"but"
A September 14, 2002 editorial in the Washington Post gets it backwards. The editorial takes President Bush to task for not assuming the role of primary peacemaker between Israel and the Palestinians. To the writers' (this is clearly a groupthink product) consternation, we are now improperly focused on regime change in Iraq.
The "but" is in the lead of the last paragraph, which follows a dissertation of alleged small improvements -- signs of independance from the Fat Rat Arafat by PA lackeys, Labor defectors from the Sharon unity (well, ok, Likud in Hebrew) government negotiating with PA thugs, and, o blesst world that ne'er wert -- "signs of revival in the long-moribund Israeli peace camp." Mustn't ever lose sight of what's really essential -- a healthy "peace camp"; forget about ending terrorism.
Anyway, all this claptrap about "improvements" is immediately followed by that pesky "but": "But Israeli troops occupy six major West Bank towns and significant parts of the Gaza Strip..." Well. Could it be that the absence of serious terror attacks by Arabs is in any way, shape or form connected to the presence of the IDF? And, do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, the brighter lads of the PA recognize that it is in their own best interests to control their lunatics?
For help in the pop quiz that comes later, answer is: Yea, verily. There is a direct correlation between IDF incursions and lack of serious attacks by the Arabs. The same thing happened earlier this year; when the IDF pulled out, Israel suffered another round of Arab cowards using their children to kill other children.
Now, getting back to regime change. Arabs respect only force from us infidels; words and written promises are worse than useless. These people lie as a matter of culture, and don't consider it sinful in the way a Christian or Jew would. Getting rid of Saddam, with the greatest amount of force we can bring to bear, will send the correct message to the Palestinians -- best agree to a real peace, or next time it's your ass.
To hell with political correctness; peace in the Middle East depends on war first; a war which we will bring to the Arabs through the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Truth will out.
A September 14, 2002 editorial in the Washington Post gets it backwards. The editorial takes President Bush to task for not assuming the role of primary peacemaker between Israel and the Palestinians. To the writers' (this is clearly a groupthink product) consternation, we are now improperly focused on regime change in Iraq.
The "but" is in the lead of the last paragraph, which follows a dissertation of alleged small improvements -- signs of independance from the Fat Rat Arafat by PA lackeys, Labor defectors from the Sharon unity (well, ok, Likud in Hebrew) government negotiating with PA thugs, and, o blesst world that ne'er wert -- "signs of revival in the long-moribund Israeli peace camp." Mustn't ever lose sight of what's really essential -- a healthy "peace camp"; forget about ending terrorism.
Anyway, all this claptrap about "improvements" is immediately followed by that pesky "but": "But Israeli troops occupy six major West Bank towns and significant parts of the Gaza Strip..." Well. Could it be that the absence of serious terror attacks by Arabs is in any way, shape or form connected to the presence of the IDF? And, do you suppose that maybe, just maybe, the brighter lads of the PA recognize that it is in their own best interests to control their lunatics?
For help in the pop quiz that comes later, answer is: Yea, verily. There is a direct correlation between IDF incursions and lack of serious attacks by the Arabs. The same thing happened earlier this year; when the IDF pulled out, Israel suffered another round of Arab cowards using their children to kill other children.
Now, getting back to regime change. Arabs respect only force from us infidels; words and written promises are worse than useless. These people lie as a matter of culture, and don't consider it sinful in the way a Christian or Jew would. Getting rid of Saddam, with the greatest amount of force we can bring to bear, will send the correct message to the Palestinians -- best agree to a real peace, or next time it's your ass.
To hell with political correctness; peace in the Middle East depends on war first; a war which we will bring to the Arabs through the removal of Saddam Hussein.
Truth will out.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home