Gaza Betrayal by Jewish leaders
TED BELMAN OF ISRAPUNDIT TAKES CENTRIST POSITION ON NETANYAHU
The issue was really over the nature of the whole Israeli ruling class, whatever they may be called. The disagreement between Ted Belman editor of Israpundit and Francisco Gil White was about that.
Gil White had called Netanyahu a traitor. I agreed with him but I go much further because I call the whole of the Israeli leaders right across the board traitors. Big difference. But let us not stray. How did Belman react to Gil White? It is most instructive to see what Belman wrore:
I disagree with Gil-White’s conclusion. Everyone involved with Oslo from the start knew of the Nazi connection and chose to ignore it. I don’t see continuing it as treason but as stupidity or naivete. Ted Belman
A strange response by Ted Belman
A similar situation is that your friend is being conned by a conman out of his life savings and you sitting there beside your friend while this is going on know he is a conman, but your friend does not, and you say nothing. If you do that you are not a friend, not naive, not stupid, but you are a traitor to your friend
The same applies with all these political leaders in Israel. Call them right call them left, whatever (AND if you do that just shows your political and historical ignorance)
MORE ON THE CONMAN ANALOGY
The Jews are being continually conned here by the US Government. They were conned over OSLO, conned over the Gaza withdrawal, conned by Churchill over Jordan, conned by the UN in 1948.
But on this score the US Government would not have been able to con the Jews if it had not been for the Jewish leadership in Israel.
The Likud leadership knew exactly what Sharon was doing in 2005 and yet the Likud leaders refused to act against Sharon. There was lots of time and the very first thing the Likud leaders should have done was expel the TRAITOR. (To add to my argument who emerged as the greatest traitors of the Jews during the Gaza removal? It was the rabbis and the Settlers leaders!)
While all this was going on Netanyahu was there but he basically was lying low, and he only put up a bit of a show at the very end, when it was too late, and moreover he knew it was too late. How do you characterise this kind of behaviour, naïve!!! No traitors to the Jews. All human activity is conscious.
SO WHY DID BELMAN CALL NETANYAHU NAIVE?
SHERMAN ALSO THINKS THEY ARE “NAIVE”
SHERMAN HAS ILLUSIONS IN ISRAEL POLITICIANS
Note that these are what is called the right
- Netanyahu made his name as a right politician
- Likud to a man and woman is opposed to socialism
Now since this is about Martin Sherman what about him? Well Sherman looks at the situation in Israel and does 2 things
- Sherman like Belman thinks that the Likud and Right are also naive
- While he sees the right as naive only Sherman then confuses the issue totally by referring to what he calls the “left” thus echoing the confusers supreme on this score Geller and Spencer.
Those therefore are two big problems about Sherman.
BUT SHERMAN IS BETTER THAN THE TOTAL CONFUSIONIST CAROLINE GLICK
In his article Sherman makes this reference to Glick:
Regrettably, however, most of these are poorly thought through, and even if implemented, would leave Israel, as the nation-state of the Jewish people, in a situation hardly less beleaguered – diplomatically, politically and physically – than if it adopted the perilous prescription of the Left.
Typically, these alternative proposals fall into three broad categories. (a) Those that would leave Israel with a massive enfranchised Muslim minority (up to 40%) within its frontiers, critically undermining the ability to maintain the dominant Jewish character of the state, whatever the initial electoral arithmetic; (b) those that would leave Israel with excessively long and torturous frontiers, impossible to delineate (other than on a map) and to secure; and (c) those that entail both (a) and (b).
Most of these alternative proposals draw on optimistic (but not necessarily unrealistic) demographic assumptions as to the growth of the Arab population, but pay little heed to the negative effect the proposals might have on the Jewish population, were they to be implemented.
Lamentably, by insisting on blatantly flawed and clearly counter-productive political paradigms as proffered alternatives to the Left’s prescription of appeasement and accommodation, the authors of these proposals and their supporters only bolster the false perception that the latter is the only game in town
In the above Sherman is attacking Caroline Glick. You would hardly know but he is.
That is the good thing about Sherman…he is clear that the Glick proposals are the proposals of somebody who is betraying the Jews. Yes to leave 40 per cent of Muslims inside her Israel, that is a Glick betrayal right there and Sherman calls her on this betrayal.
At least Sherman is clear on the betrayal of Glick.
But there is no way forward at all with Sherman. Jews need a new leadership.