Are you interested in buying a valuable piece of Israeli history?

The first tractor owned by Ariel Sharon on his farm, Sycamore Ranch, is up for sale. On eBay.

Starting bid stands at $20,000.

From the description of the sale item on eBay:

This unique tractor belonged to the late Israeli prime minister, Mr. Ariel Sharon. The tractor has been in good hands throughout the years and has a very interesting history:
This tractor is really Mr. Sharon's first friend. It served Sharon as he worked with sheep in the Shikmim Farm, where he resided. After a while, Sharon realized the tractor was too big and fast for his work with sheep, so he decided to sell it.

A Cherkessian farmer named Korkus bought the tractor in 1974, and worked with it until 1990, while maintaining the machine's excellent condition. In 1990 the tractor was sold to Nir Sadan, the current owner. When Sadan came to pick up the tractor, Korkus said: "This tractor belonged to Israel's war hero, Mr. Ariel Sharon".
Years later, Sharon has become the prime minister of Israel and has arrived to a corner stone ceremony in the Gilboa. Sharon's tractor was the only one near the stage, and other tractors surrounded it. When Sharon went on the stage to start his speech, he immediately recognized the tractor, his first friend. Sharon could hardly contain his excitement and talked about the tractor. The crowd clapped with pride and joy for the reunion of the two friends, and in respect to the very special man that was Mr. Ariel Sharon.
This even is shown in the video below.

Nir Sadan, the current owner: "I'm honored to be part of the chain which serves to perpetuate the legacy of this amazing man, who contributed so much to Israel".
Mr. Ariel Sharon, also known as Arik Sharon, has been a prominent figure in Israel's military and political arenas throughout the years.
Sharon was a commander in the Israeli Army from its creation in 1948, and participated in most of Israel's big wars. After his military career, he was nominated Agriculture Minister and Defense Minister. He was nominated as Israel's 11th Prime Minister.

This is pretty cool. I am surprised there is not a picture included of a younger Sharon driving the tractor from earlier days...

I'd love to see this appear on the show Pawn Stars and watch them authenticate it and value it, then negotiate for it.

Anyways, go bid. get yourself a vintage tractor

VP Joe Biden gave a fabulous speech at Ariel Sharon's funeral yesterday..



much of it, specifically when he speaks about the concern Sharon had for the future of the Jews and Jewish people, I heard the other day confirmed in an interview with Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, former Chief Rabbi of Israel. The radio host was talking to Rabbi Lau about Sharon, and Rabbi Lau related the last time they had spoken together.

It was 2 days before the stroke that knocked him out of commission. Rabbi Lau describes how Ariel Sharon was basically a king - very popular, had just set up a popular new party, they were heading to elections and predictions were that Sharon would draw 40-50 seats... he was all-powerful at the time. With all that, the phone call centered around his plans to set up a meeting with Rabbi Lau to discuss what they could do, a plan to put together, to solve Israel's two major problems - 1. the disconnect of Diaspora Jewry from Israel and 2. The Israeli youth become less and less connected to Judaism and the Torah.

this also qualifies as most ironic moment of the century I think..



Jerusalem Post journalist Lahav Harkov posted this image online and explained that Sharon family friends were given these orange VIP bracelets for the funeral ceremony..

For those of you who might not catch the irony, orange was the protest color against the Disengagement.

Today's winner of FSotD is Nisan Zeevi, spokesman for Minister of Science Yaakov Peri..


Translation:
Can someone explain to me what the messianic witch, that just yesterday prayed for the death of Sharon, is doing at the funeral ceremony in his honor?
I am in favor of evicting her, again.

This comes after MK Orit Shtruck had written that she thanked God that Sharon was taken from us before he was able to perpetrate another disengagement, from Judea and Samaria, and that she did not pray for his death and this is not the way she would have wished his term to end, but we were saved from more destruction by him...

Zeevi, as a State employee, is not allowed to talk this way about a Member of Knesset or other elected official. Citizens are, btu state employees are not. He will face a disciplinary hearing over his statement.

I think Minister Peri, Zeevi's boss, should condemn what he said. Even though it was not said in his name, it was said publicly by his spokesman...

I heard from a number of people that the Iron Dome will be protecting the Sharon funeral today in Southern Israel. Yes, it is true and is in the news.

The added point is that plenty of people seem to think it would be fitting, because Sharon gave away Gaza, for Kassam rockets (or Grads also perhaps), to fall during the funeral. God forbid to hurt anyone - to be shot down by Iron Dome or to land in open areas, of course. The irony of Sharon having given away Gaza and now his funeral being threatened by rockets from Gaza tickled some people pink. And not just his funeral, but Sharon's grave will from now on be within range of falling Kassam rockets. It is not just an issue of some people being tickled pink , but also some are concerned that now there is a "national target" for the Hamas shooters..

Personally I hope no rockets are shot - not during the funeral and not anywhere else or at any other time. I fail to see why it is worse for them to shoot rockets at a grave site than at people living in houses in Sderot or in the towns and villages in the region. Sharon's grave being disturbed is a horrible thought, but people's lives being disturbed and threatened is, in my opinion , more of a concern.

This little item is going around..

10 years ago, on the 10th of Shvat (February 2nd), [then] Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced, for the first time ever, to journalist Yoel Marcus of Haaretz, his plans to dismantle the Jewish settlements of Gush Katif.

On the 10th of Shvat, yesterday, 10 years later, Ariel Sharon died.

Another point added is that the original announcement 10 years ago was at 1:58pm, and his time of death is noted at 1:58pm.

I have no idea what the significance is, if any, but the chances of this happening - dying on the same day at the same moment, seem to me to be about as good as the chances of winning the lottery...and it seems eerie..

Baruch Dayan HaEmes

Rav Aviner issued an interesting psak in regards to the sterioration of the already poor health of Ariel Sharon.

Rav Aviner said there is no need to daven for Ariel Sharon's health.

I'll admit that when I first heard the announcement I assumed it was because of Sharon's involvement in the Disengagement from Gaza. Rabbi Aviner was very involved in opposing the Disengagement. I could understand if Rav Aviner would think very badly of Sharon, as a result of that conflict, and would therefore say Sharon is a rasha whose life shiould not be davened for.

I admit that is what I first thought was going on.

But that was wrong. That was not the reasoning employed by Rav Aviner. It had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Rav Aviner said that one need not pray for Ariel Sharon's health because even if gets out of his current predicament, it would bring him to a life not worth living. Davening for him would not be doing him a favor.

Regarding the idea that maybe he should not be prayed for because of his involvement in the Disengagement, Rav Aviner said that he did problematic things, but he also did good things. He is a hero, in the Yom Kippur War he saved us - not just him, but he saved us. He has many merits, and he has debts. We must be grateful to him for his good aspects.

One could daven very generally. Just like we daven for rain but we dont specify how much rain we want on how many dunam of land, we can daven generally for Sharon and let Hashem decide what to do with the prayers.
(source: Srugim)

I would suggest that one can daven that Sharon be in less pain or suffer less. I have no idea what he feels and what he doesn't. While davening for his recovery might be pointless, one could still daven regarding his level of suffering.

However, that was a side point. I am surprised to hear such a statement, that even if he could recover from this it could only be to a life of tremendous pain, one of serious brain injury, and one not worth living. I always thought that we, as Orthodox Jews, believed that our prayers can overcome anything. And that any additional moment of life is worth living, no matter what state the person is in.

I have been torn many times, not knowing what is right. Someone who suffers tremendously, do you daven for his recovery or not. For example, just like we can daven generally for Ariel Sharon, as Rav Aviner explained, why can we not also daven that he recover from his brain injury? He says we can daven, but if the prayers help it would bring him to a bad situation - so why not daven for that situation to be repaired as well?

What are the limits of our tefilla? Are there limits? Are there no limits? All sorts of questions come to mind as a result of Rav Aviner's statement...

A senior in the Health Ministry: Examining Sharon was unnecessary and wasted public money for nothing

  -- Mako News

Former PM Sharon shows positive signs in MRI

  -- Jpost

When he wakes up one day, will Kadima still be around? Will he wonder what happened to his baby?

Jewish Nationalism

This clip was recently discovered in an archive. it is of Ariel Sharon describing his private audience with the Lubavitcher Rebbe in 1969..


------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------

Gilad Sharon recently said that his father, former PM Ariel Sharon, has recently been responding to those around him, moving his fingers in response to requests and when awake staring with a penetrating stare.. Gilad claims he is healthier than previously considered and is even gaining weight.

Javier Solana, on the other hand, announced the other day that Ariel Sharon had died. He claims to have been told so by friends in Israel. Considering who Javier Solana is, his friends are probably high level diplomats and politicians, and not just people talking in the street.

After Solana's announcement, Tel Hashomer responded to reporters questions by denying the report calling it incorrect. Solana said his information came from a high level Israeli diplomat, but later apologized.

Is there a cover-up going on? Is Sharon really dead but being propped up for personal reasons? I don't know what those reasons would be - somehow to keep Kadima viable, to help Gilad sell books, something else? or was it really just a simple mistake?

Somebody asked an interesting question on the "Ask the Rabbi" service of Kipa.

The question asked was that they are about to give birth and are considering a combination of names. They would like to name the baby "Ariel Sharon" - "Ariel" after a dead grandfather, and "Sharon" after the wife's dead father. The problem is that the name "Ariel Sharon" was the name of a prime minister who did the despicable deed of expelling Jews from their homes.
They asked if they can ignore that, if they should do it, if not?

Rav Baruch Efrati answered the question by saying that as long as their intention when naming the baby is after specific people, or the meanings of the words (Ariel is a name of the beis hamikdash and Sharon is a region in Israel), and not of the former prime minister, it is technically ok, because Ariel Sharon the former prime minister committed a terrible sin by expelling Jews, though he is a Jew and also has many merits in his favor..

Rav Efrati said you can give the name "Ariel Sharon", just don't have the former PM in mind when doing so.

And an additional factor to take into consideration, Rav Efrati added, is that with this name children will laugh at the kid as he grows up, as the name is unusual and is the same as that of a famous politician. It might not be such a problem, as he will likely go by only "Ariel" on a daily basis, but it should be taken into consideration.

Conspiry Theorist Barry Chamish is back promoting some questions and theories about what took out Ariel Sharon..

I was a follower of Chamish back in the post-Rabin-assassination days. I followed him regularly, and met with him, and talked with him often enough. I really believe his theories regarding the Rabin assassination. After that he got a bit crazy and too "way out" for me with some of the other stuff he was getting into. Now he is getting more public again, and he is asking some good questions about what happened to Sharon...

Ariel Sharon has been in a coma for nearly 4 years now. Suddenly his close advisers (Dov Weisglass) and some of his doctors are saying that chances are good that he will wake up in the near future and be completely normal.

I have no idea what the chances of that actually are after 4 years in a coma, and how they can know it now when they have not until now, but who cares?

In light of the recent developments, I am linking to an old post of mine that was extremely popular less than a year after Sharon fell into his lengthy hibernation. It was copied in many places (most not giving me credit, but I could tell it was mine because of the exactly copied wording - I had translated it from Hebrew).

So here goes: If Arik would wake up today...

(I should really update it with the new details of who is running the State, but it is funny enough in its original form)

I have 2 points to make here:

1. The past weeks we have seen debates in many arenas about whether or not there was a promise by the Bush administration, possibly a secret promise and understanding, to the Sharon government about natural growth. Sec. State Hillary Clinton and various aides have categorically denied it, saying straight out the the Bush letter to Sharon is extremely vague and contains no such promise, and there has been no promise substantiated elsewhere.

In the following opinion piece written by Elliot Abrams in the Wall Street Journal he says straight out that there was such a promise and understanding by the Bush amdinistration and the Obama administration is wrong in their denial of the agreement. The agreement was part of a broad agreement on various issues that came up between Ariel Sharon and George Bush's government and there was a clear understanding to allow natural growth in the settlements.

2. During George Bush's term as president he was dubbed as the greatest friend of Israel. I personally said a number of times that I was not impressed and did not consider him such. I said nothing happens here without the demand/request of the American government and if Sharon made an about face and dismantled and disengaged to Gaza, I was pretty sure that George Bush was somehow behind it. Even if it was never stated as so in the news.

People thought I was crazy. It was all Sharon's idea and if he thought of it what do you want from the Americans but to agree, they said.

Turns out in the same article by Elliot Abrams he says that in 2003 the Bush administration demanded from Sharon dismantlement of a number of settlements including Gaza Strip.

In June 2003, Mr. Sharon stood alongside Mr. Bush, King Abdullah II of Jordan, and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas at Aqaba, Jordan, and endorsed Palestinian statehood publicly: "It is in Israel's interest not to govern the Palestinians but for the Palestinians to govern themselves in their own state. A democratic Palestinian state fully at peace with Israel will promote the long-term security and well-being of Israel as a Jewish state." At the end of that year he announced his intention to pull out of the Gaza Strip.

The U.S. government supported all this, but asked Mr. Sharon for two more things. First, that he remove some West Bank settlements; we wanted Israel to show that removing them was not impossible. Second, we wanted him to pull out of Gaza totally -- including every single settlement and the "Philadelphi Strip" separating Gaza from Egypt, even though holding on to this strip would have prevented the smuggling of weapons to Hamas that was feared and has now come to pass. Mr. Sharon agreed on both counts.

[..]

On the major settlement blocs, Mr. Bush said, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949." Several previous administrations had declared all Israeli settlements beyond the "1967 borders" to be illegal. Here Mr. Bush dropped such language, referring to the 1967 borders -- correctly -- as merely the lines where the fighting stopped in 1949, and saying that in any realistic peace agreement Israel would be able to negotiate keeping those major settlements.

On settlements we also agreed on principles that would permit some continuing growth. Mr. Sharon stated these clearly in a major policy speech in December 2003: "Israel will meet all its obligations with regard to construction in the settlements. There will be no construction beyond the existing construction line, no expropriation of land for construction, no special economic incentives and no construction of new settlements."

Ariel Sharon did not invent those four principles. They emerged from discussions with American officials and were discussed by Messrs. Sharon and Bush at their Aqaba meeting in June 2003.

They were not secret, either. Four days after the president's letter, Mr. Sharon's Chief of Staff Dov Weissglas wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us: 1. Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria."

Stories in the press also made it clear that there were indeed "agreed principles." On Aug. 21, 2004 the New York Times reported that "the Bush administration . . . now supports construction of new apartments in areas already built up in some settlements, as long as the expansion does not extend outward."

So take that, deniers.

For the full article, see here.

Today marks the third anniversary of the day Ariel Sharon was brought down by a massive stroke. Sharon still remains in his coma.

"In his honor", today Israel has returned to Gaza and specifically to the former Gush Katif settlements of Netzarim, Eli Sinai and Dugit. More Gush Katif settlements will be reconquered over the course of the next few days.

Whoever really believed the disengagement would solve any of our problems and that we would not have to return to Gaza was clearly smoking something serious.

The courts have decided that the State of Israel owes millionaire Nissim Gaon hundreds of thousands of shekels for a breach of "contract" by former Minister of Housing Ariel Sharon.

In 1991 Ariel Sharon, as Housing Minister (before he became Prime Minister), promised his friend Nissim Gaon that they would be approving development of housing in an area in the Negev. They agreed that Gaon would build 3000 housing units for the State. They never signed a contract, but Sharon made it clear that Gaon would be given the contract and the work would be approved.

Gaon, based on Sharon's promises, went out and hired staff and equipment and made plans. The construction never received the necessary approval of the Finance Ministry and the plans were killed.

Gaon sued the State based on the promises of a minister for the losses he incurred. He claimed, and the courts found in his favor, that the promise of a government minister is as good as a contract, and therefore there was a breach of contract.

Justice Drori decided that the testimony finds that Sharon gave a "clear message to Gaon that he should begin working immediately and not wait for formalities such as signed contracts."

It was also found that Sharon commonly would simply not sign contracts for work he ordered on behalf of the ministry. That was his modus operandi. "Sharon would open his window and say to the contractor (in negotiations) "Why do I not hear the sounds of your tractors and bulldozers - we agreed you would build so what are you waiting for?!"

Another witness, who was a functionary in the Housing Ministry at the time, testified that Sharon would commonly stop working with contractors who did not begin working immediately but waited for contracts.

I wonder if the State of Israel can sue the estate of Sharon for acting in such a negligent and undisciplined manner. How is it acceptable for a minister to hire contractors without a tender and promise them work in a manner that obligates the State even when the job is not approved? The normal method in goverance is a minister proposes a new project and the cabinet/government votes on whether to approve it or not. The courts are saying that Sharons promise was basically at the level that it was more important than actual government approval. I do not know why Sharon, or any minister, has a right to promise work that is really dependent on government approval.