As they say, behind every successful man there is a clever woman. While "successful" would be stretching the reality a bit, Bibi is our PM, there is no denying it. However, Dr. Orit Galili, Bibi's adviser, surely exaggerated somewhat saying:
Benjamin and Sara Netanyahu were like Benjamin and Mary Anne Disraeli, noting that the 19th-century British prime minister’s wife helped him edit his books and speeches.
Bibi surely is not Disraeli and I doubt he will ever qualify for such comparison. But I guess, being Bibi's adviser, Ms Galili, just as Bibi's spouse, would like to be a part of something great. Well, duh...
As an aside: I personally don't have any problems with Sara helping out her hubby with some speeches. Anything is better than seeing and hearing Bibi pathetically repeating his "we'll bring the supertanker to solve [substitute here the current problem]" or supporting his vaporous ideas by intricate hand movements. Please be more involved, Sara, it may do some good yet, who knows?
On the other hand, being Bibi's adviser should, I guess, go together with some highly developed sense of discretion. After all, the fact that Sara is doing some of Bibi's homework was supposed to be one of the better kept state secrets:
“It was astounding. Ms. Galili came and ruined a strategy we used for years,” one close Netanyahu associate told Haaretz. “What are we going to do now, say that we lied every time we said she doesn’t intervene?”
Off hand, I would say yes: when you are caught with your pants down, you can blame the manufacturer of your suspenders (or your belt), but your pants are still down, so...
So, four clever women involved in that single story: Ms Disraeli, Ms Netanyahu, Ms Galili and Ms Mualem, who penned this Haaretz article. Good.
And now to something completely different:
Aussie Dave, aka Israellycool, has written about
Lauren Booth’s Latest Libel. While this post shows Ms Booth for what she is indeed, Dave has omitted one major characteristic of Ms Booth, namely her stupidity. It is not that she doesn't fit these other characteristics in Dave's post, but stupidity is really a great part of her journalistic (at least) body of work. I sometimes wonder whether the famous "
Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence" attributed to Napoleon, shouldn't apply to the lady in question. Of course, it's not that Ms Booth lacks malice, far from being so, but her incompetence (or, better, imbecility) is staggering (another reminder).
Much as I hate to say it: yes, she is a blonde under her
recently acquired new garb...
I should clarify here: Lauren Booth
wasn't the first to accuse the accursed Zionists of Arrigoni and Mer murders. She, however, was the most verbose and the most vituperative of the celebs on the Zionist case in this matter. Of course, she is considered a kind of celeb only due to her brother in law, but still...
And what do you know: Ms Booth is not alone out there in the stupid celebs ecological niche.
Here comes one Inge Höger, German MP of something called "Left party":
The Left party by itself is worth a
gander, but apparently Ms Höger is somewhat exceptional even in that team. This time she wasn't very inventive, adopting some quotes from Ms Booth's body of work:
The question one must pose is: Who profits from this terrible crime? First of all, now two of the activists most ‘dangerous’ for Israel, because they were the most engaged, wellknown and noted, are eliminated. The murders of Vittorio and Juliano could also be a means of dealing a serious blow to the international solidarity movement – especially given the upcoming second flotilla and the fact that international activists still won’t let themselves be prevented from going to Palestine.
Not very original, what after all the links above, but being a political figure, she doesn't have to be. As for German daily Die Welt calling Höger a “flawless anti-Semite”: I really wouldn't know, it may be going one step too far. Besides, isn't “flawless anti-Semite” an oxymoron? Like "flawless pimple" or "beautiful turd"?
You tell me. In conclusion: we have four women in the first part of this story and two in the second. I shall stick with the first group, not that there is a choice... oh well.
