So what's really about Wolf Elkin - "The Kangaroo", as David Amsalem called it, or "Bouncing Jack", in the language of Mick Jagger?
The wheel turned against the State of Israel a year ago, but this week, especially after the death of al-Jazeera reporter in Jenin, things are starting to get understandable.
A prime minister whom all federal channels support is awaiting a decision by a Muslim jury.
Does it change anything in the considerations of Elkin, Ganz, Sharan Hashakel?
Elkin saw in the eyes of Vladimir Putin.
He is among the experienced political tumblers, but in the current round they have folded their safety net.
"New Hope" is fading to an end.
Elkin is a Likud target for courtship and removal from the coalition bloc.
Politics in Israel has moved to the science fiction genre.
There is talk that Elkin, in exchange for replacing the government with a right-wing government - that is, a defector - demands to be prime minister.
"I want to be prime minister for a year," he was heard to say.
But according to his speech in the Knesset this week, he is not the man to overthrow the government and lead to elections.
The Likud says this is the new language.
The sale of the post of prime minister, because otherwise it would not be possible to overthrow the Bennett-Lapid-Shaked government.
The picture that emerges with the opening of the Knesset session is of a dizzying political system.
Indeed, the precedent set by Lapid and Bennett with a prime minister who has six MKs and now five, with the encouragement of then-President Reuven Rivlin, is effectively eliminating democracy.
A reasonable assessment made at the interface between the Likud and the right is that Avir Kara closes a deal with Yair Lapid.
He will overthrow the government and also drop the abortion case to the right, thus putting Lapid in the prime minister's office for the crucial period of the election.
Kara will straighten, of course, a bad future.
Lapid has a close adviser named Ehud Olmert.
Olmert won the 2006 election after three months as deputy prime minister.
Another "prime minister" that is being talked about in the Likud is Bnei Gantz.
In terms of the internal logic of Ganz's military and political career, the possibility that he will nevertheless somehow come to be prime minister is reasonable.
The more he failed in his senior positions in the military, the more he progressed and reached the chiefs of staff. In the political phase of his career he lost the enormous public support he had in 2019. Prime Minister.
This shows that the Likud also lives in a bubble of absurdities.
After all, the whole logic of replacing the government with a new coalition is that democracy will be restored to its function: that is, the Likud, led by Netanyahu, will make up the government.
Likud voters demand it.
The new brick in the Likud's wall is Amichai Shikli.
He is well coordinated with Netanyahu, and at the moment he seems to be running at the head of a satellite party.
The temptation is that there are between ten and 15 seats on the right scattered on the ground that are unable to vote for the Likud, but are also frightened by Yair Lapid.
Sharan Hashakel is also looking for life expectancy after a new hope.
In the Likud, she is marked as one who has been guided by pure political viability considerations since she announced to Likud members: "I will get more from Gideon."
The conclusion is that it will probably be possible to overthrow the government with 61 votes.
The question is whether the necessary fingers will come from the U.N. or from the right.
The "frameworks" against the "bibists"
In a large article a week ago in Haaretz, Prof. Yoram Yuval constructs the moral heroic narrative of the mind, while returning to a personal personal attack on Benjamin Netanyahu.
This is the only way the ruling class has been found in its anti-democratic methods of overthrowing Netanyahu.
Arthur Kestler wrote in The Invisible Writing that the English consider personality more than mind or brain.
Yuval does not stand on a moral level that allows him to criticize Netanyahu on this issue;
In his areas of responsibility as Prime Minister, Netanyahu acted honestly and loyally to the interests in which he was entrusted.
Is this how Yuval behaved according to the professional ethics of his field?
Not according to what was reported in the media.
Prof. Yuval, Photo: Michael Reisel,
Yuval's level of intelligence is very high.
It is possible that at one point he dreamed of sitting in the office where Netanyahu was sitting.
But there is a small difference between the professor and the former prime minister, who even at the level of intelligence - the mind - he probably does not fall in vain; and this is the personality. There are flaws in him, The last of them was Olmert.
The importance of Yuval's article is in exposing the priorities of the ruling class in Israel. Not the people of Israel, not Israel's security, not the state, but maintaining assets of control and economic-political connection to the democratic government in the United States.
The fact that the Likud led by Netanyahu won the most votes and despite this the government is in the hands of a pair of political leaders with low public support, is not addressed.
Yuval's article reflects the great tribulation in which the country finds itself.
A critical mass of people and factors has emerged in the Israeli elites, who identify with the Palestinian struggle.
On the other hand, the same factors no longer identify with the State of Israel.
The "babysitters" are the group marked as an enemy.
Whoever wrote this explicitly even before the upheaval in 1977, was the journalist Ran Adelist: "The current situation requires a declaration of war on the representatives of this opinion (the 'crazy right'), while seeing the possibility of using force with open eyes. This is the enemy. I prefer a just war of Jews. "Jews approve of an unjust war of Jews and Arabs ... Identifying the crazy right as an enemy target will make it easier for fighters to cool the Middle East shooter ... This is a kind of call for civil war, but civil war is also an empty concept ...".
At that time, these messages further provoked an uprising among the veterans of the settlement and some intellectuals.
Nowadays, after a propaganda campaign that turned into bibiphobia and brain-frying via Twitter - everything passes.
These messages are conveyed as subtext, for example in Ehud Barak's aggressive performance in one of the studios.
Barak again accused Netanyahu, a few weeks ago, of killing Rabin.
The mobilization of the system began to turn two bullets in an envelope into a political propaganda campaign.
In a regime led by Yair Lapid, a right-wing leader is required to condemn and condemn on the assumption that he is responsible for murder threats.
Since the critical mass that identifies with the Palestinians has a decisive influence on the elites - despite being a small minority in the nation - we see that there is no war on terror, and Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked receive support.
The same Dr. Azmi Bishara, who is accused of trying to prevent Israelis from entering the World Cup, was for a decisive decade - the 1990s - the most influential intellectual on the Israeli left.
The defense establishment, with the IDF at its center, descends to the back slope; the main security factor is the police. No more than an isolated assassination case. There is no comprehensive strategic reference that has always guided Israel: terrorist attacks are a method of war, and Israel has always treated them accordingly - by fighting terrorism, aimed at deterring and physically eliminating potential terrorists. , And not shuttle services for detention and study route selection.
And here is the answer for Yuval and Barak: The person who dictates the limits of the treatment of a murder campaign that has lasted for two months, accompanied by riots in Jerusalem and political negotiations on the Temple Mount, is Mansour Abbas.
The IDF is becoming, as defined by Col. (Res.) Shaul Arieli, a defense army for the fence.
"Although this movement and the parties that guided it did not formulate monolithic and totalitarian frameworks, due to their talent for taking over the locality's resources they dictated a dominant pattern of political and organizational culture that influenced all other frameworks."
What did the late Prof. Ehud Shprintsak mean when he wrote the words back in 1986, before we heard about "judicial activism"?
Refers to the systemic cloning of the hegemony of the centralized labor movement.
These "other frameworks" are centralized economic systems.
IDF. GSS.
Judicial system.
One-channel communication.
The party degenerated into Merav Michaeli and Omar Bar-Lev.
But not the "frameworks" of the depth state.
These responded more to Ehud Barak than to Amir Hashakel and Yoram Yuval.
It is important that Yuval confirms that 2016 is the beginning of a "protest".
Then Barak also called for the revolt and then the "investigations" also entered a new phase.
This is the year in which the IDF joined the justice system against one soldier who shot a wounded terrorist.
D.S. from Resolution 3379
In an interview with The New Yorker, Ukraine's ambassador to the United Nations, Sergei Kiselica, mentioned the Stalinist DNA, which is still very influential in the world.
Asked by the interviewer whether the UN could solve the problem of the Ukraine war, Ambassador Kiselia replied: "The UN is not an ideal institution; and this is especially true of the challenges of the 21st century. The UN was founded by three fathers - Roosevelt, Church Jill Stalin, ruler of pure evil.
So in the UN DNA there is also Stalin's DNA.
This statement is extremely important.
For years, many have argued that the Soviet Union has turned the UN into a body of production of anti-Semitism. The data on the obsessive preoccupation with Israel and Zionism are well known.
The highlight of the anti-Semitic factory was the 1975 UN Declaration, which declares Zionism racist. Here, in the Independence Day issue of Haaretz, Gideon Levy writes: "Soon (more than 15 years later; EL). They knew what they were talking about and we were all shocked. How shocked we were. How right they were."
Levy distracts according to his innocence, and discovers that he himself and many others in Israel are the bearers of Stalinism.
The 1975 decision is the legacy of the communist-Stalinist regime.
They are also the first to spread the slander that an apartheid regime exists in Israel.
The continuing motif of Stalinism is always anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, in addition to violent totalitarianism.
Perhaps later on, Levy and his friends in Haaretz will revisit the protocols of the Prague trials and the affair of the toxic doctors.
It may turn out that the Jewish defendants hanged in Prague in 1952 were in fact imperialist Zionist agents.
Maybe there were racists, who knows.
The important issue is that Haaretz updated the Stalinist language into the techno-cultural language of the new era in Israel, in which "the rich of your city were former."
Hiding among the books
Shai Nitzan shows no sign that anything has happened.
There may have been a televised investigation that accused him and Liat Ben-Ari of collaborating in connection with thwarting the appointment of Brigadier General (Res.) Gal Hirsch by opening investigation files without any suspicion and without incriminating facts. Ayala is sturdy as if he was split on his back.
Some employees feel humiliated that they should come in contact and obey the instructions of Nitzan, who has screwed up the library's management hierarchy like a fat cat.
He brings with him the sick evil of management plus "values."
Something like a day in honor of Ramadan accompanied by the reading of a nationalist Arab song as an anti-Jewish defiance in the National Library.
Alterman wrote in one of the songs "City of the Dove" a house in honor of Shai Nitzan and the new chairman of the board, Sally Meridor:
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
