This mangling of the english language is getting out of hand:
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister’s Office denied there had been any change in Israel’s long-standing policy of nuclear ambiguity, after Olmert appeared to admit that Israel had nuclear capability in an interview with the German television network SAT 1.
Regarding Israel’s alleged nuclear capabilities, during his television interview, Olmert became agitated when asked if the fact that Israel possessed nuclear power weakened the West’s position against Iran.
“Israel is a democracy, Israel doesn’t threaten any country with anything, never did,” he said. “The most that we tried to get for ourselves is to try to live without terror, but we never threaten another nation with annihilation. Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they [Iran] are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia?”
Olmert’s statements drew fire from politicians across the political spectrum. MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud) responded to Olmert’s statement by calling for the prime minister to resign. Meretz-Yahad chairman Yossi Beilin called Olmert’s remarks “irresponsible to the point of recklessness.”
The Prime Minister’s Office said fumbled English was the cause of what it referred to as a misunderstanding regarding what Olmert meant.
So, what did Olmert mean? Did he mean that he told the truth but had been attempting to lie, and therefore it was fumbled english that explained his accidental truthfulness? Of did Olmert mean that Israel doesn’t have DA BOMB?
And look at all the feigned outrage from Yossi Beilin and Yuval Steinitz. ‘Oooh, oooh!!! He just told the truth, he should resign.’
Puhleeaaaze. Olmert made his case on the merits. There is no need to lie. If you are going to insist on a double standard then explain the rationale for the double standard. Olmert did that and he should be debated on the merits of his argument, not his ability to deceive.
