I do not understand neither [Lapid’s] style nor his substance. He talks about ‘settlement blocs’. His first campaign speech was made in Ariel. So does he object to Israeli sovereignty in Ariel? He agrees for unilateral territorial concessions but annexation should only be by consent? It’s difficult to understand the logic. This logic leads nowhere, but rather demonstrates a lack of political experience and lack of understanding of reality. Unilateral withdrawals and not even thinking about annexation of the blocs is something which is beyond my comprehension.
-- Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
I am always wary of anything Danon says, even when he appears to be making a good point. He is one of the biggest cheerleaders of Christians in the Knesseth.
ReplyDeleteAll of the Land Danon seems to care about makes me ask one question alone: Where exactly will he try to designate for Christian settlements? See esavexposed.blogspot.com for full report.
Oooga-Booga! And Ester is back with the same old paranoid ranting about the Evangelicals. Danon doesn't hate them enough! So let's spit right in the face of the one sizeable voting bloc of Americans that consistently supports the State of Israel! Because old Ester Agarot himself is angry at the medina because they aren't as pure (albeit ineffective) as he is. Looks like a sound strategy. *Nothing* but sound.
ReplyDeleteJust pointing out the halakhah which no one likes to follow (לא תחונם),...particularly when money is involved (לא תקח שוחד).
ReplyDeleteVoting bloc of Americans? When are Americans going to wake up, and finally realize that America is NOT Israel's friend? Just because their weapons are different from the Arabs, doesn't make them (U. S. gov't AND Christians) any less dangerous.
The silly of tone of your response, including your purposeful(?) misspelling of my site's name is only one of the many reasons I do not as a rule engage in Halakhic discussions with women. Notice how I left out the source citations any later than Tana"kh?