Better a manyak than a sheep: some historical perspective re the “situation”

Can things possibly get any worse?

Viciously turned on by our only true friend in the region. The Palestinians on the verge of the unilateral declaration of statehood. Our own country divided and seemingly rudderless. And all of this under the spectre of the growing nuclear threat from Iran, with – perhaps most gallingly of all – not a word from the Israel-only bashers about the continuing human rights violations there, in Syria, and across the Arab and Muslim world . . .

Which might go some way to explaining why, as thousands streamed up Tel Aviv’s Ben Zion Boulevard towards the social justice rally, a fortnight ago, I – not untypically (I have always been a little davka) – walked alone in the opposite direction, to (the Dizengoff Centre and) the latest Woody Allen movie. After all, only an idiot, it seemed to me, would care about the rising cost of cottage cheese when we are in such an existential mess. (Joining the protest also seemed rather incongruous at a time that I was patting myself furiously on the back – you see, there are other things I do furiously! – for selling my Melchett home of 12 years, two blocks from Rothschild, just days before the tents went up.)

Then, Friday week ago, our Ambassador was forced to flee the new benevolent democracy next door (confirming my fears, expressed here just a week earlier), followed – on the Sunday, the tenth anniversary of 9/11 – by a Sky News studio guest summing up the decade since with “And there still isn’t a Palestinian state”: It was the Jews, of course, not Islamofascist knuckle draggers, who were really responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people on that horrible day.

Rather than allow the matzav (situation) to get me down, however, I have tried to view it as I always have: in the light of a history that has never been much better than miserable (though, to quote Alvy Singer, “life is divided up into the horrible and the miserable . . . so, when you go through life, you should be thankful that you’re miserable”).

By way of illustration (with the aid of a quick Google search), the following occurred on September 11, 1941, 70 years to the day before last Sunday:

  • The Jüdischer  Kulturbund (Cultural Federation of German Jews) was dissolved “for the protection of people and state.” (source)
  • All 91 Jewish patients at the Babinski Hospital in Kobierzyn (near Krakow) were moved to the Zofiowka Sanatorium in Otwock (near Warsaw), where some were shot and buried in the garden, with the remainder gassed in Treblinka. (source)
  • The following report (presented at the Eichmann trial) was written: “In Kamenets-Podolski [Ukraine], 23,400 Jews were killed by shooting within three days by the Group of the Senior Commander of the SS and the Police.” (source)

Complacent (primarily Diaspora, I believe) Jews who say that such things can never happen again have either never picked up a Jewish history book, or are too egotistical to see themselves as a mere dot in them. The calls from the radio of the Mavi Marmara, I would remind them, were “Go back to Auschwitz” and “Don’t forget 9/11.” They (and you fool yourself if you interpret the word narrowly) just don’t like us. That is the only feasible explanation for the obsession of the Israel-only bashers with Jews to the exclusion of all else.

70 years on from Auschwitz, however, we Jews are believed to be in possession of up to 400 nuclear weapons (source). And, kid yourselves not, the only reason that our Allah-loving enemies don’t attempt to finish off the Germans’ work is not any code of ethics, but the belief that the Jews really may have “second-strike” nuclear submarines.

As Ehud Barak spelt out last week, we Jews just can’t be f*cked with anymore: “They know very well why it’s not worth it for them to use chemical weapons . . . why it doesn’t pay for them to even think of using such weaponry against Israel.” (Haaretz)

Having moved to within three minutes’ walk of Bloomfield Stadium, home to all three Tel Aviv football clubs, I recently purchased a season ticket for Maccabi (who play in yellow; no self-respecting Leeds fan would dare be seen in red). And, at my first game, the guy seated behind me gave a crass course in Hebrew abuse: “Shofet, ya manyak ben zona (Referee, you crazy son of a whore)!” he yelled repeatedly, seemingly oblivious to the young son by his side.

At Israel’s subsequent Euro 2012 qualifier against Greece (also at Bloomfield), there were regular cries of “Milchama (war)!” And while I could understand why my friend, Nick, found them objectionable, I also thought: “How incredible that we Jews, not long ago history’s perennial victims, can finally shout stuff like that!”

If the Arabs are as stupid as some fear, or Ahmadinejad as reckless, there might still be another slaughter (heaven forbid). There will, however, this time, be no sheep. And we will take great numbers of the pathologically Jew-hating bastards down with us.

And that makes me, for one, through all of this bad news, feel a lot, lot better: Yes, it is great, for once, to be the manyak ben zona!

http://www.justgiving.com/mike-isaacson/

Advertisements

51 responses to “Better a manyak than a sheep: some historical perspective re the “situation”

  1. At least Obama was in large part responsible for getting Israel’s ambassador et al. out of harm’s way. Point made to show he’s as pro-Israel as any US Prez & Bibi went out of his way to thank him for it.

  2. Ellis Feigenbaum

    And Obama will use that repeatedly to prove that he is in some way pro Israel.

  3. I see your point, and I know what you mean. Although, I’m not sure it’s a choice I ever considered. (“Would you rather be a manyak or a sheep?”) I’d certainly rather be the manyak than the sheep, but I’m not convinced — oo, look, Mike, the use of the great British understatement! — that I am or would ever want to be a manyak.

    Of course, I say this, but as I do, I feel the pangs of conscience*. I have been known to enter the manyak zone on the roads — only in defence (of my own “honour”), and never to endanger anyone, but you can safely call me “the Queen of the ramzor burn-up”, and know that many a *real* manyak has seen the flip side of my middle finger (and deservedly so).

    *Ironically enough, as close to proof of my un-manyakisoisty as I can get.

  4. Yes, Ellis, he is … 100%.

  5. As David Brent might say, Greg (re your initial comment): “You havin’ a laugh?!”

    Osama . . . sorry, Obama, was acting out of self-interest: he knew that, if he didn’t rescue the Ambassador and his staff, his foreign policy/Weltanschauung would look even more absurd/unrealistic than it already did.

    Sorry, Greg, but anyone – not to mention the most powerful man on the planet – who believed that the “Arab Spring” would lead to anything but trouble is (in the general, non-homosexual-specific application of the expression) a knob jockey!

  6. Of course I disagree entirely, but that shouldn’t surprise you nor do I have even a glimmer of a hope that it would change your mind. C’est la vie.

  7. Greg, …Obama only stepped in because he knew that if those security guards would have been lynched the Peace treaty would have gone up in smoke and there would be no way any future Israeli govt would sign another with any Arab entity…therefore he did it for himself not for us

  8. I know I’m wasting my electons, but … he did it for everyone … for peace in the world … not just for 1 reason or constituency … for all constituencies & for all people. If you choose not to believe that, that’s your problem, not mine.

  9. Ignoring my silly “Osama/Obama” wordplay, I actually do believe that the President’s heart – like Georgie Bush’s before him (and, indeed, like yours, Greg) – is in the right place.

    The man, however – unlike Georgie Bush, this time (though still like you, Greg!) – is ridiculously naive.

    The only piece that the vast majority of the Arabs want is the whole one . . . of this Land!

  10. While that certainly is true of too many in the Arab world, the US govt NEVER has agreed to that & will not EVER do so. EVERY corner of this govt is, has been & will continue to tell them that they MUST relinquish that disgusting fantasy. Those here who preach the politics of doom do so only to further their own nefarious goals.

  11. No one has ever called me “nefarious,” Greg . . . no one I know knows what it means! 😉

  12. LOL, Mr. Solicitor … I find that hard to believe … besides, are you now claiming to be a preacher? If so, you’ll have to pay dues to the preachers’ union. 😉

  13. Wonderful posting.
    Sad that history is so cyclical and that even “our own” don’t get it, or merely don’t want to get it. I too, feel great that Israel finally has a second, independent deterrent in it’s small, yet potent, submarine force. The Jewish People have to know they are totally alone in this world. With the disgusting antics that are being played out all over Europe, the one regret I will always have about the Falklands War, was that Thatcher didn’t order the Ark Royal to bomb the crap out of France on the way back…
    Shanah Tovah.
    Best, Simon Spiro

  14. Simon – I am sure you don’t need reminding that the last time a British warship “bomb(ed) the crap out of France” we ended up with a bloody great pillar disrupting rush hour traffic for all eternity in Central London . Would you have really wanted the skyline pierced by an even taller Thatcher’s Column, albeit with the comforting knowledge that her effigy would be “crapped on” daily by a multitude of pigeons?

  15. shimonafromthepalace

    Are you sure that a Woody Allen movie is the best medicine when you are feeling down?

  16. Re Mrs. T and the Falklands, tell me this doesn’t give you a stiffy . . .

    Think you missed the point, Shimona. Reread.

  17. Apologies. I forgot that readers in Ra’anana probably won’t know what a “stiffy” is. It’s all here . . .

    http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-of/stiffy

    I love the example! 😉

  18. Obama acted as he did because he felt it was in his interest to do so and for no other reason. The pasting the Democrats got in the recent New Jersey election would have also opened his eyes to the fact that he can only take about 65% of American Jewry for granted. So he will make nice until 2012, and if elected again (and without a third term to worry about) he will throw Israel under the bus once more.

    His infamously offensive Cairo speech, his pathetic and quite frankly racist demand that Israel stop building in Judea & Samaria, and even Jerusalem, his reference to 67 borders in violation of every previous precedent set by his predecessors (there were no “borders” in 67 anyway), point to a President who is not only ignorant but hostile to every legitimate security concern Israel has.

    As a man who sat quietly while listening to Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, how could any sane person expect him to behave differently.

    Shabbat Shalom.

  19. Sorry had to get that off my chest.

    In the last few weeks I’ve attended counter-demos outside the Royal Albert Hall and then Downing Street. I have rowed with over a dozen members of the so called “Palestine Solidarity Campaign” and the unhinged, vitriolic, irrational, all consuming hatred had to be seen to be believed. If G-D forbid there was a second Holocaust and Israel destroyed, these people would hold a Street party. If you doubt this join me on the next demo and have a chat with these people.

    With Rosh Hashanah approaching we need to appreciate that we have no real friends in this world, that we can only rely on the Almighty and ourselves for protection. That’s a scary thought, but it is also quite liberating in many ways.

  20. Re your second comment, David, I couldn’t agree more. Very depressing. But, as I wrote in the above post, we’ll be taking all the bastards down with us!

    Shabbat shalom.

    PS Ask your mother if she’s had a change of heart! 😉

  21. Your apology aside, Obama spoke very well @ the UN the other day & if you happened to watch his press conference w/ Netanyahu later, you would have seen Bibi thank him, compliment him & shake his hand. The way I saw it, it was sincere. I think Obama really did reassure Bibi that the US does firmly stand on Israel’s side. That doesn’t mean the US endorses everything Israel does, but friends don’t always have to agree.

    If nothing else will “prove” this to you, I’m-a-nut-job’s speech to the UN might … as crazy as it sounds. That disgusting excuse for a human being repeatedly accused the US of being Israel’s ally. If he believes it, you should, too!

    Seriously, the US is, was & will always be Israel’s strongest ally. Period.

  22. Ellis Feigenbaum

    Greg,
    Obama keeps pushing Israel to make hard choices for peace and has stated on numerous occasions that the 67 borders are the starting point, I believe him. I totally disagree with him.
    So after Israel withdrew from roughly 70% of all disputed territory and after Israel withdrew from Gaza in its entirety and after Israel suffered massive rocket attacks and terror attacks in return, maybe it is time for the Palestinians to step up to the plate and say, hey we really want a peaceful solution and this is what we are prepared to do to achieve that end.
    And maybe that is the demand Obama should make of them, instead of making its ally feel pushed to the wall and having no way out but to defend itself with force. Or just maybe the guy that prayed in the church of Jeremiah Wright for all those years has more in common with his spiritual guide than he would have us believe.

    Just as interesting aside don`t you find it really strange that every single Prime Minister that has ever agreed to negotiate with the Palestinians over Jeusalem has come to a bad end.
    Begin died a broken man, Shamir has alzheimers, Sharon is in a vegetative state, Olmert is under massive clouds of investigation, Barak couldnt get elected to lead the muppets and has torn his party to shreds. Rabin got assassinated and Peres has been shoved into a ceremonial role with no real power. The only one left standing is Netanyahu, if I were him I too would be very wary about negotiating Jerusalem.

  23. Again, Ellis, it seems EVERYONE is deaf – Obama did NOT say the 67 borders. What he said was: “the-67-borders-WITH-land-swaps.” That is quite different. If you quote only 1/2 of what he said, it’s wrong. It’s long past time that people clean out their ears & listen to what he said … & what he said really is no different than what GW Bush said … & it’s no different than what many prominent Israelis who want peace have said & continue to say.

    So get it right & repeat it as a mantra: “the-67-borders-WITH-land-swaps!”

  24. Ellis Feigenbaum

    Greg you fail to read, the starting point means exactly that, the starting point for the negotiations.
    I dont need to have my ears cleaned, what I need is for my “ally” not to give away 50% of my bargaining chips before I sit down to the negotiating table.
    67 with land swaps has been offered twice and refused twice, maybe after the third time people might actually believe that the Palestinians are not interested in Land swaps, they just want what everyone else calls the starting point and from there to negotiate for more.

    By the way Greg read the above and look what has happened to all of those prominent Israelis. Architects of OSLO?
    Anyone seen Uri Savir recently, Yossi Beilin, Ron Pundak?

  25. Yes, that’s the starting point; it doesn’t, by any stretch of the imagination, mean the ending point. Negotiations must start somewhere. Where they ought not start is where the settlers have illegally & immorally expanded.

    At the news conference w/ Netanyahu & Obama at the UN, Netanyahu said that they have to give up their desire to wipre Israel off the map. Everyone here is in agreement w/ that, including Obama. Abbas lies through his teeth when he claims they’ve done that. It’s not true – when their religious leaders, their schools, their kiddie propaganda, their radio stations & their newspapers & cartoons all preach hatred & the destruction of Israel & the Jews. ONLY when they stop all that does (almost) everything become negotiable.

    Obama knows that. So does everyone in power here. So does Netanyahu.

    As far as the Palestinians getting everything they want, I’m happy to refer them (& you) to my favorite 20th century philosopher – Mick Jagger – who said, “you can’t always get what you want.” 😉

    So??? Mi yichyeh, mi yamut … it’s only a matter of how & when. It ain’t our choice.

  26. Ellis Feigenbaum

    So if none of the above has stopped and Abbas and his cohorts have yet to actually recognise our right to exist, is there any point to the negotiations?
    Recognising Israels right to exist was part of Oslo 1 Oslo2 Hebron Wye, they havent done it yet.
    Dont you think it might be better if Israels Allies request Israel to make peace as long as the Palestinians at least recognise Israel has the right to exist before the negotiations start?

  27. Greg, do you consider that by putting “Period.” at the end of your comments, we’ll all think “Oh yes, he must definitely be right then”?! 😉

  28. Yes, Ellis, that’s exactly what Obama (& Netanyahu) have said – that the Palestinians must recognize Israel’s right to exist. That’s never been in question. I don’t want to speculate as to the reasons why people accuse Obama of not holding that position. I also don’t know what sound bites you hear over there, but that’s what I’ve heard here.

  29. Ellis Feigenbaum

    Basing foreign policy on Mick Jagger, now thats a new twist.

  30. Compared to some of the idiots who are running for US Prez, he’s a genius. 😉

  31. Anyone ever based foreign policy on Feargal Sharkey?

  32. Feargal was playing it pretty safe with perhaps his most famous prediction . . .

    Shana tova to one and all!

  33. Questions for Greg.

    1 Do you believe there is any level of concessions that Fatah will accept from Israel that leaves Israel, in tact as the Jewish homeland with secure and recognised boundaries?
    2 Do you believe that Fatah have really come to terms with Israel’s existence and are prepared to live in peace with Israel and end all conflict once and for all, and are just waiting for Israel to offer them enough concessions? If the answer is yes, what evidence do you offer to support this contention, given the volumnous evidence freely available that contradicts it?
    3 What do you think the Palestinian concensus on never ever giving up their “right of return” means for Israel’s future?
    4 Did you support the Oslo Accords that brought about the PA into being and brought back Arafat from Tunis?
    5 Did you support you support Barak’s uniltateral withdrawel from Southern Lebanon?
    6 Did you support the withdrawel from Gaza in 2005?

  34. David – Honestly, I feel no obligation to respond to each of your questions. Unless you just crawled out from under a rock, I’m quite sure you are aware that my thoughts are hardly original, nor are they uniquely mine. Therefore, if you seriously want answers (rather than just attempting to get people all riled up), I suggest you google: Shalom Achshav, Americans for Peace Now (APN, their US affiliate), J Street, the IRAC (the Israeli branch of the Religious Action Center (RAC) based in Washington, DC & an affiliate of the URJ (the Reform Movement in the US)) & the Shalom Center (Philadelphia), just to mention a few. I’m sure they’d be delighted to help educate you & participate in your enlightenment so that you might join so many of your fellow citizens, including current & former IDF officers, MK’s & members of Israel’s intellectual community, who have come to realize what the only path to peace & security really is.

    The 1 thing I will say here is that looking backwards is of very little help. What’s necessary is to deal w/ the situation as it exists now.

    Happy hunting! 🙂

    PS: I’m sure having all those searches & URL’s in your history won’t be held against you should the “thought police” find it necessary to investigate you. 😉

  35. So a complete non-answer then. I have to say I am not at all surprised.

    The Left in Israel and the Diaspora seem to have a complete mental breakdown when confronted with the consequences of the positions they vigorously championed.

    As for you comment on looking backwards being “of very little help”, what a complete load of self serving garbage if I may say so.

    Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat its mistakes – I am almost certain I heard or read that somewhere. To allow oneself to be wholly constrained by the past may be foolish, but to completely ignore it would be staggeringly stupid.

    So why did I asked those questions of you Greg in the full knowledge that you would be too embarrassed to answer?

    Well, you, like those in the organisations you mentioned above have not only been vociferously advocating many of the positions Israeli govts have taken since 1993, such organisations have also demonised those who felt such policies would bring disaster on Israel.

    So to recap, I bet you thought the Oslo Accords were a great idea, and that Arafat was a genuine peace partner, like Abbas today. Would I be wrong in thinking you thought the unilateral withdrawals from both Lebanon and Gaza were worth a try? Perhaps you didn’t personally Greg, but many of the people who felt like you called people who felt like me “warmongers” among many other things.

    So when you come on this forum vociferously advocating that Israel keeps upping the ante and takes more and more risks in the hope it all turns ok, it worth reminding you that the record of people from your end of the political spectrum is (understatement here)….nothing to be proud of. Every policy championed in “the cause of peace” has brought terror, war and death.

    So Greg, how many terrorist attacks/suicide bombings must Israel endure, how many thousands of rocket attacks must Israel absorb, how many more wars must Israel fight, and how many more dead Jews must we bury, before the left acknowledge that everything it fought for has brought utter disaster upon its people and that the “warmongers” may have been right all along? Judging by your response, we may have to wait a little longer.

  36. Gregg

    Having read your multitude of comments on this blog and, particularly, the last one above, I have come to the conclusion that – to paraphrase Shakespeare – “You have hoisted yourself on your own petard”.

    Let me explain.

    The underlying credo of 21st century international liberal politics is “self-determination” – democracy raised to the level of divinity, peoples deciding their own fate. This is different to the liberalism of the 19th century which was more personal – as John Stuart Mill made clear in “On Liberty” a benign dictatorship is entirely compatible with liberal philosophy. But the world has moved on.

    In the modern liberal world there are, to the best of my knowledge, only three reasons for interfering with “self-determination”:

    1. The actions of one democratic nation are against the interests of others ( Greece, Italy 2011).
    2. Another democratic nation operates on the principle of “two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch” – ie tyranny of the majority requiring international intervention to save the oppressed minority (Balkans 1992)
    3. A tyrannical, undemocratic regime oppresses its citizens or residents ( Egypt, Libya and Syria in 2011)

    Now let’s get to you. Greg – It is your inalienable right to express a personal opinion on the situation in Israel yesterday, today or tomorrow. However, as soon as you , as a non-Israeli citizen, ally yourself to any territorial or extraterritorial pressure group such as those listed in your last comment, you are interfering with Israel’s “self-determination”. In order to justify this, Israel needs to fit into one of the three categories above which for the purpose of this discussion is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you cannot claim that your actions are altruistically in the interests of the State of Israel. You simply have no right according to your own Liberal rules to interfere unless it is not Israelis you are trying to protect.

    Of course, there is another possibility. Could it be that, as a Jew, you consider us a nation without borders, not governed by the norms of modern society? If so, I suggest you shoot off a quick letter to Umberto Eco in Italy (I believe the postal system is still working there) suggesting he withdraw from circulation his new book “The Prague Cemetery” in which he has gone to great efforts to refute “The Protocol of the Elders of Zion”.

    I have one suggestion to save your liberal soul from that petard– prise yourself out of your comfortable armchair at Number One, Easy Street, USA and come and join us in the only viable liberal democracy in the Middle East. You will be a major asset to us and America will probably survive without you.

    John

  37. To both David & John — define me as you like — as a wise teacher once wrote, what you think of me is none of my business. The truth is I have no interest in re-answering questions to which I have already provided answers. The fact that you don’t like them is your problem, not mine. I also do not need to defend my decisions on where I choose to live or how I choose to practice our religion. As I’m sure you’ve figured out by now, I have absolutely no intention of living my life according to your definitions. If you really have a burning desire to know, right now I just have too much else going on to engage in long discourses that won’t change your closed minds anyway, so I’m sorry if I’m not any fun to play w/ at the moment; you’ll just have to find someone else to pillory. 🙂

  38. Sorry. Was it something I said?

  39. I’m sorry Greg but where exactly have you answered my questions. Saying you have, doesn’t mean you actually have.

    The fact is, unless told otherwise you have supported every single catastrophic strategic error Israel has made since 1993 (Oslo, Lebanon withdrawal, Gaza Withdrawal). Things have not turned out as Meretz, Labour, Peace Now etc etc have said they would. It has been disastrous.

    Thousands of people Greg, real people are now dead or have had their lives utterly ruined directly because of those policies……..policies you and your fellow “peaceniks” (sic) have championed.

    The results are exactly as I and people from “The Right” predicted, yet we were demonised as enemies of peace, extremists, warmongers etc etc when expressing our genuine concerns.

    Having seen the horror wrought by Oslo, unilateral concessions and by continuously pretending that the most unrepentant bigots and murderers are peace partners, what is your response???

    To reassess your position, acknowledge that all your most deeply cherished beliefs have turned out to be false and people have lost their lives as a result is, I have no doubt very painful.

    To take that path requires courage, integrity and moral clarity. Instead what you have displayed is classic avoidance tactics.

    1. Pretend you have engaged and answered questions when we both know you haven’t.
    2. Say I’m too busy to discuss this any further & then duck out.

    If you had a sound case and argument to put forward, you’d find the time Greg – you know it, I know it & everyone reading this blog knows it.

  40. Davina Levita-Ree

    Daddy is dictating this over my shoulder. He is very upset but I believe his anger is directed at Greg. My apologies, Greg.

    “You bloody bleeding-heart American liberals are all the same. You come up with all your clever, clever comments that nobody can ever challenge you on and then when characters like these Saul and Fisher fellows give you a run for your money you just back up against the wall and p*** in your pants (Sorry Davina darling. No you are not meant to type that. Oh, never mind) and metaphorically cry “You can’t hit me because I am wearing glasses”. This Fisher chap raised some good points and deserves an answer. So, or that matter does Saul. Pull yourself together man and show a bit of mettle.”

  41. Mindy Orenstein Ebrahimoff

    Oh and Greg, Gen. Hassan Firouz-Abadi recently warned: “the Zionist regime cannot escape its bitter fate” .You may have successfully avoided John Fisher and David Saul. Try dodge him!

  42. Greg, I usually avoid joining the bigger lads giving you a kicking, as (a) it’s more fun watching and (b) they’re better at it than me.

    But as you’re clearly down this time, even the less physically robust, such as I, can savour the leathery crunch of my boot to a liberal skull and its poorly-ordered contents.

    Did you really write “looking backwards is of very little help?”

    Are you so dense, self-delusional or pig-ignorant that you’ve never heard of Santanaya (“Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them), or simply Shakespeare (“What’s past is prologue”)?

    I appreciate that those of your ilk shudder at having to look back as far as biblical, medieval, or even mid-20th century precedent, fearing all the moral imperatives that tag along for the ride. But can’t you, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, even look back as far as 1993, and see that we gave them guns, and they shot us with them?? KINDERGARTEN CHILDREN can understand that much. I genuinely DESPAIR of your sector of Israeli, and worldwide Jewish society.

  43. Of course, the past has some relevance; just don’tlive in it. You want specifics? Talk to Yossi Alpher or Hagit Ofran http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib1LI8n0g08, to name 2.

    “”We gave them guns & they shot us” … that’s part of the problem, something the US also is horribly guilty of (since the late 1800’s) — the enemy of my enemy is my friend — is wrong. The time has come to do the right things … um, excuse me, the Left things — all of them, wholeheartedly.

    Sorry … no time now for details … gotta go …

  44. Greg

    I had a few spare minutes in my busy schedule and re-read your missive to David Saul and myself:

    “I’m sorry if I’m not any fun to play w/ at the moment; you’ll just have to find someone else to pillory”

    Inexplicably, this reminded me of a not dissimilar line from one of your illustrious compatriots way back in 1962 on losing the race for Governor of California:

    “You won’t have Nixon to kick around any more, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.”

    Famous last words.

    John

  45. Greg

    So in response to comments such as:

    “Thousands of people Greg, real people are now dead or have had their lives utterly ruined directly because of those policies……..policies you and your fellow “peaceniks” (sic) have championed”.

    You respond by saying:

    “whatev,”

    Wow – that bleeding heart of your must be working overtime.

  46. Hi Mindy

    You see on Planet Greg, the likes of Hassan Firouz-Abad are really moderates. He says these things but he doesn’t really mean them.

    Why would any sane person take them at their word?

    That’s just silly!

  47. Admittedly, looking at this objectively, Greg is leaning bloodied on the ropes but, as in the Thrilla in Manilla:

    “Sometime during that brutal fight, Ali leans over to Frazier and says, ‘I heard you were all finished, Joe.’ And as Frazier digs in for another left hook, he says, ‘They lied to ya, champ. They lied.”

    Smokin’ Joe (z’l) came back but eventually lost by a technical knock out.

    Where are you, Greg?

  48. Seems to me like Greg has thrown the towel in and gone home John.

    Not exactly the gutsy warrior that Smokin Joe was!

  49. Go, the Bigger Lads, go!

  50. Mindy Orenstein Ebrahimoff

    Greg: I *do* believe in spooks, I *do* believe in spooks. I do, I do, I do, I *do* believe in spooks, I *do* believe in spooks, I do, I do, I do, I *do*!
    Fisher and Saul: Ah! You’ll believe in more than that before we’ve finished with you!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s