00 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
JIWON:
So far… Labor’s Shelly Yechimovich is
6. Are there more?
5. Likud’s MK Saar is her close political ally and friend. She is also considered to be one of the staunchest supporters of Beinisch and Justice Edna Arbel.
4. During OCL, she supported Ground Operation, because her son was no more in the IDF. I believe… it was her first time to support PM Olmert.
3. During Olmert’s term, she could do whatever she could, if she could sack PM Olmert… or was her target JM Friedmann?
2. It is widely accepted that the withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 under then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the lack of attention paid to the northern border since then led to the Second Lebanon War of last summer and its accompanying 160 military and civilian casualties.
1. She pushed in every way possible the withdrawal from Lebanon towards 2000 because her son was there. She would not be able to address this matter today
06 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Report: Netanyahu has Accepted All of Lieberman’s Demands May 6, 2009 / By Arutz Sheva, Gil Ronen
Talkbacks for this article 9
1. Why is Friedmann a bone in the throat of the Left? – While Friedmann is not religious he does have something that much of the post-Zionist lack, he has integrity. He has shown himself to been fair to all sides and often that means not to attack the “other.” This irritates the liberals that have used the judicial system to inflict punishment on the religious and pro-Jewish members of the State. The second problem with Friedmann is that he is not tainted. Usually, the Left will threaten those that they want to influence. So far they haven’t found anything to attack Friedmann with. Not being able to influence him is a major concern of the elite. / john, nyc (06/03/09)
2. Get on with this coalition – Quit playing games Bibi. Play the hand that was dealt, and do it in the best interests of Eretz Yisrael. Appoint Friedmann. Reform Israel’s judiciary. Give Ivet what he wants. This coalition will remain stable just as long as you do not become the next Sharon. / Howard, Pennsylvania (06/03/09)
4. Israeli politics – Fourty some years ago I attended Portland state University in Oregon, at that time I made friends with several Israeli students. For as long as I can remember I have loved the land of Israel and her people. About five years back I began the conversion process, and if possible, I want to make Aliyah. My largest problem outside taxes, on my retirement, is politics. Seems like MK Lieberman will be able to help MK Netanyahu with his spine problems, But try as I may I cannot understand the Judicial in Israel, can someone help me? / Ray Woods, San Diego CA (07/03/09)
5. SOUNDS GOOD BUT, NATANYAHU IS – A DESPERATE MAN! HE’D SELL HIS SOUL; HE INDEED HAS ALREADY DONE SO (FOR POWER),IN A FIELD OF MAGGOTS FRIEDMAN IS THE LEAST DEGENERATE MAYBE IN SOME MYSTERIOUS WAY HE MIGHT PROVE TO BE A POSITIVE INFLUENCE IN BRINGING A SYSTEM OF JUSTICE TO ISRAEL WELL; WE CAN ONLY HOPE BUT, DON’T PUT YOUR GUARD DOWN QUITE YET-THIS IS NO PANACEA AS, WE MUST NEVER LOOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT HE WILL BE SERVING AT THE PLEASURE OF A THUGGISH, SELF SERVING, SILVER TONGUED, OPPORTUNIST ! / IERGLIB, (07/03/09)
6. Lieberman, you’re next task: – GET RID OF THE SODOMITE BEGATZ SHMEGATZ SUPREME NOTORIOUS, WICKED COURT / Rush Limbaugh, (07/03/09)
7. Sounds like Lieberman is right – and Nethanyahu was wrong. Why should nationalists support the activist courts that always side with the terrorists against Jews. / Phil S, California (07/03/09)
8. All these Politicians Need Review of History – The key question here is why they want to be in a political position representing the state of Israel? Do they recognize who the ancestors of this land are? Do they and honor their ancestors [fathers & mothers]? It is time for all people fighting over this land to wake up and respect their elders. Tell them all to visit http://www.biblediscovered.com/ and learn the facts of Israel’s history. / , US (08/03/09)
(IsraelNN.com) Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann will remain in his position in the next government, the Ma’ariv NRG website reported Friday. The site says Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu has given in to all of the demands made by Yisrael Beiteinu chief Avigdor Lieberman: Friedmann will stay Justice Minister, Lieberman will be Foreign Minister, and his party will also receive the Public Security ministry. On top of these, Yisrael Beiteinu will receive an additional minister in a financial portfolio or two deputy ministers.
Lieberman will thus be the second most powerful person in the cabinet and will have great power over the justice and law enforcement systems. If true, the result is a major downfall for Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch and her supporters in the justice system.
The report completely contradicts an earlier one on the News1 website.
News1 said Friday that Prof. Friedmann will not be Justice Minister in the next government. According to this report, Prime Minister-designate Netanyahu has informed Lieberman that a Likud MK will hold the post.
The site reports that Netanyahu told Liebermann that he does not think Friedmann is unfit to be Justice Minister and that his decision does not mean that he is opposed to Friedmann’s proposed reforms. It adds that Netanyahu intends to carry out reforms in the way in which candidates for judgeship are selected, and to speed up the pace at which justice is served.
News1 reported that Netanyahu never intended to reappoint Friedmann to the ministerial post. It listed MK Benny Begin first in a list of possible candidates, followed by MK Gideon Saar and Dan Meridor. Saar is a former assistant to Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch, and Meridor has been reported to be a close friend of her family. Begin, too, has voiced opinions extremely critical of Friedmann and very supportive of the Supreme Court’s current leadership and policies.
‘Yechimovich Made it Personal’
Yisrael Beiteinu MK Stas Misezhnikov told IDF Army Radio on Friday that his party never formally demanded Friedmann’s appointment as a condition to joining Netanyahu’s government. “It is not the Yisrael Beiteinu party which made the issue of Daniel Friedmann a personal and formal one,” he explained, “but Knesset Member Shelly Yechimovich who is ruling out Friedmann at the behest of someone else who wants the portfolio.”
“Any name that Lieberman would have raised would have caused sinister suspicions because of Lieberman’s image. Ivet simply attracts fire,” Misezhnikov said, using Lieberman’s Russian nickname.
Observers estimated that Misezhnikov was hinting that Labor MK Yechimovich is acting on behalf of MK Saar, who is her close political ally and friend. She is also considered to be one of the staunchest supporters of Beinisch and Justice Edna Arbel.
Yechimovich has said that “a black flag flutters over Lieberman’s demand to appoint Friedmann” because Lieberman himself is a suspect in a criminal investigation.
05 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
JIWON: Nationalist-Government is My Most Favorite. WHY is it a bad idea? It should exist for the better future of Israel!!! (From Nov 24, 2008 to Present)
MARCH 6, 2009 (18:00)
JIWON:
Just out of curiosity,
Who is Shelly Yacimovich’s favorite? Did she join Likud? I must know… I have to make the exact posting on this issue. It seems that nowadays, everybody prefers to appear on the front line… just like all the garbage and sh*ts around Daniel Barenboim. Why in the world the Jewish story is exactly same as the one in Mehta’s Music Society, which has been run by bimbos and whores? Now… I know what means one of Friedmann’s reform plans. I happened to find it.
Likud cut deal with Shas to foil Livni Mar 6, 2009 / By Jerusalem Post
(…) Israel Beiteinu on Friday denied demanding that Justice Minister Daniel Freidmann be kept in his post as a condition for joining a Likud-led coalition. “It was not Israel Beiteinu that turned the Daniel Freidmann issue into something personal and formal, but it was actually MK Shelly Yacimovich (Labor) who is ruling out Freidmann on behalf of someone else who is interested in the portfolio,” claimed chief Israel Beiteinu negotiator MK Stas Meseznikov to Army Radio. “[In any case,] any name that [Israel Beiteinu head Avigdor] Lieberman would have put forward would have been viewed as being done so for shady reasons due to Lieberman’s image. Yvette simply draws fire.”
Civil Fights: Whose employee is he, anyway? Mar 4, 2009
04 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
‘I have the right to talk’ Mar 5, 2009 / By Haaretz, Yossi Verter
People who had the misfortune to meet Ehud Barak this week had a hard time getting a word in edgewise as he fired a nonstop barrage of verbiage. One of his interlocutors said he sounded overwrought. “Me, overwrought? Me?” Barak marveled. “I’m being sarcastic, not overwrought.”
So what did the Labor chairman do this week? He held two meetings with Benjamin Netanyahu. It’s true he did not say what his party colleague, MK Shelly Yachimovich, wanted him to declare: “The voters have spoken and we are going to the opposition.”
He is a leader. And if he sees fit to meet with the prime minister-designate, then meet with him he will. And if he gets a serious offer to join the coalition he will ask his party for approval. That’s democracy. But it’s not what’s going on in the party now.
In describing his colleagues’ reaction to his photo-op with Netanyahu – in which Barak had the temerity to tell the media, “We will go on talking” – he speaks of “anxieties,” “an eruption of passions,” “fears” and a “highly excited condition.” “No one in the party will dictate to me what to say when I come out of a meeting with Netanyahu,” Barak said.
“They are, all told, MKs. In these matters it is not the Knesset faction that decides but the central committee. I said we are heading for the opposition, and I continue to think this, but I have the right to talk. I am against a veto of the right to think. That is what is illegitimate here, not my meeting.”
Barak believes his party will have a better chance of recovery if it joins the coalition and he stays on as defense minister. But he is not convinced. Others in the party are not convinced that being in the opposition will be particularly inspiring for them. But they are sure the party will die in the coalition.
Shimon Peres, former symbol of the Labor Party, always looked for a way to enter the government – almost any government – other than the one headed by Menachem Begin in 1977. It was Barak who always scoffed at Peres’ uncontrollable desire to be part of the coalition at almost any price. Peres left Labor after losing the party primary to Amir Peretz in 2005, and joined Kadima with Haim Ramon and Dalia Itzik. Those who hear the contempt in Barak’s voice when he talks about party colleagues can get the impression that he, too, is on his way out.
Making his case
Barak has every right to hear Netanyahu out and take his case to the central committee. The problem is that two days before he began negotiations with Netanyahu he declared: “That’s it, we are going into the opposition.” He then launched a marathon series of phone calls and exploratory meetings about joining the coalition.
On election night in March 2001, after his loss to Ariel Sharon, Barak announced he was leaving politics. Two days later he said he was accepting Sharon’s offer to become defense minister. Ramon went to Sharon and told him: either Barak or Labor. Sharon got anxious and told Barak his offer no longer stood.
Barak reportedly agreed secretly with Sharon that whoever lost the election would become defense minister. After his stinging defeat, Barak was reluctant to make the agreement public, not wanting to get caught in the crossfire of Ramon, Avraham Burg and Uzi Baram. He decided on a multistage operation. He would tell the party’s activists he was leaving. They would beg him to stay, the Burg-Ramon-Baram trio would be impressed, and he would declare that he was answering the party’s wishes and remaining defense minister under Sharon.
But his resignation announcement met only lukewarm protest, so Barak announced he was staying on as defense minister following requests by “world leaders.” One of his advisers let it be known that no such message had arrived. Barak was forced to leave politics for six years.
After the traumatic meeting of his Knesset faction on Monday, Barak called a few friends and told them he had not received a concrete offer from Netanyahu. They did not believe him. They are aware that Barak is campaigning to soften resistance against Labor entering the government. He opens his pitch with the phrase “If it were the case.”
“If it were the case,” Barak told a young party activist this week, “that Shelly Yachimovich gets the Industry and Trade Ministry and that she and [Histadrut labor federation chairman] Ofer Eini guide Israel’s economic policy, should we enter the government?”
Barak told another activist: “If it were the case that because of us Yvet [Avigdor] Lieberman will not appoint the ministers in charge of law enforcement, would you support us entering the coalition?” This hypothetical formulation allowed Barak to formally deny Yachimovich’s claim that he tempted her to drop her opposition to entering a Netanyahu government by offering her the industry and trade portfolio. In effect, Barak called her a liar. Which is exactly what she thinks he is. A huge rift formed between the two this week, one that probably cannot be mended.
Barak is eager to continue as defense minister under any prime minister. That is what interests him most and what he does best. But Likud, the religious parties and Labor have only 59 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. Netanyahu will not be able to form a government without Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party, assuming he will not bring in the far-right National Union.
Accordingly, Barak does not rule out Lieberman or his party. In his view, Yisrael Beiteinu’s voters are legitimate, as are the party’s elected representatives. And Lieberman – even if he is not Barak’s cup of tea – is legitimate. Illegitimate, in his view, is Lieberman’s demand to win control of the law-enforcement ministries and keep Daniel Friedmann as justice minister.
If Netanyahu gets Lieberman to climb down on that issue, Barak will have a case to make to Labor’s central committee. “I am not afraid of anyone,” the Labor chair says. “Those who threaten a party split are being patronizing. The great damage to the party was inflicted not by my meeting with Netanyahu but by the hysterical reactions after the meeting. What’s the great fear?” He did not insist that Netanyahu declare that he is for two states for two peoples, as Kadima leader Tzipi Livni did.
“Do I have to prove to anyone that I want peace?” he said. “Has any leader in this country gone farther for peace than I did? It’s hallucinatory. The issue of two states for two peoples is fundamental for me, but I am interested in actions, not declarations. In essence, what is needed is harmony on a way. Livni is right in saying that there is no point to joining a government if you have no influence on the way.”
And can this harmony be reached? “No offer has been made,” Barak said. “What is this off-the-wall claim by Shelly Yachimovich that I offered her the industry and trade portfolio? I did not talk with Bibi [Netanyahu] about portfolios, about how many portfolios, about which portfolios or about how to form the government.”
Someone asked Barak this week if he might leave the party, return his Knesset seat and enter the Netanyahu government as a technocrat defense minister. Barak hesitated a bit before replying: “In my opinion, there is no such possibility.”
Right of appointment
It is an inseparable rite of passage upon the formation of every government. The attorney general meets with the prime minister-designate and tells him who is under investigation and for what, and advises him (advice that cannot be refused) who should not be appointed as what.
These visits tend to complicate life for prime-minister designate. This time, though, Netanyahu seems to be waiting impatiently for the ritual. If, for example, Menachem Mazuz bars the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as finance minister because of the investigation against him, Netanyahu will be able to tell his party colleague MK Silvan Shalom: “Sorry, I have no choice, I have to give him the Foreign Ministry, the attorney general is making me.”
Netanyahu’s confidants are likening Shalom to Likud’s David Levy, who wanted only the foreign affairs portfolio. In the past few days, two top Likud MKs, Reuven Rivlin and Benny Begin, have been speaking to Shalom to try to calm him down. Why should I calm down, he replied. After all, Lieberman says ministerial portfolios will not be an obstacle on his road to the government. So why does he have to get the foreign affairs portfolio?
Netanyahu is spending plenty of time being briefed by outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The two meet in the evening at the Prime Minister’s Residence in Jerusalem for long working sessions. They also speak by phone every day, mainly about security issues. Netanyahu has given Olmert the green light to do whatever he thinks necessary to free soldier Gilad Shalit from captivity in the Gaza Strip.
Last week, Olmert met in his office with Jewish leaders from the United States. A few of them said they were concerned about relations between the two countries with Barack Obama in Washington and Netanyahu in Jerusalem.
“Netanyahu is an Israeli patriot,” Olmert told them. “He is not a bad person and there is no reason to fear him. He knows what is right and I believe he will promote the peace process.”
Those present could not help but note that Tzipi Livni is saying the exact opposite to justify her refusal to enter a Netanyahu government.
What Livnat said
Last week this column quoted Livni as saying she heard Likud MK Limor Livnat say about her, in a radio interview, “Who does she think she is?” The context was Livni’s demand that Netanyahu adopt the “two states for two peoples” idea. Livnat claims she said no such thing.
According to the transcript of the interview on Army Radio’s noontime current events program, Livnat said: “What did she think? That Netanyahu would get to the government on the basis of two states for two peoples?” Maybe it was Livnat’s aggressive tone that made Livni think it was a personal affront, but it wasn’t.
03 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Yisrael Beiteinu Wants Justice Ministry for Friedmann Feb 25, 2009 / By Arutz Sheva, Maayana Miskin
Talkbacks for this article 8
1. What is the opposition to Friedman? – that he believes there should be some check on the power of the Supreme Court. Why on earth would Nethanyahu oppose that? / Phil S, California (25/02/09)
4. Yes for Friedmann & Interior Min for YL Beteinu – Friedmann is the only who can face the powerful Supreme Crt Lodge and Liebermann can do most for his supporters from the Interior Ministry – including breaking the monopoly of the Orthodox on who’s a Jew and marriage laws. / eretz, shilat (25/02/09)
5. I’ve got no problem with Friedman continuing at Justice. – I don’t necessarily agree with every one of his proposals, but I recognize he’s constrained with the “Israeli way”. That said, reform is long overdue. And just about anything that upsets Beinish is OK in my book. / Raymond in DC, Washington, USA (26/02/09)
6. Israel Needs A Constitution To Stop All This – I will say it again, Israel needs a constitution. That accomplished, the issues around the Supreme Court will become moot. Their appointment should be by the President or Prime Minister, and confirmed by the Knesset, 60% or two-thirds, whatever. They would act only on constitutional issues. For a miniscule country, Israel has too many problems and controversy for it’s own good. / dav lev, Burbank. CAUSA (26/02/09)
7. If you live in washington DC you have NO SAY!! – Make aliyah if your going to say you have a problem with it or not…..Although I also like him. DC=Rome / Gideon, Ny making aliya (26/02/09)
8. Amazing how – five of six commentators don’t live in Israel. / , (27/02/09)
(IsraelNN.com) Yisrael Beiteinu has opened coalition talks with Likud, and representatives of the party said Wednesday that they would ask for the Justice Ministry in addition to another senior ministry. The second ministry would be intended for party head Avigdor Lieberman, but the party does not intend to name anyone of its members to the Justice Ministry: instead, it will nominate current Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann to stay in his position.
Yisrael Beiteinu has expressed support for Friedmann’s reformist initiatives, which have met strong opposition from Labor, Meretz and former and current members of the Supreme Court.
Friedmann’s Critics, Supporters Weigh In
The possibility of an extended term for Friedmann led to criticism from some and celebration from others. The minister has promoted initiatives which would regulate sitting judges’ power to nominate future judges, and define the limits of the Supreme Court’s judicial powers, earning him high praise from some corners and harsh criticism elsewhere.
Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch is widely seen as viewing Friedmann as a threat to her power, and the two have had an acrimonious relationship.
The Movement for Quality of Government appealed to Binyamin Netanyahu and other senior Likud members to get Friedmann out of office. “Don’t be a part of Friedmann’s campaign to trample our legal institutions, chief among them the Supreme Court; a campaign that has directly and dramatically undermined public faith in the system of law enforcement,” the group urged Netanyahu.
Friedmann’s plans would contradict the Likud’s commitment to “strengthen the rule of law and safeguard Israeli democracy,” the group argued.
However, Friedmann won strong support from the Land of Israel Legal Forum, which argued that the minister faced criticism “because his criticism of the Supreme Court bothers the court’s President.”
Friedmann stood up to the “ruling elite,” the forum said. “The reforms begun by ministry Friedmann have a positive influence on public truest in the legal system… The system has begun a process of self-examination, and of allowing criticism from those who wish to strengthen the state as a Jewish and democratic country,” said forum head Nachi Ayal.
Labor MK Shelly Yechimovich, who is one of Friedmann’s more vocal opponents, called on Likud head Binyamin Netanyahu to reject Yisrael Beiteinu’s request regardless of Friedmann’s abilities. “How can Lieberman, who himself is suspected of crimes, decide who will stand at the head of the ministry that will determine his political future?” Yechimovich asked.
A similar complaint was voiced by the anti-corruption group Ometz.
Shas ‘open to solution’ for non-Jews
If Yisrael Beiteinu were to win control of the Justice Ministry, it would not only give the party power to keep Friedmann on as minister, but would also allow it to promote its other initiatives, including creating an option for civil marriage and changing the system of government.
Likud representatives have agreed to consider changing the system of government and reexamining the criteria for citizenship. However, the demand for civil marriage has met resistance from the religious parties, including Shas, which is expected to be a key component of the Likud-led coalition.
Shas head Eli Yishai says his party is open to finding a solution for non-Jews who wish to marry each other without a religious ceremony, but is unwilling to permit civil marriages between those forbidden to marry under Jewish law.
02 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Please check happenings during Olmert’s term.
JIWON:
I could NEVER understand WHY Labor’s Shelly Yechimovich never approves Kadima’s Olmert’s Palestinian policy. So, I had to search and search…
01 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Editor Admits: We Slanted the News Jun 5, 2007 / By Arutz Sheva, Hillel Fendel
Talkbacks for this article 51
Easy to imagine 51 Talkbacks
(IsraelNN.com) A former Israel Broadcasting Authority news editor admits: “We slanted the news towards a withdrawal from Lebanon – because we had sons there.”
Speaking at the Haifa Radio Conference on Monday, several former and current news broadcasters on Voice of Israel and Army Radio discussed the tremendous influence they nearly all agreed they had on Israel’s national agenda.
Dr. Chanan Naveh, who edited the Israel Broadcasting Authority radio’s news desk in late 1990′s and early 2000′s, was particularly bombastic about his pervasive reach: “The morning audience, stuck in traffic jams or at work, is simply captive – they’re ours.” He also mentioned, with no regrets, two examples in which he and his colleagues made a concerted effort to change public opinion:
“Three broadcasters – Carmela Menashe, Shelly Yechimovich [now a Labor party Knesset Member – ed.], and I – pushed in every way possible the withdrawal from Lebanon towards 2000. In our newsroom, three of the editors had sons in Lebanon, and we took it upon ourselves as a mission – possibly not stated – to get the IDF out of Lebanon… I have no doubt that we promoted an agenda of withdrawal that was a matter of public dispute.”
At this point, Army Radio broadcaster Golan Yochpaz interrupted, “In my opinion, that is just super-problematic – super-problematic.” Naveh did not miss a beat and said, “Correct, I’m admitting it, I’m not apologizing, I’m just saying this is what happened. It came from our guts because of the boys in Lebanon, this is what we did and I’m not sorry… I am very proud that we had a part in getting of our sons out of Lebanon.”
It is widely accepted that the withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 under then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the lack of attention paid to the northern border since then led to the Second Lebanon War of last summer and its accompanying 160 military and civilian casualties.
Naveh’s boast came towards the end of the panel discussion and was not widely addressed. However, just seconds later, retired Supreme Court Justice Dalia Dorner, the president of the Israel Press Council, summed up and said that the journalists must show courage and not allow outside influences to affect their ability to influence public opinion:
“You determine the daily agenda and you have the power; the problem is that in your profession, it can’t be dealt with properly and ethically without civil courage… You have the power, so use it also to ensure that there is freedom of speech – of course, with the limitation that you must act ethically and not create hostile public opinion, because there is nothing that affects freedom of speech more than hostile public opinion.”
Moderator Dalia Ya’iri, a former anchor of the widely-heard Israel Radio afternoon newsmagazine, opened the panel by saying, “Thank you for the applause; we and the radio truly deserve it; it is good that it is realized that in essence, without us, there is nothing! Even the television takes from us…”
Popular Army Radio broadcaster Razi Barkai said, “There is no doubt that the morning shows and what they broadcast determine the agenda of the rest of the day.”
Only Golan Yochpaz, who anchored an Army Radio morning newsmagazine for several years, said, “We must not overestimate our influence… We have an influence, but it often lasts only until the next news show. And often, don’t forget, the politicians use us; we fall victim to their spins… It is also not true that we come in with a specific agenda to push. We – at least I – come in with the goal of making a good show.”
A phone message left for Chanan Naveh, hoping to clarify his remarks at the conference, was not immediately answered. Similarly, MK Yechimovich’s aide said that she would not be able to address this matter today.
Israeli journalists have previously admitted that the media was largely enlisted on behalf of the Disengagement/expulsion from Gush Katif and northern Shomron. “I have failed. We have failed,” wrote Kaveh Shafran, political affairs correspondent for Israel Army Radio shortly before the expulsion was carried out. “As a diplomatic correspondent, I was among those who in the past year were supposed to tell the public exactly what is the Disengagement Plan, why it was created, how it will be implemented… The media’s conspiracy of silence protected Sharon when he fired cabinet ministers who did not support disengagement…”
Similarly, respected Israeli journalist Nachum Barnea admitted that most of the Israeli media acted more like the “guard dog” of the Disengagement Plan rather than that of democracy. Writing in the monthly media publication “The Seventh Eye,” Barnea stated that Israeli journalists made a mistake that must be acknowledged, and that there is “no argument that the tone in the Israeli media is pro-disengagement.”
