaper, the two publications have published an onslaught of articles against Prime Minister Netanyahu’s refusal to follow U.S. President Barack Obama’s demand for a total building freeze for Jews in areas of Jerusalem that the United States State Department calls “occupied.”

The Prime Minister’s office rejected the comment as the Cabinet met for its weekly meeting, but the story had already hit the headlines in American media. A statement issued by Netanyahu's office said, "The Prime Minister emphatically rejects the anonymous quotes about President Obama that a newspaper attributed to one of his confidantes, and he condemns them."
I happen to believe that President Obama is a disaster for Israel. But that is in no way Prime Minister Netanyahu's fault. No Israeli Prime Minister can give on a 'freeze' in Jerusalem.

Is it possible that had Tzipi Livni been Prime Minister, the Obama administration would not have overzealously insisted on a 'settlement freeze'? Maybe and maybe not. But she's not Prime Minister because Israelis have decided that we've had it with the 'peace process.' That's the real divide between Israel and Obama - and it's a divide between Israel (including Netanyahu and Ehud Barak - whose Left wing credentials should not be in question) and Obama. As David Horovitz pointed out over the weekend:
The Israel-US dispute may have exploded over 1,600 homes in Ramat Shlomo, it may be rumbling on viciously around the incendiary wider issue of any and all Israeli building in east Jerusalem, but it is essentially rooted in this stark difference of perception between Jerusalem and Washington as to the Palestinian Authority’s peace-making readiness and intentions.

Succinctly put, the thrust of Clinton’s speech, and of the succession of Netanyahu’s meetings with the secretary, with Vice President Joe Biden and, most crucially and problematically with President Barack Obama, reflected Washington’s contention that Abbas wants a deal, that he is ready to make the compromises necessary to forge one, and that Israel’s vital interests mandate that it does all that it possibly can to ensure the deal is done. Ironically, for an administration so starkly hostile to most everything it inherited from the Bush administration, one of the very few channels of continuity is the insistent belief that an accord with the Palestinian Authority beckons.

For the Israeli leadership – encompassing not just Netanyahu but Defense Minister Ehud Barak as well – this assessment is unfathomable.

The picture at the top is former Haaretz editor David Landau, who once told Condi Clueless that his 'wet dream' was for the US to rape Israel. Most of Israel's Hebrew-speaking media (but not its general population) probably agreed with Landau.


At 3:06 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

Israel's media is the only one that would turn on a Prime Minister of their own country for something that wasn't even his fault. As I said, Netanyahu is a man and Obama is a child in a man's clothes. And Abu Bluff is nowhere in the picture. Should Israel be negotiating with the US on behalf of someone who not only denies the Holocaust but who accuses Israel of populating Jerusalem with far too many Jews and who to add insult to injury, refuses to sit down and talk to Israel? All that isn't lost on the average Israeli Man In The Street and the Obami just don't get what a dangerous neighborhood the Jews live in.

And NO Israeli government can ever compromise on Jerusalem. We'll see soon enough if the Obami learn that on that issue Israel is totally immovable.

At 3:39 PM, Blogger Kafir Harby said...

These self-hating leftist journalists, why don't they just commit suicide collectively, the world wouldn't miss them for a second.

At 4:00 PM, Blogger Daniel said...

I wonder if Landau wears a green sleeveless dress and a Dr. Zira mask during those wet dreams

At 4:10 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Ironically, for an administration so starkly hostile to most everything it inherited from the Bush administration, one of the very few channels of continuity is the insistent belief that an accord with the Palestinian Authority beckons."

Absolutely true.

In 2000, G.W. Bush campaigned on a platform of being a strong supporter of Israel.

He said if elected he would move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. A move that if he had kept his word on, would have greatlt bolstered and strenghthened our ally Israel.

He lied. And not only that, Bush did a complete u-turn on previous U.S. policy and called for a PA state right in the heart of Israel.

The lesson learned: don't listen to what they say in campaigns. Look at what they have done and who they are associated with.

As for Bush, one of his main associations was that of James Baker. That should have told us something and caused us to digg deeper into what Bush's real mindset was on Israel.

Bush was originally of an "Episcopal" background before joining a United Methodist Church. Two-very non-evangelical church organizations that embrace "replacement" or "suppercessionist" theology.

Certainly this had a major influence in his view of Israel. As that theology rejects modern Israel as a fullfillment of the many promises made in the Bible that Israel would be restored as a nation.

As for Condi Rice, there was once a Chevron oil tanker named in her honor as she once used to be on the board of advisors.

She also is of Presbyterian backgound. Another non-evangelical church organization.

A denomination that has entertained business-divestment campaigns against Israel.

As of now, there are only two U.S. politicians from 2008 that I believe would steadfastly stand with Israel,-Huckabee and Palin.

At 4:14 PM, Blogger Daniel said...

I am happy whenever the lefty press is hurt, but isn't Israel Today a Messianic/missionary paper?

At 6:36 PM, Blogger Kae Gregory said...

At least it's only the media (for now anyway) that is radical left in Israel. Here, the media has to compete with the administration to see which is the most virulently left. It is absolutely no exageration to say that it is virtually impossible to tell the media apart from the administration from what it says. Chag Pesach Semeach.


Post a Comment

<< Home