Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman scolded the United Nations Secretary General for advocating against an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza, arguing such talk bolsters Hamas.
UN chief Ban Ki-Moon arrived in Israel as part of an international diplomatic push aimed at bringing Israel and Hamas to a cease-fire.
Hamas, through Egypt, has offered a proposal for a ceasefire and a long term truce, but it has been ignored by Israel. “The truce is now held up because we are waiting for the Israeli side to respond,” Hamas official Ezzat al-Rishq.
Lieberman’s suggestion that the Secretary General of the United Nations – whose position exists to help prevent war between nations – shouldn’t argue against an Israeli ground invasion of Gaza because it ‘helps the terrorists’ has to be the most vacuous attempt at speech-control yet in this conflict.
The Israeli FM is a dangerous person. On the one hand he should not be taken seriously…but on the other, because of his position, he is a very dangerous person.
I hear you … But here is a thought : in a democracy people vote and the majority gets to chose the leader . Now ; shouldn't the voters carry the responsibility of the action of their leaders ?
Here is why I am saying this : frankly ; it is PC to say … "it is not the people ; it is the government" …. Well I call B.S. on this …. It is the people … NOT the government . People voted and the government acted . All government action and the respective consequence should be put on the nation .
In this particular case – whatever damage that bounder causes should be blamed on the entire nation of Israel .
Sometimes…and sometimes, the person elected by the people says one thing during the campaign to get elected, and once elected, goes thru metamorphoses to become the person they really are. In the case of Lieberman, he was a leader of a minor party that agreed to a coalition with Likud in order for Likud to form a government. Since I knew nothing of Lieberman prior to his elevation to FM I know not how he represented himself during the campaign. Regardless, he is as he is – a dangerous man.
Another example that might fit the description you put forward might be, for example, the continuous re-election of Michelle Bachman…in that case, IMO, the people are completely responsible. To continue to elect someone who is not tethered to reality is criminal.
Another point is that once elected, there is no guarantee that the elected follows the wishes or the best interests of those who elected them.
UN better watch out or the masters will invade and bomb them too.