Thursday, August 15, 2013

MK Slams Kerry

Mike L.

The following was written by Moran Azulay and published by Y-Net:
Following Israel's renewal of talks with the Palestinians, Knesset Member Ayelet Shaked (Habayit Hayehudi) on Thursday delivered a letter to US Secretary of State John Kerry, in which she slammed his diplomacy regarding the talks.

"You have forced us into peace talks during a period of time that the entire Middle-East is in chaos, without realizing that by doing so, you have foolishly put us in an impossible situation, in which we cannot and will not make any concessions."

Shaked added: "I suggest to you that you perform your job in a much more effective and relevant fashion by focusing your attention on Syria and Egypt."

"Mr. Secretary of State – by forcing Israel to capitulate to terrorism by releasing murdering terrorists with so much blood on their hands that the United States would never dream of releasing them if it was their own citizens whom they murdered – you are not only being extremely hypocritical, but are actually dabbling in experimentation and gambling, by putting me and my children's lives at risk."

The MK wrote to the secretary of state that US's insistence that Israel release said terrorists is absurd, seeing as the US "refuses until this day to release Jonathan Pollard from jail, despite the unprecedented term he has served thus far."
It still amazes me that Israel capitulated to this vile precondition.

How does one stand up for a country that refuses to stand up for itself?


  1. Very good letter.

    I'm heartened that an Israeli MK expressed this. I'm heartened that an Israeli MK told the truth -- told the truth to power clearly and firmly -- and thereby stood up for his country and fellow citizens, as it is the duty of one who is the member of the government of one's country to do so, and as it is therein proper for one who is a member of the government of one's country to do so.

    Hopefully more members of the government of Israel will follow suit. Hopefully more members of the government of Israel will be mindful and will stand up for their country and fellow citizens by doing what is proper -- telling the truth -- telling the truth directly to the leaders of the governments of Western countries, about matters concerning the actions of those leaders of the governments of Western countries; and telling the truth to the whole world, in press conferences, and in other mediums, such as in speeches in the United States, and in other Western countries, about the history and current reality of the situation that Israel is in -- telling essential facts of the history and current reality of the situation that Israel is in.

    Crucial information that the leaders of the government of Israel need to communicate:

    On Vimeo:
    On YouTube:

    1. One question to ask is, what was the quid pro quo?

      And would you really trust the Obama government to live up to its word?

      I wouldn't.

    2. Correction to my previous comment:

      In my previous comment, I made the following mistake:

      I wrote:

      "thereby stood up for his country and fellow citizens"

      Which should be:

      "thereby stood up for her country and fellow citizens"

      I apologize for making that mistake.



      What needs to be done is just for the leaders of the government of Israel to tell the truth -- tell the essential facts of the history and currently reality of the situation that Israel is in -- to the whole world, and also, directly, in person, to the leaders of the government of the United States, and to the leaders of the governments of other Western countries.

    3. Dan, I tend to agree with you, but you have to understand that there is no consensus on "the truth."

      This is not to say that there is no such thing as the truth, or that truth is entirely relative, but that more and more people see "truth" as a function of their own political inclinations.

      This is due, in part, to the influence of the post-structuralist trend within the academe going back for decades.

    4. Dan, I agree with every word that you have written after the first paragraph in the comment above.

      "Truth is truth. Facts are facts."

      Indeed, but the line between truth or facts and the necessary interpretation of those truths and facts can easily blur.

      The foremost book written on the subject is Peter Novick's That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession.

    5. Post-modernism?

      Perhaps that is the concept of truth that spurred the Queensland History Teachers Association to invite Antony Loewenstein, Australia's most contemptible antizionist and Jewish antisemite, to give the keynote address to their annual conference this year.

      These people have the minds of Australia's kids in their hands.

    6. Geoff, it's a long-time trend within the academe that suggests that truth is almost entirely relative and that fields of knowledge are actually systems of political power.

      I don't want to overstate it because my knowledge of post-structuralism, as it emerged in philosophy and gained influence within the humanities, is limited.

      It never gained much influence outside of the humanities, nor even within the field of history as it is practiced in the United States.

      Nonetheless, it represents an important strain within western thinking and is a partial explanation for the rise of moral relativism in the west.

  2. Moving forward Israel should release all imprisoned mass murderers to the US, UK, UN, Swedish and/or Norwegian embassies with a lifetime ban from reentering Israel under any passport whatsoever. That way when these embassies have to give diplomatic passports to mass murderers to get them out of the country there's a fairly low probability that they'd be allowed anywhere other than those countries. Or they could stay in the embassies for life like Julian Assange.