I had to get this off my chest.
Jan. 13th, 2009 09:47 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsidheEhud Olmert, Caretaker Prime Minister of Israel (due to his having stepped down because he is under police investigation for corruption) boasts (as part of an election campaign, which campaign only conspiracy theorists consider might be linked to his decision to invade the world's biggest prison, and only the deeply cynical could possibly think was an abuse of thousands of conscripts reservists and national servicemen in what amounts to a massive campaign stunt) that he called up George W. Bush, summoned him peremptorally out of a speech, and flat out told him how the US was to vote in a UN Security Council resolution, and they did.
A man under police investigation for corruption[1][2] calls up your sovereign executive and instructs him how to vote in an international forum, and his instructions are obeyed.
So, given that you have surrendered your foreign policy to the control of another country, at what point does pointing this out stop being “anti-Semitic”?
[1] Yes, Israel actually has processes where the executive can be investigated by the police, where Gaza is run by the very corrupt thugs who would be the first in gaol in a civilised country, but forget that. Given that the police have officially started corruption proceedings against this man, why are you not outraged that he is giving pre-emptive orders to your Commander-in-Chief, and being obeyed? If you believe him, of course. I eagerly await the White House statement that no such phone call was made and Olmert is simply a blowhard liar. And would then point out that it was at his command that families are being bombed in their beds and shelters.
[2] Yeah, presumption of innocence is a wonderful thing, but if a charge is serious enough to prompt resignation from a post, then why in the love of Herself is he then allowed to keep acting in the position, and prosecute awar massacre which has managed to prompt attacks from two other countries now (first from Hizbollah, now from Syria)?
Surely a ‘caretaker’ would have limitations on what he can do? Or was his ‘resignation’ made with his fingers crossed or something?
(Insert standard “Yes, Hamas are evil, bloodthirsty fucking sons-of-bitches, it shouldn't need to be said, why is it not possible for anyone to mention that Israel might be wrong without a complete reiteration of how evil Hamas are if they don't want to be dismissed with ‘you are anti-Semitic and love Hamas and are filth’, for fuck's sake, can't I make a point about Israel without having to make the ‘are you now or have you ever been a Hamas-loving anti-Semite’ affirmation in its entirety again” statement here.)
A man under police investigation for corruption[1][2] calls up your sovereign executive and instructs him how to vote in an international forum, and his instructions are obeyed.
So, given that you have surrendered your foreign policy to the control of another country, at what point does pointing this out stop being “anti-Semitic”?
[1] Yes, Israel actually has processes where the executive can be investigated by the police, where Gaza is run by the very corrupt thugs who would be the first in gaol in a civilised country, but forget that. Given that the police have officially started corruption proceedings against this man, why are you not outraged that he is giving pre-emptive orders to your Commander-in-Chief, and being obeyed? If you believe him, of course. I eagerly await the White House statement that no such phone call was made and Olmert is simply a blowhard liar. And would then point out that it was at his command that families are being bombed in their beds and shelters.
[2] Yeah, presumption of innocence is a wonderful thing, but if a charge is serious enough to prompt resignation from a post, then why in the love of Herself is he then allowed to keep acting in the position, and prosecute a
Surely a ‘caretaker’ would have limitations on what he can do? Or was his ‘resignation’ made with his fingers crossed or something?
(Insert standard “Yes, Hamas are evil, bloodthirsty fucking sons-of-bitches, it shouldn't need to be said, why is it not possible for anyone to mention that Israel might be wrong without a complete reiteration of how evil Hamas are if they don't want to be dismissed with ‘you are anti-Semitic and love Hamas and are filth’, for fuck's sake, can't I make a point about Israel without having to make the ‘are you now or have you ever been a Hamas-loving anti-Semite’ affirmation in its entirety again” statement here.)