On Monday, July 5th, 2009, I will declare a ceasefire in my coverage of Israel. I will stop recommending that Israel take its enemies and destroy them militarily, and recommend that Israel sit down and talk to the Palestinian leadership. I will then step back and promise to refuse to comment further.
Then on Tuesday, July 6th, I will break my word, and continue hammering Palestinians with justified verbal ferocity in the same way I believe the Israeli military should hammer them on the battlefield. I will not only break my word, but I will take great pride in doing so.
Oh I’m sorry. I was just doing my impersonation of Palestinian culture, where agreements, integrity, decency, and human life mean absolutely nothing. These cultural savages will lie, cheat, steal, and murder for sport, and for that I will make sure the world knows about it.
Some people and institutions love to claim that criticism of Israel does not mean being anti-Israel, and that being anti-Israel does not mean being anti-Semitic. Some of those people are decent human beings speaking truth. Many other of the speakers of these cliches are simply seeking cover for rabid anti-Semitism. One such disgusting organization is the Los Angeles Times.
In the same way murdering 10 people is not as bad as murdering 20 people, the Los Angeles Times is not as bad as the Jayson Blair Times. Nevertheless, being slightly less vile is not the same as actually doing good. I have often compared the Los Angeles Times to Palestinians because one has to dig deep down to possibly find anything that can remotely be considered positive.
The year 2009 began with the dropping of the screwball. A Jayson Blair Times columnist was thrown over the ocean, and New York celebrated one less wretched journalist (no, not really, getting permits for this ritual was difficult given zoning laws). The ritual in Los Angeles began with the dropping of the screwball column by Rosa Brooks.
I am amazed that environmentalists actually allow trees to be killed for such ridiculously imbecilic words. The column “Israel can’t bomb its way to peace” should be mandatory reading for anybody that wants to learn absolutely nothing, and do so badly.
In the great tradition of liberal columnists, I shall cherry pick the worst of the comments. The difference is that unlike these liberal journalists, they will be perfectly in context.
“As long as President Bush was in the White House, Israel could count on a U.S. administration that wasn’t merely ‘supportive’ of Israel but blindly, mindlessly so.”
Yes, the obligatory smug cheap shot at President George W. Bush has to be part of any liberal article. After all, the geniuses at the Los Angeles Palestiniant Times (LAPT) cannot just disagree with the current policy. They need to call it “mindless.” In their world, the President has no mind. He cannot think clearly, which is ironic given that on issues of right and wrong, he seems crystal clear. Israelis defending themselves are the good guys. Hamas murderers are the bad guys. Nothing about this requires nuance.
“Obama may be less willing to offer Israel blank checks. Thus this New Year’s military offensive, timed for the crucial window before Israeli elections and Obama’s swearing-in.”
In the words of a salty teenager, which I was once, “Well, duh.” The United States has had a President that puts principles before polls. He has allowed Israel to defend itself against murderers without restrictions. Mr. Obama is a blank slate. Nobody knows what he will do, perhaps not even him. It is not just reaosnable for Israel to act now. It is the only course of action. Perhaps Rosa Brooks wants an entire democratic nation to roll the dice on its very future existence, but thankfully this nation of Israel is not going to rely on a 50/50 proposition. Perhaps Ms. Brooks might want Israel to rely on the United Nations to save it. Maybe if the town Ms. Brooks lives in were denied any kind of police protection, she would be willing to trust that the criminals would just voluntarily leave her neighborhood alone. I suspect otherwise.
“For all its threats and bravado, Hamas is weak, and its weapons — terrorism, homemade rockets — are the weapons of the weak. Since 2001, Hamas has fired thousands of unguided Kassam rockets at Israel, but the rockets have killed only a handful of Israelis.”
This is an outright lie, or as the LAPT would describe it, a typical day at the office. The rockets are getting more and more accurate, and traveling further distances. They are not as crudely made as they were several years ago.Besides, given that this might be the only thing taught in Palestinian classrooms, they had better be good at it at some point.
More importantly, the fact that “only” a few Jews have been murdered is pure nonsense. One innocent murdered Jew is too many. I do not know if Ms. Brook shas children, but if she had 10, and she had one murdered, she would not be so cavalier with her numbers. I do not wish that on her or any parent.
Some may ask about Palestinian civilian casualties, but there is a major difference. Israelis deliberately try to avoid civilian casualties. Palestinians use their women and children as shields. Therefore, any Palestinian deaths are solely the fault of the Palestinians. Are innocent deaths problematic? Absolutely. Does this absolve the Palestinians of 100% culpability in the suicidal nature of their own culture that gets their own people killed? Absolutely not. Israel is blameless not because they are Jews, but because they are right.
For those that disagree, ask yourself why Israeli hospitals accept wounded Palestinians. Try finding an Arab country that would save Jewish lives, unless murdering and sending to heaven is considered saving.
“Israel’s military, in contrast, is one of the most modern and effective in the world (thanks in part to an annual $3 billion in U.S. aid).”
That is a thinly veiled threat, and another reason liberal Jews might wish to rethink their support of democrats. After all, we would not want them to be blind and mindless, to paraphrase Ms. Brooks.
“Destruction of Hamas’ infrastructure may temporarily slow Hamas rocket attacks, but sooner or later they’ll resume.”
The reason why the attacks resume is not because of the Israeli bombings, but because of the phony “cease fires.” Palestinians promise to stop firing rockets at Israel. They agree to a “truce” only when they are getting pulverized. Then, like little children on a homicidal playground, they have their fingers crossed behind their backs. The Palestinians use the cease fires to rebuild their capabilities, and then start up again.
The only way to get Palestinian terrorists is to keep their words is to keep destroying their weapons and their capabilities to fire them. Ms. Brooks believes the nonsensical notion that killing terrorists breeds more terrorists. Apparently in her world subtraction truly is addition. Her mathematical skills are truly Congressional. Killing terrorists is the death penalty. It prevents repeat offender. Does anybody believe that more cockroaches show up out of anger that the original cockroaches were exterminated? The additional cockroaches were there the entire time, hiding behind the first layer. The goal is to remove the entire infestation, in as many waves as it takes.
“Arab and Islamic anger over Palestine continues to fuel anti-Western and anti-U.S. terrorism around the globe.”
There is no Palestine! It does not exist. Decent people understand this, which excludes the LAPT. Perhaps they look at the same globes found in Arab schools that do not have Israel on them.
Israel is not the cause of Arab anger. Arab anger has existed for centuries, long before Israel existed in 1948. Besides, so what if Arabs in the Middle East are angry? That does not make their anger justifed.
Does anybody sane really believe that if Israel ceased to exist, Arab anger would not be channeled somewhere else decadent, say Los Angeles? America is the Great Satan. Israel is only Little Satan.
“It’s time for the United States to wake up from its long slumber and reengage — forcefully — with the Middle East peace process.”
In the real world, forcefully means an actual solution. Only in a world run by liberals could the world forcefully be synthesized with diplomatic engagement. Perhaps the plan is to speak in a tough sounding voice, accomplishing nothing but looking spectacular while doing it.
“In January 2001, the Taba talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority came achingly close to a final settlement, but talks broke down after Likud’s Ariel Sharon was elected prime minister on Feb. 6, 2001.”
Even by LAPT standards, this is a disgusting lie. Talks broke down in 2000 while Bill Clinton was still President of America and Ehud Barak was Prime Minister of Israel. Ariel Sharon did visit the Temple Mount, but that visit was arranged in advance and authorized by Yassir Arafat. The second Initfada that broke out was not a spontaneous reaction to this visit. It was planned months in advance by Yassir Arafat, who had no intention of reaching an agreement.
Again, Yassir Arafat did not negotiate in good faith because he wanted bloodshed. He was the Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton of the Middle East. The worst thing that happens to political agitators is peace and contentment. This renders the agitator irrelevant. The conflict is not the means. It is the ends.
“Sharon refused to meet with Yasser Arafat, and newly inaugurated President George W. Bush had no interest in pushing Israel toward peace.”
Ariel Sharon had no interest in negotiating with a lying, murdering, sub-human animal derivative. George W. Bush had no interest in siding with this deranged Palestinian terrorist. He sided with the law abiding and democratically elected Israeli leader. Again, everywhere except the LAPT, this is reasonable.
“When he takes office, Obama needs to push both Israelis and Palestinians to sit back down, with the abandoned Taba agreements as the starting point.”
No. He does not need to do this. He also does not need to dictate what the starting points are. An agreement is null and void once it is violated. There is no Taba, Oslo, or any other type of agreement.
So until anything takes place, here are some questions for Rosa Brooks and the rest of the LAPT ilk.
What if Palestinians do not stop firing rockets at Israel for good? What happens if Israel makes concessions, but the Palestinains violate their end of the bargain? Then what?
That has already happened.
What if Palestinains continue to teach their children Jewish blood libel?
That happens.
What if Palestinian leaders take aid that is supposed to be used for food and medical servies for their own people, and instead spend it on guns and other munitions?
They already do this.
What happens if an agreement is reached, and Palestinians violate the agreement?
That is their entire history.
No, Ms. Brooks. Israel does need to make tough and painful decisions, but not the ones you recommend.
Israel needs to tell their doctors to stop treating wounded Palestinians until Arab doctors treat Jewish patients with equal care.
Israel needs to deny the Palestinians food, water, electricity, and anything else needed to survive. Israel is at war. In war the purpose is to take the enemy and choke the life out of it, not feed and shelter an enemy that will use that nourishment and sustenance to wage more war.
What is the downside for Israel? Bad public relations? They already have that from places like the LAPT and the JBT.
Israel should make sure that Palestinian suffering is so brutal and so thorough that Palestinians decide that the only solution is to make sure that Hamas stops firing rockets. Palestinians must fight for their freedom internally the same way oppressed peoples in other nations do. It is bloody, but in the end, it works.
Palestinians need to blame their own leaders, and stop blaming Israel.
The rockets need to stop.
There is no need to dialogue with the Palestinian murderers just because the LAPT says so.
Israel needs to make their enemies bleed blood red, as if they were the LAPT financial bottom line.
Perhaps when the LAPT, the JBT and the rest of their illiterate newspaper cousins stop adopting the Palestinian method of journalism, they might survive as well.
I hope not. Some Palestinians may be redeemable, but these newspapers deserve to be put down for good.
eric