Posted on 11/20/2005 2:01:43 PM PST by minus_273
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is set to quit his ruling Likud party and run separately in next year's elections, Israeli army radio reports.
r Sharon reportedly made the decision to leave the party he helped to found after lengthy talks with aides.
Earlier, the moderate Labour party under new leader Amir Peretz voted to leave Mr Sharon's coalition.
Many in Likud opposed Mr Sharon's decision to pull out of Gaza and parts of the West Bank earlier this year.
Warning! This is a high-volume ping list.
Perhaps Likud has had enough of Mr. Sharon. His capitulation to Rice and Bush last week may have been the last straw.
If so, it's interesting to see the Bush administration push Israel hard enough to destabalize Israel's government. Our nation never did that to Arafat.
It will be interesting to see what dynamics came into play here.
Not only interesting - surprising. The last I heard Sharon was ahead of Bibi - but if Sharon leaves - that will most likely elevate Bibi in the election.
I really like Netanyahu, but I know a lot of people don't like him. He is a hardliner and defender of Israel. Condi probably will not like having to deal with him.
If Bush and Rice pushed him too hard last week, it's only because Sharon allowed this whole setup to take place.
Just yesterday there was a story saying that the majority of Likud supported Sharon and not Netanyahu. It sounds to me as if they don't know what the hell to do next. What a mess.
Maybe on TV, but Shalhevet Pass found out differently.
Well .. not being Jewish, I guess I wouldn't know that!
I wonder there going be politicla fight in Israel so Ariel throw a diva fit and quit Likud party
Gee what a diva
Perhaps it's a "reflex" action:
>>>In Hebrew, disengagement is hitnatkut . Interesting word. It is a euphemism for a plan that combines withdrawal and separation, both concepts that have negative connotations. Indeed, at first, Sharon and his advisors referred to their plan as tochnit ha-hafrada , the "separation plan." An aide to Sharon told me a recently that separation sounded bad, particularly in English, because it evoked apartheid.
Disengagement is neutral. Hitnatkut is a little tricky. It is derived from the root n.t.k , which means disconnect or sever. It is conjugated in binyan hitpa'el , which typically implies either a mutual, reciprocal action, or a self-inflicted action. It's a modern word. It sounds clean, surgical, simple. No wonder that it was immediately picked-up by savvy advertisers on Israel radio (commercials for a cell-phone company and for an insurance company feature the term, with a wink.) You may know the words nituk (denotes disconnecting or hanging-up the phone) or netek (a disconnect). <<<
http://www.israelcentersf.org/tzavta/word-of-the-month-previous.asp
Is the "t" a tet or a tav? And is the "k" a kaf or a qof?
hei tav nun tav quf vav tav
Cf. Strong's entry (w/o hitpael form):
nun tav quf
05423 nathaq {naw-thak'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 1447; v
AV - break 12, drawn away 2, lifted up 2, plucked away 1,
draw 1, drawn 1, break off 1, pluck off 1, root out 1,
pull out 1, pluck 1, burst in sunder 1, break in sunder 2; 27
1) to pull or tear or draw off or away or apart, draw out, pluck up, break, lift,
root out
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to draw away
1a2) to draw or pull off
1a3) to pull or tear away
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to be drawn away, be drawn out
1b2) to be torn apart or in two, be snapped
1b3) to be separated
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to tear apart, snap
1c2) to tear out, tear up, tear away
1d) (Hiphil)
1d1) to draw away
1d2) to drag away
1e) (Hophal) to be drawn away
P.S. No more Likkud for him. As in
03161 yachad {yaw-khad'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 858; v
AV - unite 2, join 1; 3
1) to join, unite, be joined, be united
1a) (Qal) to be united
1b) (Piel) to unite
Ironically, while I'm basically illiterate in any form of Hebrew other than Biblical (and Prayerbook, which is basically the same), I don't recognize Hebrew words so well unless they're in Hebrew letters. But then, I don't recognize Hebrew letters too well unless they're in Biblical script, which is too holy for everyday use.
Pathetic, ain't I?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.