Well who does he remind you of?

by on January 6, 2011 42
2sharesFacebook
5tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

Maybe I'm wrong, but the use of this photograph by Didi Remez strikes me as an Israeli's cry to the world for help. bibi

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 42 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. marc b. says:
    January 6, 2011 at 9:15 am

    more allusions to woody allen from pweiss. netanyahu reminds of the alan alda/mussolini character in ‘crimes and misdemeanors’. or were you aiming lower?

    • DICKERSON3870 says:
      January 6, 2011 at 9:54 pm

      Netanyahu has always reminded me of Benito “Il Duce” Mussolini (both in appearance and demeanor)!
      Michael Ledeen (a devotee of “Italian fascism”) must be madly in love!

      • Kathleen says:
        January 7, 2011 at 10:12 am

        Ledeen has pushed and continues to push for the use of fascist methods. This man should be forced to testify about his role in creating and stovepiping false pre war intelligence. Did I miss it or has congress held someone responsible for the Niger documents?

        Besides being a criminal and liarLedeen is so f–king arrogant. Heard him in person at a Peace Conference at Ohio University.

  3. BradAllen says:
    January 6, 2011 at 9:42 am

    An old arab saying “if you throw mud at the wall, it will soon fall but will always leave a mark”.
    This is a great picture. People will use it as the Zionist media used a picture of the Mufti saluting Nazi troops and as ADL in Canada used a picture of Hamas fighters with similar salute to draw a nazi comparison.
    The articles in the link are excellent to show how Natanyahou is stalling for time. Israel does not have a real interest in reaching a peace agreement at this time. Another year and he can negotiate from a very strong position where he can depend on american presidential hopefuls coming out in full support for a Israel only solution.

  4. idiocr4cy says:
    January 6, 2011 at 9:44 am

    He reminds me of a man who has the western world fooled and is loving every second of it.

  5. Chu says:
    January 6, 2011 at 9:51 am

    Jim Jones (right before things went from bad to worse in Guyana).

  6. seafoid says:
    January 6, 2011 at 9:55 am

    He reminds me of Basil Fawlty .

  7. Taxi says:
    January 6, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Bibi to his assistant: My nail gloss is chipped – time to call congress.

  8. eee says:
    January 6, 2011 at 11:34 am

    I am scratching my head trying to understand this post and the reactions to it. This is clearly Bibi’s expression and hand gesture when he is trying to convey: “Wait one second before jumping in, let me finish explaining something first.”

    I really would like to understand why you think it helps your cause to mock Bibi in this way. It seems to serve some psychological purpose I guess. In the US, you would be indignant if someone did this to Obama, but you relish mocking Bibi in the same way. Strange. Let me stress, you have every right to do this, but your motives are fair game for discussion also.

    • annie says:
      January 6, 2011 at 11:50 am

      mocking him? and what do you think he is doing to us when his office puts out these LIES about wanting “direct one-on-one negotiations” and all the little hasbarists repeatedly blather about “the only option is a negotiated peace agreement for 2 states” all the while REFUSING to even TOUCH the palestinian proposals????

      he looks to me he is staving off complaints or questions from all those beneath him asking that he be held accountable.

      he’s lying to us, delay delay delay. and does it surprise me you’re defending him? not one iota.

      phil made it very clear what he thought of this photo

      strikes me as an Israeli’s cry to the world for help.

      have you followed the link in phil’s post? do you have ANYTHING to say about this deception?

      • eee says:
        January 6, 2011 at 11:57 am

        Yes, I followed the link and it looks dubious to me. Why doesn’t Erikat make public the proposals he wants to make to Bibi’s government so we can see what he is declining to look at? And then let Israeli public opinion build pressure on Bibi if the proposals are interesting.

        Furthermore, why doesn’t Erikat give Mitchell his booklet to get the US to force an Israeli reaction? That is quite easy to do.

        And if Bibi is lying about negotiations, why doesn’t Abu-Mazen call his bluff? What has he got to lose?

        • Chaos4700 says:
          January 6, 2011 at 12:09 pm

          “Booklet,” huh. Still can’t get around denigrating Palestinians, can you?

          Why won’t your government actually negotiate anything? Putting aside this latest example (one of many), there has been a Peace Plan forwarded by the Arab League on the table for just a couple years shy of a decade now, that give Israel everything it (publicly, to the international community) demands.

          The “Blame the Palestinians for everything” line isn’t going to fly, least of which around here. There are Palestinians who are presenting ideas for peaceful resolution. Your government is rebuffing them. Why?

        • eee says:
          January 6, 2011 at 12:50 pm

          Call Bibi’s bluff and sit down and negotiate. What is the worse that can happen? Let’s see really who is the obstacle for peace.

        • annie says:
          January 6, 2011 at 1:01 pm

          Call Bibi’s bluff and sit down and negotiate. What is the worse that can happen?

          bibi and his lawyers refuse to touch or read your proposals?

        • Woody Tanaka says:
          January 6, 2011 at 1:16 pm

          “Call Bibi’s bluff and sit down and negotiate. What is the worse that can happen? Let’s see really who is the obstacle for peace.”

          Party A being willing to receive Party B’s proposal is a prerequisite of the parties “sit[ting] down and negotiat[ing].” In any negotiation. It’s an indispensible element to negotiating. In fact, if one is not willing to accept another’s proposal, they may be doing many things, but “negotiating” is simply not one of them.

          By refusing to “read or touch” the proposal, the Israelis are stating that they are unwilling to negotiate.

        • annie says:
          January 6, 2011 at 1:27 pm

          By refusing to “read or touch” the proposal, the Israelis are stating that they are unwilling to negotiate.

          actually, by refusing to “read or touch” the proposal, the Israelis are refusing the negotiation process while stating the opposite (lying) so they won’t have to take responsibility for their refusals. spinning the blame on palestinians because bibi is too cowardly to admit to the world he has no intention of giving one inch. the emperor has no clothes.

        • mig says:
          January 6, 2011 at 3:35 pm

          eee : “Call Bibi’s bluff and sit down and negotiate. What is the worse that can happen? Let’s see really who is the obstacle for peace.”

          ++++ Again ? Well they tried that in 90′s and look what they got. More settlers. And then some.

          And we know allready who is obstacle and why.

        • RoHa says:
          January 6, 2011 at 6:42 pm

          “actually, by refusing to “read or touch” the proposal, the Israelis are refusing the negotiation process ”

          The overall Israeli position is that negotiations can only start after the Palestinians have agreed to everthing the Israelis want, and apologised for taking so long about it.

        • Hostage says:
          January 6, 2011 at 8:25 pm

          I’ve never understood the way that this “negotiated settlement” is supposed to be concluded while Israel is still occupying the territory, colonizing it, and threatening to annex it if the Palestinians assert their own statehood.

          The Palestinians have publicly demanded a state based upon the 1967 boundaries, and many other countries have recognized the State of Palestine as a legal entity within the 1967 boundaries. The boundaries were established as permanent lines of demarcation that can only be altered with mutual consent. They were adopted by the Security Council acting under the auspices of a series of resolutions that were expressly based upon Articles 39 & 40 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter. See the text of UN SC resolutions 54; 62; and 73.

          Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or independence of any state. Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (.pdf) provides that

          “A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.”

          Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been, and continue to be displaced. Articles 7, 8, and 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention preclude local Palestinian officials from entering into any special agreement with the occupying power that would renounce the rights of the Palestinian people with respect to the prohibition against individual or mass forcible transfers. See the text of Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

          Population transfers are a serious war crime and crime against humanity. Furthermore, the corollary to the prohibition against the use of force is the jus cogens rule of customary international law which prohibits the acquisition of territory by war. Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that

          “A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.”

          It is simply NOT possible to conclude a valid final settlement of the refugee problem, or any “mutual swaps” of territory during the course of a belligerent occupation.

        • irishmoses says:
          January 6, 2011 at 11:36 pm

          Hostage,

          Here is the Zionist party line response that showed up this past week in something I read:

          link to jcpa.org“1967_Borders”_-_No_Such_Borders_Ever_Existed

          It is accurate to the extent that it shows there was no permanent agreement for the 1949 borders that came out of the 1949 truce agreements between Israel and the various Arab states. I don’t think UNSCRs 54, 62 and 73 can be read as establishing a permanent border.

          However, the interim border poses a two-edged sword for Israel since UNR 181 allocated far less of Mandate Palestine to Israel in the 1947 Partition Plan (57 percent versus 78 percent based on the 1949 Green Line interim borders). Israel would have the world believe that it now has a right to negotiate for whatever portion of the remaining 22 percent of the West Bank it wants. That makes no legal sense since the 57 percent partition was founded on a UN decision passed by 2/3 of the UNGA (which Israel immediately accepted and inserted into its own declaration of independence). While it was never formally ratified by the UNSC, UNR 181 provides the only legal basis for Israel’s territorial claim to an exclusive portion of Mandate Palestine (the original 57 percent, not the 78 percent Green Line border).

          While the Palestinians are willing to concede the Green Line border in return for a state on the remaining 22 percent (thereby giving up more than half of what the UN promised them which in itself was grossly unfair) Israel has no legal basis for a claim to that extra 21 percent absent a formal agreement with the Palestinians and/or a UNSC resolution giving it that additional portion. It thus has no legal basis to claim ownership in the extra 21 percent it conquered in 1947-49.

          The “negotiated settlement of a final border” claim by the Israelis is derived from its own unique interpretation of UNR 242. What was intended was minor adjustments to the arbitrary 1949 Green Line cease fire boundaries not a wholesale readjustment to the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Here is a good recent discussion of that issue:

          link to occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com

          So Hostage I agree with you: I don’t see any legal basis for Israel’s claim that the Palestinians are obligated to negotiate with Israel about the final boundaries of the Arab State intended by the UN in the 1947 partition. It seems to me that the UN and the International Court of Justice should have jurisdiction to decide and resolve all of this. What the US and the Quartet should be doing is holding that possibility over the Israelis’ heads as a lever or sword to get them to accept the Palestinian offer (as detailed in the Arab/Geneva Initiative plans) of a solution based roughly on the 1949 Green Line border. That is a very fair deal for the Israelis and the very minimum of what the Palestinians can/should accept.

          The fact that the Israelis may have fatally prevented a two state solution by moving 500,000 of their Jewish citizens into the West Bank and East Jerusalem (which is really still the West Bank) is their fault. Israel shouldn’t be rewarded for stealing and annexing land as an occupying power which are war crimes under the 4th Geneva Convention. If Israel can’t figure out a way of removing at least 400,000 then a one state solution becomes the only possibility.

          How do we get there? An end to US vetos and BDS, a la the ending South African apartheid.

          Gil Maguire

        • Hostage says:
          January 7, 2011 at 4:32 am

          Irishmoses,

          In 1932 the League of Nations adopted general rules for the termination of a mandate regime that precluded the emancipation of only part of the mandated territory. In 1946, when Transjordan attempted to join the UN its application was declined. Objections were raised in the Security Council that it was part of a joint mandate that had not been legally terminated, and that the U.S. Secretary of State had recommended that the review of its application should be postponed until the status of Palestine as a whole had been determined. See Minutes of the 57th Session of the Security Council, S/PV.57 pages 100-101 (pdf file pgs 3-4 of 52)

          The conflict in Palestine was essentially viewed as a civil war. For example, after the Deir Yassin massacre, the members of the Security Council met privately and decided that the anticipated entry of Abdullah into Palestine would not necessarily constitute an act of aggression – if he were coming to the aid of his disorganized and demoralized brethren who had become the objects of Jewish attack. Like Folke Bernadotte, they privately proposed a union of the Arab portions of the Mandate.

          The principles of inter-temporal law would prevent anyone from going to the ICJ on the basis of resolution 181(II) to take back territory legally occupied under the terms of the General Armistice Agreements. The ICJ has already said that it still considers the General Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan to be a valid undertaking. See paragraph 129 (.pdf)of the Wall advisory opinion. Remember that the UN Security Council adopted a decision that recognized the “exclusive competence” of the parties to the agreements to determine their boundaries. That decision is binding on UN member states and UN organs under the terms of Articles 24 and 25 of the UN Charter. Neither side is under any compulsion to accept any modifications. FYI, both sides implicitly recognized the sovereign authority and legal competence of the other party to dispose of any, or all, of the territory it occupied. It is a self-evident principle of law that no two states can agree to dispose of territory that belongs to others. Israeli Ambassador Abba Eban explained that “Israel holds no territory wrongfully, since her occupation of the areas now held [i.e. beyond the borders contained in the partition plan] has been sanctioned by the armistice agreements, as has the occupation of the territory in Palestine now held by the Arab states.” see “Effect on Armistice Agreements”, FRUS Volume VI 1949, page 1149

          Yehuda Blum noted that Jordan contained portions of Arab Palestine and confessed “it is not clear [to me] why the armistice agreement with Israel was signed on April 3, 1949 by “Jordan”, rather than “Transjordan”.” See “The Missing Reversioner: Reflections on the Status of Judea and Samaria”, 3 Israel Law Review 1968, page 287, footnote 24.

          During the 62nd Sitting of the first Knesset, 1 August 1949, Prime Minister Ben Gurion acknowledged that Israel had tacitly recognized the borders of the Arab states. He explained that the UN and the states that recognized Israel had not yet recognized its expanded borders, but that the Arab States had given in and recognized them through the armistice agreements. He said “I will not go into pointless argument on who gave in to whom. I will admit quite openly and simply that we gave in too… We gained immensely, on on both a political and territorial level from all of these documents, precisely because we knew when to give in. Every time we gave in… we expanded our borders and strengthened our position.” He stated that the UN resolution had only granted Israel “14,900,000 dunams, and that only one-third of that area had been genuinely in our hands. In nearly ten million dunams in the south we barely had a hold of any kind. Now the state consists of over twenty million dunams, all of which we control. In theory the state has grown by only five million dunams, but in practice it has grown by fifteen.” He added that about five million had been added by conquest and that five hundred thousand had been added by peaceful means in the armistice agreements with Jordan and Syria. See pages 541 and 542 of Major Knesset Debates, 1948-1981, Volume 2, Netanel Lorch, University Press/JCPA, 1993.

          The legal consequences of the armistice agreements have always been misrepresented to the public. The assassinations of Sadat and Rabin were not isolated incidents. Between 1948 and 1950 Folke Bernadotte and nearly every Arab leader who had dealt with Israel in the Armistice negotiations had been assassinated – Nokrashy in Egypt, Zaim in Syria, Riad Solh in Lebanon, and Abdullah in Jordan. After Abdullah was killed, Abba Eban said this striking coincidence, if it was a coincidence, would undoubtedly be a strong deterrent to any other Arab leader dealing with Israel.

          In 1948, the US Consul in Jerusalem reported that Israel and Jordan were essentially concluding an armistice agreement under the guise of negotiating a cease fire. He said that was being done to minimize the possibility of criticism from the other Arab States that King Abdullah had accepted partition. See the footnote on page 1638 of the 1948 FRUS, Volume 5.

          The UN Security Council Truce Commission subsequently advised the US State Department that Transjordan was ready for direct negotiations under the guise of cease-fire talks and that both sides would consider the agreements permanent without saying so publicly.

          Elmer Berger did a good job of documenting that, unlike the agreements with the other Arab states, the Israeli-Jordanian agreement was the result of direct negotiations, not the work of the UN Mediator or the representatives at the Rhodes diplomatic conference.

          Like the Arab leaders, Ben Gurion had kept the public and the Knesset completely in that dark. The belated parliamentary discussions of the armistice agreement with Jordan took place on the day after the agreement had been signed.

        • irishmoses says:
          January 7, 2011 at 10:31 pm

          Hostage,

          Thank you for your detailed reply. I’ve read the links you provided but I’m not convinced that they stand for the proposition that Israel has a valid legal claim to the additional 21 percent of Mandate Palestine it conquered in 1948-49. Much of what you’ve offered seems to be opinion about the reality of Israel’s position rather than its legality. For instance, paragraph 129 deals with the Holy Sites portion of 181 and the fact that the armistice agreements confirmed that portion. It says nothing about the additional 21 percent conquered by Israel above the 181 partition. Your “Affect on the Armistice Agreements” cite is very equivocal and merely cites Eban’s opinion.

          I think you are correct that an agreement by the parties would be enforceable but there seems very little likelihood of that. So, what is the Palestinian’s remedy if no reasonable agreement is forthcoming? It has to go back to the UN unless you believe Israel can legally stand pat and do nothing or offer a Bantustan agreement that is neither fair nor acceptable to the Palestinians. Since 181 was never ratified by the security council, all options remain open. The UN could ask for an advisory opinion by the ICJ or proceed on its own. Whatever it decides, enforcement will be a major problem but that was also a problem with South Africa; eventually world outrage and BDS forced a change even there.

          I do agree that the 49 Green Line borders are likely to be the basis for any agreement or any UN solution merely because that has been the reality on the ground since 1949, not because Israel has any valid legal claim to the additional 21 percent it conquered. I also agree that the Green Line armistice borders were probably acceptable to the Arabs in 1949 but Israel was unwilling to limit itself to a mere 78 percent share of Mandate Palestine. It remains unwilling.

          Gil Maguire

        • Hostage says:
          January 9, 2011 at 5:07 am

          Irishmoses,

          The International Courts of Justice have always applied the contract law theory of “acceptance”. They have held that the resolutions of international organizations regarding the delimitation of borders are merely recommendations, unless both parties have specifically agreed in advance to “accept” the competence of the organization to reach a decision on the question. See for example, Interpretation of Article 3‚ Paragraph 2‚ of the Treaty of Lausanne” Even the final treaty of peace did not immediately provide for a fully delineated boundary.

          It would be a mistake to conclude that only a permanent boundary can have “de jure” legal consequences under international law. In the North Sea Continental Shelf Case, the ICJ said that “There is no rule that the land frontiers of a State must be fully delimited and defined, and often in various places and for long periods they are not, as is shown by the case of the entry of Albania into the League of Nations (Monastery of Saint Naoum, Advisor): Opinion, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 9, at p. 10).” That same legal principle certainly applied to the entry of both Israel and Jordan into the United Nations.

          The ICJ is a creature of the UN Charter. It can only hand down binding decisions in contentious cases that involve state parties that have specifically accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. The statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) strictly limits that court’s jurisdiction to “natural persons”, i.e. government officials. But the Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to legal entities, such as States. See Article 25 of the Rome Statute. As a pragmatic matter, criminal courts must make determinations of the existence of statehood. For example, international criminal law distinguishes between forced internal displacement and involuntary population transfers across an international boundary. Criminal courts have used recognition of boundaries by other state parties as a legal test. See for example the decision of the Trial Chamber in the Milosevic case The ICTY noted that even before a state is recognized, it has the right to protect its territorial integrity and independence.

          The UN resolution which requested the Advisory Opinion in the Wall case cited the fact that the construction of the Wall was “in departure from the Armistice Line of 1949 (Green Line) and which has involved the confiscation and destruction of Palestinian land and resources”. Paragraphs 72-78 of the opinion cited UN Security Council resolution 62 and the Armistice Agreements. Those paragraphs explain that the Green Line boundary has agreed upon legal consequences under both conventional and customary international law – until such time as the parties “might” agree to rectifications.

          Resolution 181(II) has legal consequences apart from the plan of partition. The legal analysis of the Court in paragraph 129 of the Wall opinion relied in part upon on a compromissory clause contained in the UN partition plan regarding “existing” minority rights. It begins with the guarantees contained in article 62 of the
          Treaty of Berlin (1878)          . Those rights were not limited to freedom of movement to the Holy sites. They included broad guarantees of equality and non-discrimination in the areas of civil and political rights, and property rights . The Court then noted those “existing rights” were the subject of safeguarding clauses contained in Article 13 of the Mandate and resolution 181(II). In fact an entire Chapter of resolution 181(II) had been devoted to their protection. The minority rights protection plan contained in UN GA resolution 181(II), “C. Declaration” contains a compromissory clause which gives the ICJ jurisdiction. The General Assembly subsequently recognized declarations supplied by Israel and Palestine as being in line with resolution 181(II). See resolutions 273/3; 43/177; and the discussion about the resolution 181(II) guarantees in Chapter “III The United Nations Charter and the treaties concluded after the war”, starting on page 22, in E/CN.4/367 There is no corresponding compromissory clause regarding the delimitation of boundaries in the UN resolution.

    • seafoid says:
      January 6, 2011 at 12:46 pm

      Bibi is a muppet, eee

      Future post Zionist historians will identify him as one of the key men who drove the process that brought down Israel.

    • Polly says:
      January 6, 2011 at 1:42 pm

      Phil, I think you undermine the aims of your site when you post something like this. It’s a funny and ironic picture to show someone in private but it just creates a mob mentality on here.

  9. saritalr says:
    January 6, 2011 at 11:53 am

    A local VA area paper is publishing columns by Helen Thomas – the first one just appeared today. Unfortunately the comment section is being overrun by negative comments.

    link to fcnp.com

  10. Leper Colonialist says:
    January 6, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    King Canute. Though instead of holding back the tide, little Bibi, deluded to the max, thinks he capable of holding back demography, public opinion, the increasing [albiet at a glacial pace] disgust felt by the American taxpayer with the words and deeds of Israel, and sentiment for either a one-state or two-state solution.

    Either that or he’s channeling a long-forgotten childhood desire to be a traffic cop.

  11. esteban folsom says:
    January 6, 2011 at 4:33 pm

    a closed fist
    like a closed mind
    holds nothing

    only useful
    for one thing
    -
    this gesture says to me
    ‘hold on -i know what’s best for you-
    -
    it will take awhile
    with great effort
    but the fist will open

    and in the palm of his hands
    each man will see
    his salvation proceeds
    from his own efforts
    [in concert with all of us]

    bibi’s people
    can be at the front of the line
    -in this realization -
    or dragged behind

    either way
    it’s gonna happen

    extend a hand in friendship
    or receive one in enmity

  12. hophmi says:
    January 6, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    This is sophmoric, Phil.

    But typical, unfortunately.

    • Chaos4700 says:
      January 6, 2011 at 7:46 pm

      Irony! Painful irony!

      At least Phil has you out-classed, if nothing else.

      • hophmi says:
        January 6, 2011 at 8:34 pm

        No, 4700, Phil does not have me outclassed. There is no class in this post. It is just a waste of time. Even Phil doesn’t believe that Netanyahu is a fascist.

        It’s for people like you who get off on this kind of stupidity.

        You’re being condescended to, and you don’t even know it. Sad.

        • annie says:
          January 6, 2011 at 8:42 pm

          There is no class in this post. It is just a waste of time. Even Phil doesn’t believe that Netanyahu is a fascist.

          so why do you think didi remez posted it? obviously when phil saw it he thought an Israeli’s cry to the world for help. it was an honest reaction to what he saw. why does it have to become a matter of class? do you find this information disturbing?

        • Chaos4700 says:
          January 6, 2011 at 8:42 pm

          You wouldn’t know class if it tapped you politely on the shoulder and cleared its throat. But then it doesn’t take a whole lot of class to drop bombs on UN schools, does it?

        • annie says:
          January 6, 2011 at 8:47 pm

          please keep in mind didi and others in the peace movement there are watching their friends and fellow activists being jailed and in the case of silwan community activist adnan gheith banned from his home. and people they support murdered in the case of jawaher. there are plenty other examples too, that is just this week. and then to read they are just being flat out lied to. do you ever feel a sense of desperation or do you just feel confident the state is strong enough to keep on keepin on under these circumstances?

        • irishmoses says:
          January 7, 2011 at 1:41 am

          Hophni (and eee and Polly):

          While I can understand your indignation from an Israeli standpoint; of course you don’t think you are living under facism. But, put yourselves in the shoes of a Palestinian in Gaza, East Jerusalem or the West Bank, or even an Israeli Arab. Don’t you not think that any of those folks could have a reasonable view of Neyanyahu and his current Israeili govenment as at least borderline facist? It is also noteworthy that references or illusions to that government as facist or facist-like are becoming more and more commonplace in the Israeli press.

          Defending Israel against unwarranted or unfair attacks is one thing, but I think you guys have your heads in the sand about what is going on in Israel under the current government. I can’t believe you really agree with the current policies and government edicts. What’s going on there is insane, suicidal, Masada-like. You’re wasting energy fighting inconsequential semantic battles on this site while Israel implodes into near facism around you.

          I think by and large you, eee, Yonira and others are sincere in what you believe, but if you really care about Israel, you need to change your focus and work to stop the death spiral. The battle isn’t here, it’s on the streets of Jerusalem and in the territories. It infects the army and the civilian bureaucracy. It’s a battle against religious fundamentalism and extremism, enabled by self-serving hard-line Zionist politicians that is destroying Israeli democracy. It is getting palpably worse every day. Soon, maybe this year, there will be no turning back. What then? I suppose you can always emigrate to the US when it gets too bad.

          Gil Maguire

  13. VR says:
    January 6, 2011 at 11:41 pm

    The photo says to, when in Israel do as the fascists do

  14. Kathleen says:
    January 7, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Here is the real Bibi and never ever forget this
    “Netanyahu: ‘America is a thing you can move very easily’
    link to youtube.com

  15. Kathleen says:
    January 7, 2011 at 10:42 am

    Tricki Bibi
    link to haaretz.com

    This video should have been banned for broadcast to minors. This video should have been shown in every home in Israel, then sent to Washington and Ramallah. Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel. Channel 10 presented: The real (and deceitful ) face of Binyamin Netanyahu. Broadcast on Friday night on “This Week with Miki Rosenthal,” it was filmed secretly in 2001, during a visit by Citizen Netanyahu to the home of a bereaved family in the settlement of Ofra, and astoundingly, it has not created a stir.