Ape With AK-47….L.M.A.O.


Monkey wins

 

US Elections: Netanyahu’s Dirty Trick


“All this bluff and corruptibility which came into the Israeli political life in an attempt to form a narrow government failed not only tactically but also conceptually”-Yitzhak Rabin, 1992

Four catchy phrases ruined Shimon Peres political life, relegating him to the simple formalities of Israel’s Presidency. “Yes and No” was coined by Sefy Rivlin, and cost Peres the 1981 and 1984 elections. A Peres puppet was shown answering “yes and no” to every question asked. Before that, in 1977, Yitzhak Rabin called Peres an “indefatigable conspirator.” Since this article is in English, I won’t analyze the brilliance of the Hebrew saying; in the feat of his lifetime, Rabin ruined Peres with three words. The other two phrases are related to Shimon Peres attempt in 1990 to replace Shamir’s government—of which he was Minister of Finances—by a narrow government led by Labor and supported by ultra-Orthodox parties. Peres failed, and Rabin hit again. He called the affair the “Dirty Trick” (literally “The Stinking Exercise”). In the popular protests that followed, the fourth slogan appeared: “Mush’hatim, nim’astem!” (roughly “corrupt people, we’re fed up with you!”). Rabin used it as the Labor slogan for the 1992 election, which he won. It was obvious that he included Peres in the culprits at whom the slogan was aimed.

Rabin and PeresRabin and Peres

Aryeh Deri and Ovadia Yosef Aryeh Deri and Ovadia Yosef

The Unbearable Stench of the Dirty Trick

At the beginning of March 1990, Peres drafted a secret agreement with Aryeh Deri from the Haredi-Mizrahi Shas party to support the dissolution of the government. Subsequently Peres issued a motion of no confidence against the government, and Shamir fired Peres. On March 15, the government was dissolved by a vote of 60 to 55; it was the first time in Israeli history that a government lost a confidence vote. Shas—the partner to the conspiracy to remove Shamir—oddly abstained in the vote; this was the first sign something went wrong in the plan. Agudat Yisrael—the second Haredi party involved in the Dirty Trick—supported the vote. In the aftermath, President Chaim Herzog chose Peres to form the new government; however, Peres found it difficult to sign an agreement. The most humiliating issue was that potential partners requested from him cash-securities in order to secure the political agreement. Nobody trusted Peres. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef—Shas mentor—refused to allow its party members to join such a government. Rabbi Elazar Shach, the spiritual leader of a third Haredi party called “Degel HaTorah” called not to tolerate a coalition with the secular “eaters of hares and swine.”

The new government was to be approved on April 11. In the closest thing to a public execution in the Israeli political life, Peres lost the vote at the Knesset after two members of his proposed coalition disappeared without explanations. Later it was discovered that Eliezer Mizrahi and Avraham Verdiger, both from Agudat Yisrael, were absent due to Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson’s ruling not to support any concession of an Israeli territory. Following a long saga, Shamir presented a new government on June 11. Peres had proved truth his “indefatigable conspirator” image.

Twenty-two years later the saga is still alive. Two of the Dirty Trick Affair leaders are running in the upcoming elections after a long absence from political life. Aryeh Deri from Shas—who had closed the deal with Peres without the approval of Rabbi Yosef—returned to the party’s leadership. Eliezer Mizrahi—one of the disappeared Knesset members during the vote—announced on November 8 that he is running again; he is conducting negotiations with various parties of the extreme right. Following the elections, Peres may get an almost daily unpleasant reminder of his own questionability. Over the years, participants of the Dirty Trick said in interviews that nothing was evil because it was a legal political move. There are no doubts on the legality; however, it is considered illegitimate because Peres conspired against the government of which he was a senior member. As said, he proved being an “indefatigable conspirator;” after that he served as Prime Minister for a short period after Rabin’s assassination but his political career was over.

Dirty Tricks

Dirty Tricks | Israel’s Only Truth

 

Dirty Trick 2012

This long introduction was essential. It shows an intrinsic pattern of the Israeli society and its political echelons. Dirty Tricks are the norm there, regardless specific party affiliations. Given the dramatic characteristics of the Dirty Trick, one would expect from all political players to study the case and avoid similar errors. Netanyahu obviously learned its details because he replicated them in 2012. However, instead of acting against his own government, he acted against the American one by purposely intervening in the 2012 elections. I analyzed in Obama’s Victory Shocks Israel how Netanyahu openly supported Romeny in a variety of ways. This was an unusual intervention in another country’s elections, especially considering that the USA is Israel’s main ally. Netanyahu may win the upcoming elections, but he has publicly lost his own version of the Dirty Trick and may become a serious competitor for the position of president, the Siberia of Israeli politics. Should Obama’s Administration consider Israel a hostile country?

Benjamin NetanyahuBenjamin Netanyahu

Obama’s Victory Shocks Israel ???


Yedioth Aharonot: “An Ugly Victory”

Emphasizing the wild reaction of the Hebrew media and Israel’s upper echelon of politicians to Obama’s victory, Mossad opened on the same day a recruiting campaign over the internet. Its ads appeared next to pictures illustrating the victory, creating an eerie image. Is Mossad about to gear up sinister old plans for a presidential assassination? Beginning this article in such a fashion is justifiable due to the violent reactions voiced in Israel. One of the softest belonged to Yedioth Aharonot—Israel’s largest newspaper—which read “An Ugly Victory.” The most quoted reaction belonged to Likud Knesset Member Danny Danon, who said “the State of Israel will not surrender to Obama. We have no one to rely on but ourselves.”

Netanyahu - ObamaNetanyahu – Obama

Mossad Recruiting Ad Mossad Recruiting Ad

This was the unsuccesful end of Netanyahu’s open campaign for Republican candidate Mitt Romney. The support included a well-advertised visit to Jerusalem, supporting articles in the Israeli and Jewish media, the disclosure of their old personal friendship which dates back to 1976 (see Romney, Obama, and the Israeli Vote), and the inclusion of Netanyahu in Romney’s adds. Moreover, the main financial supporter of Netanyahu is Sheldon Adelson, an American Jew who is among America’s richest men, his businesses are centered on the Chinese gambling industry. He openly endorsed Romney and contributed at least $40 million to his presidential elections campaign. This unusual intervention in other country’s elections was aimed at placing in the White House a president that will be more receptive to Israel’s plans to attack Iran (see Romney’s Key in Israeli Attack on Iran). On August 30, 2012, the International Atomic Energy Agency published a report on the nuclear program of Iran. The report claims that Iran is speeding up its uranium enrichment program, having placed more than three quarters of the centrifuges it needs for completing it in a practically impenetrable underground installation, beneath a mountain outside Qum. This means that Iran is close to crossing what Israel had defined as its red line: the capability to produce nuclear weapons in a safe location. With Obama in the White House, Israel’s belligerency is likely to be blocked.

Netanyahu’s campaign was more successful at home. Israeli Channel 2 performed a poll just before the elections in the USA; 50% of all Israelis backed Romney, versus 26% for Obama. A similar poll conducted by the ultra-Orthodox Channel 10 showed that 50% of secular Jews favored Obama, and 50% Romney; however, religious Jews favored Romney, giving him 85% of their voices. Unluckily for Romney, neither group could vote in the USA.

Mavi Marmara

Mossad Recruiting Ad | “Anger in the USA on Rabbis who supported Obama”

Panic in Jerusalem

The reason why abovementioned Danny Danon became the main politician quoted on the issue despite his relative obscurity was that Netanyahu panicked after the first reactions were published. Interior Minister Eli Yishai, Chairman of Shas Party, said “This is probably not a very good morning for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” The reason for this statement is clear; if until now the relations between Netanyahu and Obama were not particularly friendly, from now onwards, Netanyahu can count on open hostility. Netanyahu was fast to react, ordering all of his party’s ministers and Knesset members to avoid commenting on Obama’s re-election without coordinating their statements with the Prime Minister’s Bureau. “Don’t talk about Obama,” Netanyahu was quoted by local media.

In parallel, a witch hunt begun among American Jewry. the picture above was taken from the settler Channel 7. It shows the abovementioned Mossad ad next to the main reaction of the channel to the elections. The headline reads “Anger in the USA on Rabbis who supported Obama.” The article brings an analysis of David Badin (English spelling may vary), director of a news agency and of a political research center active in Boston and Jerusalem. He explains how his organizations approached hundreds of rabbis all over the US, trying to convince them to endorse Romney and to “teach how much Obama is dangerous to Israel, this would have change the picture, and Romney would have won.” He claims that the rabbis could have changed the situation in several key states. He ends his analysis claiming that if these American Jews “put tfilin (while praying), pray three times a day (in weekdays), but vote Obama, there are serious questions on their ways.” He continues “there was here a president who made terrible things. He put anti-Semites in senior positions. He supported Islam… All this must force us to consider the relations between religious-Jews in Israel and America, and why there is such a disconnection between them.” This is the closest thing to a formal statement of the settlers on their position. It is unlikely they will find any sympathy in Obama’s next term.

Netanyahu is under serious political pressure, due to the upcoming elections on January 22, 2013. He is facing serious social protests at home and needs a war to distract the electorate. It always works. A war with Iran is not possible right now. Yet, Obama’s victory may have provided him with a poorman’s war. Danny Danon’s statement opening this article was not random, and probably was coordinated with Netanyahu. From now until the elections Netanyahu will claim that the USA has become unfriendly and thus the people must unify and brace themselves for hard times. A words’ war with America is almost as good as one with Iran.

SHALOM

Whichever of Obama or Romney wins, US dealings with the Arab world will change


Robert Fisk – The Independent Oct 29, 2012

After last week’s Obama-Romney love-fest for Israel, the Arabs have been slowly deciding which of the two men would be best for the Middle East. It looks like Barack Obama is their man; but the problem – as always – is the sad, pathetic and outrageously obvious fact that it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference.

George Bush invaded Iraq after giving Ariel Sharon permission to go on colonising the occupied West Bank. Obama got out of Iraq, increased drone strikes on the Pakistan-Afghan border and then behaved like a dog when Benjamin Netanyahu told him there would be no discussion about Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders. Instead of saying, “Oh yes there will”, like a strong and independent president, Obama sat cowed in his White House seat as the Israeli prime minister effectively told him that UN Security Council resolution 242 – the very basis of the non-existent “peace process” – was a non-starter.

Since then, of course, Mitt Romney, who seems to have as much understanding of the Middle East as the Texas preacher who burned a Koran, has said the Palestinians “have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace” and has still not satisfactorily explained why, back in 2005 as governor of Massachusetts, he appeared rather keen on wire-tapping mosques. So good luck to the Arabs.

The truth, however, is that the next president is not going to have the freedom to decide his policy on the Middle East. The old love affair with Israel will continue – unless Israel attacks Iran and drags America into another Middle East war – but for the first time in American history, a successful presidential candidate is going to have to deal with a new Arab world; indeed, a new Muslim world.

The critical point is that the Arab Awakening (please let’s forget the “Spring” bit) represents a people calling for dignity. It includes non-Arab Muslims as well – what else was the mini-green revolution after the last Iranian elections? – and it means that the millions who live in the part of the world we still like to call the Middle East – it doesn’t feel very “middle” when you live there – now intend to make their own decisions, based on their wishes, not on those of their former satrap presidents and – in turn – their masters in Washington. La Clinton still seems not to have grasped this. Maybe Obama does. Romney? I bet he couldn’t draw a map of the nations in the area, except for one, of course.

Contrary to the Western belief that the Arabs are all struggling for “democracy”, the battle and the tragedy of the Middle East today – whether in the aftermath of the “soft” revolution in Tunisia or the butchery of Syria – is about that word dignity, about the right as a human being to say what you like about whomever you want and not to let a despot take personal ownership of a whole country (as long as he has the permission of the United States) and treat it as his private property.

Yes, revolutions are messy. The Egyptian revolution didn’t go quite the way we thought it would. Libya can easily break apart. Syria is a cataclysm. But the Arab people are speaking out at last and they will now ensure that their presidents and prime ministers abide by their wishes, not by the word of Washington or Moscow. Contrary to the Romney-style belief that there is a lack of civilisational values among the Arabs – viz his extraordinary remarks on Israel’s civilisation – the people of the Middle East are demonstrating quite the opposite. It is a slow business: every reader of this article will be dead of old age before the Arab “revolution” is complete.

But the days when US presidents instruct the potentates of the Middle East what to say and do are coming to an end. It will be a long time before the Saudi regime crumbles, along with all the other gas stations in the Gulf. And I suppose it must be said that the tragedy of the Palestinians probably lies at the heart of the Arab Awakening.

Alas, the Palestinians are the only ones not to benefit from the Arab revolutions. There is not enough land left for them to have a state. This is a fact beyond peradventure (as Enoch Powell used to say). Anyone doubting these words should book a flight to Israel and take a look at the West Bank. There is no place left for Palestine; this is the real tragedy that US presidents must face in the coming years.

Source