Peres tasks Netanyahu with forming new government
Jerry Gordon comment;
Bibi gets the nod, while Livni postures for not having been able to form a government, something she couldn;t do four months ago. Now, we’ll see if Bibi can fashion an effective right block coalition.
by Elie Leshem, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 20, 2009
PM designee Netanyahu and Pres. Peres
Netanyahu arrived as Beit Hanassi on Friday afternoon and received the president’s official letter of appointment.
Earlier, after emerging from a meeting with Peres, Livni announced that she had no intention of joining a broad coalition under Netanyahu, despite the Likud chairman’s assertion that he was willing to “go to great lengths” in order to induce Kadima to join his government.
“It appears that the coalition which has been formed in recent days lacks diplomatic vision,” Livni said after the meeting. The Kadima leader rejected the president’s plea that she reconsider joining a coalition comprised of the three largest parties - Kadima, Likud and Israeli Beiteinu - and asserted that a “broad coalition is worthless if it is not governed by values.” (Continue Reading this Article)
“Livni announced that she had no intention of joining a broad coalition under Netanyahu”
————–
Expect Livni to join a broad coalition with Netanyahu… not… OK… no… yes… How much?… No thanks… maybe…
————–
“The Kadima leader rejected the president’s plea that she reconsider joining a coalition comprised of the three largest parties - Kadima, Likud and Israeli Beiteinu - and asserted that a ‘broad coalition is worthless if it is not governed by values.’”
————–
Ignore this.
————–
Meanwhile,
“(IsraelNN.com) The United States’ Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, said Thursday that the Obama administration has no intention of interfering in the contacts between Israeli parties centering on the formation of the new governing coalition.”
————–
Read,
“The Obama administration has every intention of interfering in the contacts between Israeli parties centering on the formation of the new governing coalition, and has been actively doing so.”
————–
Yamit, I think I’m starting to sound like you.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — February 20, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
Hey Bland, that’s excellent.
Comment by Ed D — February 20, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
You could do worse: You could sound like BlandOatmeal or even G-d forbid Peskin! Lol
Comment by yamit82 — February 20, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1233304824777&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Another Tack: Uninhibited ad hominem
By SARAH HONIG
Argumentum ad hominem (Latin for “argument against the man”) is an insidiously effective and widespread polemical technique. Its essence consists of attacking a given person in order to discredit his message. There may be no objective fault with said message - indeed, it may be cogent and excellent - but it’s never properly evaluated because the messenger is spitefully trashed.
Deflecting attention from the issues via character assassination is very prevalent in our politics and certainly predates the state. Even before becoming Israel’s first premier, David Ben-Gurion was already a master practitioner surpassed by none. He spoke of Ze’ev Jabotinsky as Vladimir Hitler - no less (for the attention of those pure souls among us who shudder at any Nazi-allusions). Ironically, Ben-Gurion was lots closer to Jabotinsky in no-nonsense realism than generally acknowledged and eventually ended up implementing the very policies which Jabotinsky presciently advocated - hence, perhaps, BG’s psychological hang-ups.
When not branding Menachem Begin an abhorrent fascist, Ben-Gurion rendered him a non-person and referred only to “that man seated next to Dr. Bader.” This isn’t irrelevant ancient history. Ad hominem propaganda is endemic, if not genetic, to Israel’s left-wing dialectics, where the merits of an opponent’s assertions are sidestepped by besmirching him.
This campaign season’s auxiliary bête noir was Avigdor Lieberman. Though a secondary target, he drew ferocious fire. It got so bad that one couldn’t suggest in polite society that attention be paid to real anomalies which Lieberman highlighted. The vogue was to paint him a bigotry-monger and ignore flagrant sedition in Israel’s Arab sector, sanctioned by uber-liberal Supreme Court legal interpretations.
Lieberman recommended no ruthless repression but merely a pledge of allegiance from all Israelis as a prerequisite to citizenship - Jews and Arabs alike. Voters who responded to Lieberman’s pitch weren’t hate-crazed. They were frustrated that their existential common sense was haughtily dismissed by elitist bigwigs who maintain that our democracy must self-destruct in the name of democratic ideals - that democracy must allow those who blatantly and brazenly side with genocidal enemies during wartime to continue undermining our survival prospects at our expense. CONTINUED: Full article
Comment by yamit82 — February 21, 2009 @ 4:06 am
The Left can never win on ideas. They never need to support their claims, they never admit they’re wrong, they demand their opponents produce proof for their claims and they are certain other people are always wrong. It is impossible to have a real debate with a leftist because under leftist rules, you are not allowed to win it. And they know well the danger of that happening so they personally seek to discredit a non-leftist first. Never mind Avigdor Lieberman may have a point about the Arabs. He cannot be welcomed in Israeli polite society because he is not as a leftist, as Haaretz’s hysterical denunciations of him in its editorial make clear. The danger Israel’s Arab minority presents to the State is ignored by the Left due to the fact they have no real answer to Lieberman. To the Left, he is the danger, not the enemy within the Jewish State. Sarah Honig in dealing with the way the leftists react to opponents, shows how the fruits of the Oslo Era, far from strengthening them, had has the opposite result of leading to their demise. In Israel’s that’s been a very salutary development.
Comment by NormanF — February 21, 2009 @ 7:40 am