By Ted Belman
HAARETZ clearly doubts Bibi’s sincerity and calls his committee on settlements uncecessary arguing
-
Netanyahu seeks to bypass the State Prosecutor’s Office and the Civil Administration, which more than once have pledged to the High Court that its rulings would be honored.
But Netanyahu’s policy on settlements and unauthorized West Bank outposts, as with his “peace policy,” shows that he deserves the loyalty of those extremists no less than Feiglin does.
At a time when he is making flowery speeches about his commitment to a two-state solution, Netanyahu hasn’t spared any effort to create facts on the ground that make a fair and rational division of the West Bank and East Jerusalem more remote. Netanyahu isn’t the first prime minister who, during negotiations with the Palestinians, has taken care of the settlements and channeled public funds to them. Since the 1970s, Israel has declared about 900,000 dunams (about 225,000 acres ) “state lands” in order to allocate them to the settlements.
Netanyahu hasn’t just made do with an outdated Ottoman law to entrench Israeli control over the West Bank. He has cooperated with lawbreakers who have taken control of private Palestinian land and set up communities there without permits from the defense minister and the Israel Defense Forces’ Civil Administration.
To advance his policy and satisfy the settlers, Netanyahu has often invented ways to bypass High Court rulings and make a mockery of what remains of the rule of law in the territories. At the beginning of the week, he created a committee of jurists headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy to “examine policy tools and operating principles on construction in Judea and Samaria whose status is not regularized.”
Among the matters the committee will consider is how to get illegal outposts out from under High Court evacuation orders. In this way, the prime minister seeks to bypass the State Prosecutor’s Office and the Civil Administration, which more than once have pledged to the High Court that its rulings would be honored.
Their main concern is that he is making it more difficult to reach a deal with the Arabs.
What’s “.bg” & “:tg”?
Come on now, nebekhl, swallow the little capsule, then chase it down with a nice big glass of water; that’s a good boy.
And spare us the cheap shots about all the Republicans you hate — just stay on-point.
I watched the video again (all 3:19), and there was still no text; only a couple of general titles.
In any case, from what I gather, she was apparently claiming that OBL was killed — no renal failure.
That one — containing “Report: Bin Laden Already Dead” Dec. 26, 2001 — had the same phony flavor as the earlier one we talked about:
“The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief…. [Taliban said] he looked pale … but calm, relaxed and confident.”
If a gaggle of local, unsophisticated Muslims were going to knowingly fake a highly regarded Muslim’s death, that’s pretty much how you’d expect to hear them say it went down.
So far, nothing persuasive.
But I still don’t believe the Seals took him out last May.
:tg
I agree it isn’t a RR or Bush quote or a Republican confirmation but it’s out there on most MSM sites and millions of blogs, the video I supplied, if you had watched gave an English text translation.
Try this one with plenty of text and ignore the source of the blog just the details.
See Here: Bush Knew Bin Laden Murdered in 2001
That’s not confirmation.
Saw that story when it came out; didn’t buy it at the time. Seemed more likely to have been planted.
The latter does not, of itself, confirm the truth of the former.
In any event, without titles, the Bhutto video is useless to me (in my soundless environment).
What was her source? — does she say, in the interview?
dweller says:
Here
Here
Benazir Bhutto claimed the BIN LADEN WAS DEAD in a CENSORED David Frost interview, RIGHT BEFORE SHE WAS ASSASSINATED
yes, and when it was re-aired by the MSM that part was edited out…
…imagine that. Video is still on you tube, I posted it a few times on Israpundit.
What she said was the biggest and most sensational news since 9/11. Yet Frost did not question her, seem surprised or debated her answer.
After that it was not safe for her to stay alive, specially since she had said that she is coming to start a true democracy in Pakistan and she was no longer be a puppet of UK/USA. Too much truth can be hazardous to one’s health.
Read: by David Ray Griffin. “Wanted Dead or Alive”
Maybe so.
Until his son died.
He wasn’t the same after that.
Pretty much took the heart out of him.
Got a source for that, or are you — like me — speculating?
I’ve long suspected that he died before the Seals got to him, but how soon before is unclear.
Musharraf had said in 2003 that OBL had a kidney condition, but didn’t seem to think he was ‘already’ dead.
It seems most unlikely that the Seals would’ve been tasked to kill him if they could take him alive; he’d have been a treasure trove of the choicest intel.
On the other hand, if he was already dead, then once it was confirmed, some individual in the current Pakistan govt might’ve tipped off the Administration — in return for some trinket or favor, etc.
If OBL’s bodyguards were under a standing order to see that he was, under no circumstances, to be taken alive — a not-at-all far-fetched scenario — then they might well have taken him out as the Seals were approaching his floor of the bldg — in which case, the Seals might’ve taken out the bodyguards as a matter of tying up loose ends.
In any event, anybody who wasn’t instantly suspicious when it was asserted that his body would be permanently disposed of ASAP w/ no forensic exam (standard procedure) hasn’t got the brains of a dime-store dildo. The claim of haste as strict adherence to Islamic law was such a transparent pretext; Ghaddafi’s body (and hundreds more along with it) lay unburied for a couple weeks.
“.. fair and rational division of the West Bank and East Jerusalem…” Until this ludicrous concept is ridiculed and abandoned the story will just go on. Perhaps the meeting of meshaal and abdullah can foreshadow a new possibility over time. EG adbullah and hamas go into a power sharing agreement, over time, like the sauds and wahhabis, with a reforming monarchy over years (like his midwife UK) and a moderating hamas(not in rhetoric but in a quest for power and riches) coupled with massive international aid package(the real key). Jordan re-extends citizenship to west bankers and reaps a populist whirlwind ensuring longevity and palestinian credentials; he then invites them to jordan with huge resettlement grants then it could be win win for all. Hamas would still claim israel but their increasing power and massive economic development in jordan might render the west bank something to be pushed to a future back burner. Jordans entry into the gulf military alliance would allow a sunni reconciliation which can focus then on the Shiites threat. Perhaps the sunnis are starting to see an advantage to defusing the Israel problem and focusing on the shiite threat and their own survival. On the other hand a win win situation for all is just the sort of thing that would be rejected.
Yamit, I fear you are correct.
Lenny says:
Yes.
My American heroes are George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Moses Rose, Jean Lafitte and Jacob Schiff, There are many more but from these I think you get my drift.
I think the best president in the modern era was Calvin Coolidge
Not a “sophist explanation”, just hedging his bets. What, yamit, you’re implying that Bibi is serious about curtailing/dismantling settlements? That’s absurd. His whole career has been tied to the settlers. As far as American election cycles go – what choices? When’s the last time there was a good choice? RFK in ’68? JFK in ’60? Eisenhower? Reagan? What U.S. Presidents do you respect and appreciate? What leaders period do you admire? Churchill? Frederick The Great? I’m not denying that Americans are not the brightest people on Earth. Clearly, they’re not. And, I happen to agree with you that Obama will be re-elected. Why? Because, Romney isn’t a very good politician. He’s vacuous, and robotic. Obama’s the better politician. As far as bin Laden – I have no idea whether you’re right or wrong. The government lies, it lies all the time. AAs far as the big three automakers – Romney was not willing to prevent them from going chapter 11. My guess is that Obama’s bailouts will prove to be more popular than Romney’s indifference. I really don’t have an opinion on the matter.
bin Laden died of kidney failure in 202. Don’t know who the seals killed if anyone but it was not bin Laden.
General motors is not saved until they make a profit after they repay the American people the Tarp money they took with interest. In five years most of the cars in America will be Chinese, Korean and Indian. What do you think is going on in the world?
You attribute to BB a sophist explanation for his actions. The reality is 180 degrees in the other direction,
I believe Romney will lose despite the economy. Why? Because Americans are stupid. They elected Obama and almost elected someone as bad McCain which was after electing both Bush and Clinton to consecutive terms. Americas choices speak for themselves.
If the Giants defense can get to Brady consistently they will win.
GO GIANTS
if you are so smart, quickly who will win the SUPER BOWL.
Bibi is hedging his bets on the U.S. election. He realizes Obama may very well beat Romney, and he has to at least appear as if he’s amenable to curtailing/dismantling settlement activity. VP Biden yeasterday made clear that Team Obama will be selling the message:” Re-elect the President. He killed bin Laden, and saved General Motors.” Romney will run as the technocratic fix-man who will resuscitate the economy. He will seek to shore up the Republican base by taking harsh potshots at Obama, and lure in independents with the message that he’s a steady hand on the till. At this point, it appears the election will be close, with perhaps Obama holding a very small edge due to the perception (true or not) that the economy is resuscitating, and jobs are coming back.
What a bigoted double standard. Arabs can be citizens of the state of Israel and comprise some 20% of the Israeli population, but Jews living on something like 4% of the “Palestinian State” (G-d forbid!)is unacceptable apriori. Unacceptable not only to the implacable Arabs with whom there can never be peace, put notably to Jew-hating, delusional air-heads of Haaretz. What kind of peace do they imagine can result from such a prescription? The peace of the grave and may Haaretz rest in piece.
The Arabs will not make peace under ANY circumstances. Haaretz’s editors are either too dense or too stupid to get it.
The Arabs did not make peace between 1948-1967 when settlements were never the issue. Peace is impossible not because of Jews living in Yesha but because the Arabs reject any kind of Jewish State no matter where the borders are drawn.
Evicting Jews from Migron won’t change in the slightest this basic truth about life in the Middle East.