Some punishment.
Instead of being immediately sacked for insulting a few billion people, this guy gets to go back to business as usual.
Foreign Ministry sources said Tuesday that Israel's ambassador to Australia will have his term cut short in the wake of an interview to Haaretz, in which he called Australia and Israel white sisters amid "the yellow race."
Naftali Tamir was on his way back to Canberra on Tuesday following a two-week review process in Jerusalem where he denied having made the comments attributed to him, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.
But ministry sources say that an internal tender for his post - which includes non-resident accreditation to New Zealand and Papua New Guinea - will be issued shortly. They add that several senior diplomats have already shown an interest the post.
"Israel and Australia are like sisters in Asia," Tamir told Haaretz during a visit to Israel three weeks ago. "We are in Asia without the characteristics of Asians. We don't have yellow skin and slanted eyes. Asia is basically the yellow race. Australia and Israel are not - we are basically the white race. We are on the western side of Asia and they are on the southeastern side."
Following the publication of the interview on October 13, Tamir was immediately recalled to Israel to explain his comments. The ministry swiftly condemned the reported remarks as "grave and unacceptable," adding that it would not return to business as usual if its internal review confirmed the ambassador had indeed made the statements.
Earlier Tuesday, Regev refrained from commenting on whether Tamir's version of events had been accepted by his superiors at the ministry, stating only: "The ambassador denied the remarks attributed to him immediately following their publication, and he did so through all stages of the internal Foreign Ministry review. He is on his way back and will arrive in Australia tomorrow."
Under normal circumstances, Tamir, who arrived in Canberra in January 2005, would have been expected to remain in post for four years, but his return date is now likely to be sometime in 2007.
Tamir's early departure from his post is aimed at minimizing the damage caused by the affair, say sources close to the ministry. The plan to shorten Tamir's term will be made clear to his host governments, a ministry insider added.
In Australia, the comments were labeled as "completely unacceptable" by senior opposition politician Kevin Rudd, while New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark was quoted as saying: "If the remarks are as reported, of course they are completely unacceptable. If they were made by anyone in our public service, there would be quite severe consequences."
The affair, given its widespread coverage in the media in Australia, placed the Jewish community there in an embarrassing position, as they struggled to balance their customary support Israel's highest representative in the region and with efforts to distance themselves from the comments.
It is still unclear what kind of reception Tamir will face upon his return to Canberra. While the Jewish community is likely to rally round the ambassador, the Australian government and the Australian media may be less understanding.
Members of Australia's Jewish community fear that Tamir's return will cause further damage, providing ammunition to those who charge that Israel is a racist state and that the Australian government should moderate its overtly pro-Israel stance.
Some who have followed the affair closely have speculated that firing or recalling Tamir without conclusive proof that he actually made the comments would leave the ministry open to legal action. [What bullsh*t!] "The ministry didn't have much room for maneuver," said one insider.
The ministry's response to the incident has been followed closely by those keen to see how its relatively new leadership of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and director-general Aharon Abramovich handles a crisis.
While the ministry's initial strong and swift response won widespread praise, those following the affair will take note as to whether senior officials will follow through quickly with seeking a suitable replacement for Tamir.
Not only does this racist joker get to return to his post while awaiting a replacement to arrive only God knows when, but cutting this dodo's term short for his racist remarks is like handling a raging inferno by hiding the smoke.
As long as people continue to deny that - at its heart - zionism is nothing but racism, the fire will continue to rage - burning everything in its sight unopposed.
ISn't this the same guy who was outed as a Pedophile when he was stationed in Brazil, but was still assigned to Australia? I would guess that this "yellow" comment is a fake scandal to cover-up this fact.
AUSSIES GET ISRAELI PEDOPHILE FOR DIPLOMATIC POST
The Jewish diplomat who ran a child prostitution ring out of the Israeli Embassy in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil hopes to leave safe-haven Israel for a new diplomatic post in Australia.
The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that notorious child pornographer Arie Scher has been flagged as the replacement for Amir Laty, the former Israeli consul to Australia who was expelled amid extreme secrecy from Australia about a month ago.
quote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This guy is a pedophile
ISn't this the same guy who was outed as a Pedophile when he was stationed in Brazil, but was still assigned to Australia? I would guess that this "yellow" comment is a fake scandal to cover-up this fact.
AUSSIES GET ISRAELI PEDOPHILE FOR DIPLOMATIC POST
The Jewish diplomat who ran a child prostitution ring out of the Israeli Embassy in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil hopes to leave safe-haven Israel for a new diplomatic post in Australia.
The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that notorious child pornographer Arie Scher has been flagged as the replacement for Amir Laty, the former Israeli consul to Australia who was expelled amid extreme secrecy from Australia about a month ago.
mondo (not verified) | Tue, 2006-10-31 21:46
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
These "Jews" just love sexual perversion don't they?!!!! Mark Foley, and now this?!
When will these PERVERTS ever learn?!
Or, am I missing something here?
I think you're right, they are different men. But do they work in the same office? Consulate?
As far as more of this, Shank's blog keeps pretty good track. If you go through his archives for the past 4 months, you'll find a lot of interesting things jews have been caught doing and is instantly covered up by the media and ADL/SPLC.
www.shankblog.com
This is a little off topic, but just too good to ignore. Today on whatreallyhapened.com (Oct 31, 2006) there's an excellent AUDIO CLIP in which Bush fumbles trying to put the bombing on Al Queda, which OPENS UP A WHOLE NEW CAN OF WORMS!
Enjoy! ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Official Transcript: President Bush admits bombs were in World Trade Towers.
"For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping. "
Posted Oct 31, 2006 08:13 AM PST
CLICK HERE FOR BUSH MAKING THIS STATEMENT
There you have it. President Bush had admitted what the eyewitnesses reported on 9-11; that there were bombs inside the World Trade Towers.
Of course, Bush pins the blame for the bombs on Al Qaeda, which is sort of accurate when you consider that most of Al Qaeda is a creation of US and Israeli intelligence.
But in trying to explain away the eyewitness reports of bombs, Bush has dug himself into a deeper logic hole. How did these "Al Qaeda" bombers manage to spend at least a week (according to witnesses who heard and saw them) working inside the buildings under the noses of Bush's cousin and brother, who were in charge of security for the World Trade Center? Security at the towers was tight following the 1993 attempted bombing. You could not simply walk into an elevator unless you could document employment or a meeting. Yet as one can tell from the tell-tale marks left by the cutter charges, these preparations took a great deal of time and materials to carry out.
Why did these "Al Qaeda" bombers go to the extra effort to drop all three buildings straight down instead of toppling them sideways, maximizing the damage?
If Al Qaeda succeeded in bombing the buildings, why bother with the airplanes? Why bother hiding the bombing itself, if it was truly the work of terrorists out to make a statement?
In admitting the bombs, Bush has opened up the inquiry to include the very great amount of incriminating evidence found near the airplanes linking the attacks to Arab nations, versus the total absence of any such evidence near the bombs. This contrast is ONLY explained if the evidence left with the airplanes was planted, to frame someone.
Why did it take 5 years for the government to admit what was obvious to everyone right from the start; that explosives were used to bring down the buildings, unless the original plan was not to admit to the bombs in the first place?
Dubya, in his pathetic attempt to pin the blame for the now-admitted bombs on Al Qaeda, has created far more logical problems then he has solved.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Go to WRH to download (and save) the evidence for yourself. Develop that good habit of saving evidence, because as both you and I know, the Khazars pretty much have CONTROL over the Internet (i.e. the routers, servers, pipes/cables/optics, etc) and they could SHUT/FILTER/CENSOR any time soon.
Besides localized censorship (e.g. Google/blogger.com), I'm really surprised they haven't done it yet --- to politically risky at the moment....
Enjoy the "free" internet while you can. NEVER TAKE IT FOR GRANTED.
QRS, please, PLEASE document and backup your work at multiple physical locations. And share your work/knowledge with others -- in case (God forbid) you get "suicided"....
Good luck!
. . . that I'm on the hit list - and I'm not talking greatest hits!
But, regarding the admission, I read the transcript very carefully the day after he made that speech.
Bush was talking about the '93 bombings. So, it's not as damning as it might at first seem.
Don't get me wrong, I know the bastard and his cronies were behind 9/11. I just don't think that this particular admission proves it.
But, who needs it? There's a wealth of evidence pointing at him and his zionist cronies.
Which reminds me, I need to do more research on the '93 bombings. Something tells me there are crucial clues to be found in the details of that incident.
Thanks QRS!
Believe it or not, thanks for giving the info that it refers to the 93 bombing -- I read it directly from WRH. Sometimes I'm not able to have all information at my disposal. And we need to be as accurate as possible if we want to challenge Lamestream Media.
However, we have Larry Silverstein's CONFESSION VIDEO, the one he gave immediately after the bombing on the Twin Towers on 9/11/2001 in which HE FULLY EXPLAINS THE REASON FOR THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION OF THE TWIN TOWERS.
He elaborates SO MUCH on it, with his sad sad puppy face.
I have the FULL VIDEO, from which there's no denying its a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
I would like to share it with our readers. But I would like to share the High-Quality FULL version -- and no youtube/google-video will NOT do.
And both you and I know why ;)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ghee, thanks for reminding me . . .
. . . that I'm on the hit list - and I'm not talking greatest hits! Frown
But, regarding the admission, I read the transcript very carefully the day after he made that speech.
Bush was talking about the '93 bombings. So, it's not as damning as it might at first seem.
Don't get me wrong, I know the bastard and his cronies were behind 9/11. I just don't think that this particular admission proves it.
But, who needs it? There's a wealth of evidence pointing at him and his zionist cronies.
Which reminds me, I need to do more research on the '93 bombings. Something tells me there are crucial clues to be found in the details of that incident.
qrswave | Wed, 2006-11-01 06:06
i do wonder what B'nai Brith would say about this if it had been a chinese talking this way about a jew