Prototypical Leftist, MSM Distortions of What Any Annapolis “Deal(sic)” is All About



The Ramon piece below is but another attempt by the Regime and it’s leftist MSM organs to distract, distort, conceal and mislead the nation and Jews worldwide regarding the Olmert, Abbas talks, any possible joint statement or or statement of principles and regarding the proposed Annapolis conference. The latter, by the way, is slated to begin in late November, no accident or coincidence, for on 29 November, 1947, the United Nations voted for the partition of the British Mandate territory of Palestine marking the beginning of modern-day Medinat Yisrael.

For those not distracted by the rhetoric of Olmert, Ramon, Livni, Barak, and yes Bibi Netanyahu too, there is a lot to this symbolism; 29 November, 1947; the beginning. 29 November, 2007; the Arab, Leftist Regime hoped for beginning of the end of Jewish sovereignty.

Let us not be distracted by Olmert’s constant flowery pronouncements such as; “Israel has a peace partner” or bogus prop-up or “confidence building (sic) moves” or the regime’s financing of the PA with some of those funds “accidently” landing in Hamas hands or constant talk about more and more prisoner releases, no doubt getting around to Marwan Barghouti too, on top of those prisoners already released and returned to their murderous terrorist ways.

The above is both smoke and mirrors cover for the leftists’ as well as part and parcel of the Big Show, as exemplified by Olmert’s Trial Balloon man Haim Ramon; divorce and partition of Israelis from their Jewish roots and heritage by way of ceding Jerusalem and Har HaBayit as well as expulsion, by whatever bogus synomym they make up, of 200,000 plus Jews from Yehuda and the Shomron (Judea and Samaria).

In short, we’ve reached the point in history where neither the written nor spoken word of political or governmental leaders is worth the paper, time or hot air upon which it is articulated.

Suppose a joint statement or or statement of principles is articulated. Suppose a “plan” comes out of Annapolis. To begin, any alteration in the sovereignty of any part of Jerusalem, including Har HaBayit must be fought by the Jewish people by any and all means.

Now suppose, as Ramon indicates below, that it were true that a Referendum were to be held after Annapolis;

1/ The headline of piece below distorts and misleads by it’s very phraseology; “Peace May Go to Referendum.” The headline reinforces the analogy in the minds of masses of dumbed-down and endoctrinated; “How could any right-thinking person be against “peace?”

2/ The headline ignores, as if non-existent, the entire body of facts concerning the past track-record of Arabs, of Islamics regarding adherence to ANY previous agreement. The established fact based on past track-record that our “peace-monkeys” Olmert, Ramon, Livni, Barak, and Bibi too (despite his seemingly bold pronouncements ) choose to overlook is that any document is one-sided, encumbent upon Israel, yet utterly overlooked, ignored by the Islamics except to where it benefits them, i.e. funding, more prisoner releases, training of more “police” (read terrorists), etc.

3/ The headline and Ramon’s entire position totally disregard the Arab, Islamic “concept” of peace; Hudna, as defined here by Wikipedia;

Hudna is an Arabic term meaning “truce” or “armistice” as well as “calm” or “quiet”, coming from a verbal root meaning “calm”. It is sometimes translated as “cease-fire”. In the Lisan al-Arab (Ibn al-Manzur’s definitive dictionary of classical Arabic, dating to the 14th century) it is defined as follows:

“hadana: he grew quiet. hadina: he quieted (transitive or intransitive). haadana: he made peace with. The noun from each of these is hudna.”

A particularly famous early hudna was the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah between Muhammad and the Quraysh tribe.

According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi’i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: “if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud” (‘Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).

4/ And finally, regarding the use of the word; Referendum. After the Gush Katif referendum experience, would any referendum result going against the wishes of the above-mentioned “peace-monkeys” translate into nulling and voiding any such bogus, self-destructive hudna? In this author’s humble opinion, we know the answer to that.

Would such an aberration as a joint statement or statement of principles and an Annapolis “deal(sic)” bring about the toppling of the Olmert regime and new elections or Olmert’s facilitating new elections? The answer to this dependent on a people’s movement based on the Ukrainian Model, based on the knowledge that the threat to our survival is at the door of each of us — that noone is immune. The answer is also dependent on whether Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu have any backbone, moral integrity and self-respect as Jews and as men, or whether they are all talk — lackies glued to their Knesset seats and Ministry posts. MB

Ramon: Peace May Go to Referendum, by Sheera Claire Frenkel (Jerusalem Post)


Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will present any peace deal formulated at the upcoming Annapolis peace summit to the Israeli people for approval if his Kadima-based coalition breaks up following the conference, Vice Premier Haim Ramon said in the Knesset on Monday.

Ramon, who added that “everything would be put on the table” during the summit, said Olmert would not be bullied by partners in his coalition threatening to leave the government.

In an interview on the Knesset Channel, Ramon said he was certain that Olmert would ask the public to approve any agreement reached at the summit later this year, hinting at either calling new elections or a national referendum.

If after Annapolis, there is an agreement with the Palestinians, Ramon said, “I am sure that Olmert will take it to the people.”

The Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment on Ramon’s statements, considered by some to be a “trial balloon.”

Last week, Israel Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman presented Olmert with a document outlining a series of “red lines” that could not be crossed if Israel Beiteinu were to stay in the coalition.

“We won’t remain partners in the government if there are significant negotiations on the core subjects,” said Lieberman.

Ramon, however, has argued that everything, including the controversial issue of Jerusalem, should be discussed in the summit.

Ramon attempted to reassure the coalition partners by promising that even if a framework for a final status agreement was outlined at the conference, it would not be implemented until the Palestinian Authority, led by PA President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salaam Fayad, was strengthened.

The vice premier said that Israel would not make any concessions until the PA leadership reined in terror groups and proved its ability to be responsible for the Palestinian territories.

“The implementation of this process will take a long time,” he warned.

Kadima MKs dismissed Ramon’s statements, arguing that he was jumping the gun and expecting too much from Annapolis.

“Nobody is expecting what Ramon seems to be expecting from Annapolis. At this point we are not even sure the Palestinians are coming,” said one Kadima MK. “Ramon is not a close associate of Olmert at this time, and therefore not really a part of the internal talks surrounding Annapolis.”

The MK added that Olmert would not let the coalition fall apart at the expense of the summit.


2 thoughts on “Prototypical Leftist, MSM Distortions of What Any Annapolis “Deal(sic)” is All About

Comments are closed.