Israel agrees to freeze settlement construction as gesture to US

[amit85]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3763386,00.html

I am really pissed now.  If left government was doing something like it all coutry would protest. But since settlements are freezed by so called "right" no one cares  That's insane. 

I voted for Likud and now I see was fooled. I wish i listened to Chaim. Phony right is much worse than left.

[Confederate Kahanist]

Just watch the West bank become third world territory. 

[Zionist Revolutionary]

Damn Israeli appeasers!

[MarZutra]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3763386,00.html

I am really pissed now.  If left government was doing something like it all coutry would protest. But since settlements are freezed by so called "right" no one cares  That's insane. 

I voted for Likud and now I see was fooled. I wish i listened to Chaim. Phony right is much worse than left.

In protest, I said the same thing months ago.  The worst tragedies in both America and Israel come from the so-called "right" not the left.  This is another example of treason and corruption at the highest levels.  If the Right were truly right, Israel would tell the world to [censored] and mind their own business and build on THEIR land while America would close the ....ing border and toss out this idea of Socialist Medicare like Cuba or Canada.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Phony right is much worse than left.

How so?   Isn't it just the same?   If the result is the same, what's the difference?   In any event, I imagine this would happen much sooner and with much worse in addition to it if it was the left that was elected.   Better off with the right, but they still betray as you see right here.   Goal should be to change the right and influence it, not to give up and sit out and let the left and arabs run the show.

[MarZutra]

It is despicable for the Right to do any such thing.  A pure example of shame, fraud and corruption.  When one on the Left speaks or does this it is expected as per their "enlightened" self hating Utopian pseudo-religion but if one on the "Right" does it, it is purely corruption and criminal.  When one on the Right (which stands pretty much for everything contra to the egalitarian communalist idea) campaigns on a Right Wing platform and wins it is pure treason for him to revert to a "Leftist" schema.  Like a wolf in sheep's clothing.  A flat out lie.  One does not expect one from the Right to do Left and one from the Left to do Right. 

Sadly, this has happened all too often in both America, England and Israel.  It is happening here with Stephen Harper as we speak.  Just a few weeks ago he signed another "Free Trade" (Marxism) agreement with Mexico. 

It would be best if those whom are elected actually DO what they were elected to do. 

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

It would be best if those whom are elected actually DO what they were elected to do. 

Of course.  But at the end of the day, you're better off electing the right, and then you have a chance they'll do what they were put there to do.   If you elect the left or sit out elections so the left wins.... then you're guaranteed to get shafted....

[MarZutra]

I'd rather know what I'm getting.  If one elects a leftist they get what they vote for.  If one elects a right wing that individual should be held accountable by option of very real possibility of being taken to trial and jailed...  The problem is, like Canadians, Americans are too dumbed down to do what their forefathers had done: Boston Tea Party, American Revolution etc.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

How so?   Isn't it just the same?   If the result is the same, what's the difference?   In any event, I imagine this would happen much sooner and with much worse in addition to it if it was the left that was elected.   Better off with the right, but they still betray as you see right here.   Goal should be to change the right and influence it, not to give up and sit out and let the left and arabs run the show.

What he means is that the p.r. is more likely to get the public behind these insane retreats than the honest left.

[cjd]

I'd rather know what I'm getting.  If one elects a leftist they get what they vote for.  If one elects a right wing that individual should be held accountable by option of very real possibility of being taken to trial and jailed...  The problem is, like Canadians, Americans are too dumbed down to do what their forefathers had done: Boston Tea Party, American Revolution etc.

The other morning I was listening to one of the local talk show hosts on the radio at work. The host was talking about the shvartza Administrations antics in Washington. A fellow I work with remarked to me that there is really not much we can do but grin and bare it. I sharply responded to him that there was quite a bit we could do. When I told him a good old revolution might be in order I saw his back stiffen and I though he and another guy who was near by were going to faint. The real problem is for now not much has been taken away from the American people.... Unemployment is a bit high but for the most part the chickens Reverend Wright talked about last year have not really come home to roost. Let things get really out of proportion and then see the picture change over night.

[AsheDina]

Well, Pretty soon America will be saying "WE HAVE A RIGHT TO EXIST"

[MarZutra]

cjd, you pointed out exactly my point.  You think like an American while those around you have been infected with this progressive dumbing down and passiveness.  You know, I really liked the book "Decline of the American Republic" by John T. Flynn.  It was written in the mid '50's some of its contents are the blatant unconstitutional power, growth/expansion and deeds of the Federal Government.  The stacking of the Supreme Court with Left Leaning Judges by the various Presidents Democrat and "Republican", The power structure of Wall St. (Banking and Industrialists) and its pressure, interations and influence on the Government and lastly the pure unconstitutional socialization of America with examples like the TVP (Tennessee Valley Act/Authority).  In the back he includes a copy of the US Constitution to show how far and how much the Federal Government has expanded its power, expanded its authority, expanded period and usurped the power away from the States were, according to the Constitution, actually lies... 

What one must keep in mind is that the book was written in 1955.  This, as Flynn states, had been going on prior to the printing of his book and is still going on openly today....  This is one example, of why I personally feel that it is all a fraud.  No matter who you get to choose from to be President, the outcome will be the same....  ("With No Apologies" the personal biography of Berry Goldwater is very good for those who wish to see how Ronald Reagan had to bend over to the Establishment for this Presidency.  I didn't say this, strait from the pen of Sen. Berry Goldwater '64 Presidential Candidate who challenged the Establishment and lost...)

Agreed cjd 100% and it is sad.  Canada is the same way....

[cjd]

It is very sad and something I never though I would really get to the extent its has  in America or Canada. The book you speak of must be very good it still commands $25.00 on Amazon

[MarZutra]

Yes cjd, it is a good book.  There are many out there but this one, due to its date and who the author is, makes it a bit more creditable.  I lucked out and picked my copy at a book fair for $1.00 or something.  It is on Abebooks for $6.50.  You are lucky in the States you can get books cheep while here in Canada the price triples due to shipping or the seller not shipping to Canada. 

AbeBooks: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=Flynn&sts=t&tn=Decline+of+the+American+Republic&x=0&y=0

Albris Books: http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?invid=9888098529&author=flynn&qwork=1538341&title=decline+of+the+american+republic&qsort=&page=1

[syyuge]

Freezing of the settlement constructions may also lead to expansion of the mosques.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I'd rather know what I'm getting. 

That to me makes no sense.

If you vote right, you are 50/50 (or whatever) that they are going to do the right thing.   (whether you know or can be sure or not).

If you vote left, you are 100% guaranteed they will destroy you.

Either way you are powerless to stop them once you elect them.  So what difference does it make if you "know" or don't know ahead of time whether the rightwing you elect will betray you or not, and how often or on how many issues they will (and that of course you can't always know even with a phony like Bibi).

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

If you vote right, you are 50/50 (or whatever) that they are going to do the right thing.   (whether you know or can be sure or not).

If you vote left, you are 100% guaranteed they will destroy you.

Either way you are powerless to stop them once you elect them.  So what difference does it make if you "know" or don't know ahead of time whether the rightwing you elect will betray you or not, and how often or on how many issues they will (and that of course you can't always know even with a phony like Bibi).

I disagree. The so-called right and the so-called left in Israel always wind up doing the same thing--stabbing the Jewish people in the back. The only difference is that the right pretends not to for a while and that with the left, at least some of the people will stand up and resist it.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

and that with the left, at least some of the people will stand up and resist it.

How?    When has this happened?

Show me historical examples of this happening.   Because it doesn't.     It makes you feel better that the newspaper has a few more angry articles or the people have a few more protests or dislike the govt a bit more?    What purpose does any of that serve and what does it accomplish?  Nothing!   

The people largely hated Olmert as PM.   Approval rating was something like 1%.   It didn't stop him from offering Abbas 96-98% (reports vary) of Judea and Samaria.    It didn't stop him from trying to negotiate with Syria and hinting to them that he would give away Golan Heights.    What stopped that was the new election, in fact, where he was ousted.


Did protests stop Rabin and Oslo accords?   No.   Did anger at the left stop them from importing arafat y's and thousands of his terrorist nazi cronies into Israel from Tunisia?  NO.   Did it stop Barak's surrender to Lebanon (first war) or suicidal policies there?  No.     Did protest/anger against the left change their course after their pathetic 'mercy on lebanese' campaign of 2006 and 'praying for a miracle' ceasefire agreement (a miracle that UN would "enforce peace" at the border)   No.


Once they are elected, the public is powerless to stop them once they have determined course on a given issue.   I can't see the logic in actively electing the left/meretz/arab coalition under kadima (that includes not voting, which because of how Israel's system is structured, is basically giving a vote to the left).

The protests also did not stop expulsion from Gaza.   The public will (which WAS against it, even though it was led by a so-called rightwing strongman) did not stop that.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

The people largely hated Olmert as PM.   Approval rating was something like 1%.   It didn't stop him from offering Abbas 96-98% (reports vary) of Judea and Samaria.    It didn't stop him from trying to negotiate with Syria and hinting to them that he would give away Golan Heights.    What stopped that was the new election, in fact, where he was ousted.

It would have been very hard for him to have gotten the entire country behind any massive surrender policies. Agreeing to it is one thing. If Olmert would have tried to go through with it, he would have been met with massive resistance on the ground. I do not think he or Ehud Barak would have been able to get the nation behind the Gaza withdrawal. Sharon was able to get the country to go along with him because as a so-called "rightist", people trusted him more and felt that if he really thought that it was necessary for peace, then it really must be.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

The people largely hated Olmert as PM.   Approval rating was something like 1%.   It didn't stop him from offering Abbas 96-98% (reports vary) of Judea and Samaria.    It didn't stop him from trying to negotiate with Syria and hinting to them that he would give away Golan Heights.    What stopped that was the new election, in fact, where he was ousted.

It would have been very hard for him to have gotten the entire country behind any massive surrender policies. Agreeing to it is one thing. If Olmert would have tried to go through with it, he would have been met with massive resistance on the ground. I do not think he or Ehud Barak would have been able to get the nation behind the Gaza withdrawal. Sharon was able to get the country to go along with him because as a so-called "rightist", people trusted him more and felt that if he really thought that it was necessary for peace, then it really must be.

"Resistance on the ground" ?  LIKE WHAT?     If by resistance you mean angry editorials, cab-driver criticism, and lots of people who think it will be a disaster - that is not resistance , that is hot air !

The same hot air we saw in Gush Katif.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

Yes, exactly, hot air. Since Sharon was "the right", the vast majority of the Israeli right passively accepted it, even if they did not agree with it. They didn't think there was any point in opposing a fellow member of the "Israeli right".

Compare the Israeli resistance at Amona, a relatively small settlement, when Olmert was in power, to all of the resistance for Gaza.

[✡ Hindu Zionist ॐ]

it does not matter if israeli gov has freezed the settlements. The patriotic and a fighter israeli will continue to build or stay there, eg. Hilltop Youth

Amit, are you Indian? from the names it sounds so.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Yes, exactly, hot air. Since Sharon was "the right", the vast majority of the Israeli right passively accepted it, even if they did not agree with it. They didn't think there was any point in opposing a fellow member of the "Israeli right".

The hot air I was referring to is the so-called "resistance" put up against leftwing govt's.    I already cited you a number of examples from WHILE OLMERT WAS IN OFFICE.

Compare the Israeli resistance at Amona, a relatively small settlement, when Olmert was in power, to all of the resistance for Gaza.

BS.   The physical resistance at Amona was mostly due to lessons learned from the Gush Katif failure, and also the difference in ideology between the groups in these two places (Just to give you a hint, Gush Katif was very different place of settlers than those who filled up Amona and came to defend it).     Gush Katif resistance failed not because of the reasons you say.   It failed because of unwillingness to do what was necessary (would be true under rightwing or leftwing govt leadership - no difference there, both represent Israeli state which many are unwilling to oppose even if it's an evil policy against themselves), and because of active betrayal from within.   There were thousands of settlers willing to show up and defend Gush Katif like those who showed up and defended Amona.   These thousands were betrayed by so-called leaders within the so-called resistance.   Not because expulsion was left- or right- directed policy.   But because it was Israeli policy, plain and simple.

If you think Gush Katif failed because rightwing people thought it was a "good idea" 'since ol' sharon said so' you really have no idea what you're talking about, and have either misread this situation or come to an inaccurate oversimplified conclusion not based on the facts and just assumed it was correct. 

But the fact remains despite all of these semantics I'm picking at with you.   Amona was a failure at the end of the day.   The tactics may have been more sound than at Gush Katif, the ideology might have been better, but the "resistance" failed because Amona no longer stands.

And that is what I meant by comparing the "hot air" of so-called "resistance" to the left - comparing that hot air with gush Katif.    Not that gush katif was hot air.   It failed for a whole slew of different reasons.   But because the end result is the same.     The govt goes thru with its plan undeterred.    And that is GUARANTEED by the hot air of angry editorials, cab-driver criticism, and public discomfort with - the left.

[MarZutra]

It makes perfect sense.  I wish not to delve into the same crap that caused past conflicts.  You'll see when you read books like John T. Flynn or the memoirs of various politicians.  The fact of the matter is the "Left" and the "Right" are both financed and organized by the exact same entities....  At least that's what Goldwater, MacDonald, Rockefeller and others had to say.  I think they'd know better then I.  ;-)

I'd just like to vote for one that will do what he says he'll do and has the balls to say openly what he feels like Geert Wilders for example.

[Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks]

The hot air I was referring to is the so-called "resistance" put up against leftwing govt's.    I already cited you a number of examples from WHILE OLMERT WAS IN OFFICE.

I never said it was ENOUGH resistance--just that it was more with the leftist than the phony rightist.

Compare the Israeli resistance at Amona, a relatively small settlement, when Olmert was in power, to all of the resistance for Gaza.
[/quote]

BS.   The physical resistance at Amona was mostly due to lessons learned from the Gush Katif failure, and also the difference in ideology between the groups in these two places (Just to give you a hint, Gush Katif was very different place of settlers than those who filled up Amona and came to defend it).[/quote]
And also because average "settlers" (I really hate that term, I prefer pioneers) were now facing a regime that OVERTLY hated them.

Gush Katif resistance failed not because of the reasons you say.   It failed because of unwillingness to do what was necessary (would be true under rightwing or leftwing govt leadership - no difference there, both represent Israeli state which many are unwilling to oppose even if it's an evil policy against themselves), and because of active betrayal from within.

Yes, I am very aware of the perfidy wrought by the so-called Yesha Council, but at the same time facts are facts. Arik Sharon had a trumped-up reputation as a great war hero and stalwart opponent of any concessions. Israelis had a lot more personal respect for him than they do Olmert or Barak. That's undeniable. That is 100% established fact and any Israeli will agree with me. Even if they personally disagreed with Sharon, nobody (or very few people) would ever actually believe he deliberately wished to harm fellow Jews. THIS lulled a lot of sincere rightists into not resisting with any more means than by chanting and singing songs to the Nazi soldiers and cops.

There were thousands of settlers willing to show up and defend Gush Katif like those who showed up and defended Amona.   These thousands were betrayed by so-called leaders within the so-called resistance.   Not because expulsion was left- or right- directed policy.   But because it was Israeli policy, plain and simple.

They were talked into "peaceful protests" by their leaders, yes, but still, very few of the protestors truly hated Sharon the way they would Feces Now or similar self-hating leftists.

If you think Gush Katif failed because rightwing people thought it was a "good idea" 'since ol' sharon said so'

This explains a big part of it, yes. Maybe they didn't actually think it was a good idea, but they didn't think it was right to violently oppose such a proven "war hawk" as Sharon.

you really have no idea what you're talking about, and have either misread this situation or come to an inaccurate oversimplified conclusion not based on the facts and just assumed it was correct. 

Have you listened to any Ask JTFs comparing public acceptance of the left vs. the "right"?

But the fact remains despite all of these semantics I'm picking at with you.   Amona was a failure at the end of the day.   The tactics may have been more sound than at Gush Katif, the ideology might have been better, but the "resistance" failed because Amona no longer stands.

Ultimately any "resistance" will fail as long as the secular, brainwashed majority of Israel allows the Bolshevik media to talk them into opposing "religious extremists" and the like--but does that mean we should give up and stop trying?

And that is what I meant by comparing the "hot air" of so-called "resistance" to the left - comparing that hot air with gush Katif.    Not that gush katif was hot air.   It failed for a whole slew of different reasons.

How many people actually physically resisted at Gush Katif? Yeah, 10,000 Jews might have showed up to oppose it, but how many of those were strictly "peaceful protestors"?

But because the end result is the same.     The govt goes thru with its plan undeterred.    And that is GUARANTEED by the hot air of angry editorials, cab-driver criticism, and public discomfort with - the left.

You are correct, there is a whole lot more public outrage when the Israeli honest-left does horrible things than when the Israeli phony-right does.