Parallel Lines
There are some troubling parallels between what the terrorist Yassir Arafat says, and the writings of the New York Times and Washington Post editorials. Consider these in turn:
Yassir Arafat: "Out of my concern to our people, their land and their future," Mr. Arafat said in his statement, "I declare my complete condemnation to these attacks that target Israeli civilians." Source: story in today's New York Times
NYT Editorial: “While President Bush reworks drafts of a new Mideast plan, his agenda is being yanked from under him by delusional young Palestinians.” Source: today's lead editorial.
This editorial also includes the Times' usual statement of moral equivalency: “Each side in this struggle is now locked into a position in which it sees any concession as rewarding the misbehavior of the other.” Right, a group of thugs who blow up civilians are every bit as much to blame as a liberal democracy that defends itself against same.
Post Editorial: “...within the administration, those who support a U.S. effort to map out a political path to ending Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have once again been undermined.” Source: today's lead editorial.
What these have in common is that, although the Post and the Times pay lip service to the atrocities committed, their foremost concern is with peace process-y things. Statements such as "agenda is being yanked from under him", and "effort to map out a political path...undermined" display a rather callous disregard for the first and foremost thing that these attacks are: barbaric acts of terrorism against innocent people. Oh, the humanity...the peace process has been harmed...
Arafat, of course, being Arafat, simply leads off his statement with his concern for "...our people, their land and their future..." The fact that these heinous acts kill and maim innocent civilians, which one might think was a moral outrage and worthy of condemnation irregardless of who did them or in what cause, is of only secondary importance. If such terrorist acts were somehow to be perceived as helping the Palestinian cause, one wonders if Arafat would condemn them...
In stark contrast, some common sense from columnist Charles Krauthammer: Don't reward terrorism. A "provisional state" rewards those Palestinian thugs who crave violence, that is, a 2/3 majority of the Palestinian population who are in support of these actions (from the Times editorial: "A poll last month showed that two-thirds believe they have accomplished more through two years of violence than through all the previous years of negotiation."). Well, if the Palestinians don't like Israeli "occupation", their choices are simple and twofold:
1. Leave.
2. Take control; neutralize by whatever means necessary Arafat, the PA thugs, Hamas, and Hezbollah; establish normal and economically beneficial relations with Israel and the West.
lo res loquitur
There are some troubling parallels between what the terrorist Yassir Arafat says, and the writings of the New York Times and Washington Post editorials. Consider these in turn:
Yassir Arafat: "Out of my concern to our people, their land and their future," Mr. Arafat said in his statement, "I declare my complete condemnation to these attacks that target Israeli civilians." Source: story in today's New York Times
NYT Editorial: “While President Bush reworks drafts of a new Mideast plan, his agenda is being yanked from under him by delusional young Palestinians.” Source: today's lead editorial.
This editorial also includes the Times' usual statement of moral equivalency: “Each side in this struggle is now locked into a position in which it sees any concession as rewarding the misbehavior of the other.” Right, a group of thugs who blow up civilians are every bit as much to blame as a liberal democracy that defends itself against same.
Post Editorial: “...within the administration, those who support a U.S. effort to map out a political path to ending Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip have once again been undermined.” Source: today's lead editorial.
What these have in common is that, although the Post and the Times pay lip service to the atrocities committed, their foremost concern is with peace process-y things. Statements such as "agenda is being yanked from under him", and "effort to map out a political path...undermined" display a rather callous disregard for the first and foremost thing that these attacks are: barbaric acts of terrorism against innocent people. Oh, the humanity...the peace process has been harmed...
Arafat, of course, being Arafat, simply leads off his statement with his concern for "...our people, their land and their future..." The fact that these heinous acts kill and maim innocent civilians, which one might think was a moral outrage and worthy of condemnation irregardless of who did them or in what cause, is of only secondary importance. If such terrorist acts were somehow to be perceived as helping the Palestinian cause, one wonders if Arafat would condemn them...
In stark contrast, some common sense from columnist Charles Krauthammer: Don't reward terrorism. A "provisional state" rewards those Palestinian thugs who crave violence, that is, a 2/3 majority of the Palestinian population who are in support of these actions (from the Times editorial: "A poll last month showed that two-thirds believe they have accomplished more through two years of violence than through all the previous years of negotiation."). Well, if the Palestinians don't like Israeli "occupation", their choices are simple and twofold:
1. Leave.
2. Take control; neutralize by whatever means necessary Arafat, the PA thugs, Hamas, and Hezbollah; establish normal and economically beneficial relations with Israel and the West.
lo res loquitur
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home