#1
Probably reflects the values of most of the MSM, there is little intersection between the values of common folk and the elite media. Perhaps would equally apply to those in government.
Writing about Israel is a booming field. No news agency, be it ever so humble, can avoid embedding a few correspondents and a dog's tail of stringers into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, to sit in cafes clicking away on their laptops, meeting up with leftist NGO's and the oppressed Muslim of the week.
At a time when international desks are being cut to the bone, this is the one bone that the newshounds won't give up. Wars can be covered from thousands of miles away, genocide can go to the back page, but, when a rock flies in the West Bank, there had better be a correspondent with a fake continental accent and a khaki shirt to cover it.
Writing about Israel isn't hard. Anyone who has consumed a steady diet of media over the years already knows all the bullet points. The trick is arranging them artistically, like so many wilted flowers, in the story of this week's outrage.
A great many of us pride ourselves on the subtlety of our minds, and on recognizing the complexities, both moral and practical, of the world, and this is a very good impulse.
But when this impulse is raised to the level of dogma, it risks obscuring more than it clarifies. There are some occasionsyes, few, but somewhen the moral calculus is exceedingly simple.
I used to have a great personal interest in the policy detail of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I could lecture at length on the subtleties of Camp David, Taba, the Road Map; on the different kinds of settlements; on the security barrier, its precise shape and contours; on the various UN resolutions; on the history of Fatah and Hamas. By now, like Lord Palmerston and the Schleswig-Holstein Question, I have forgotten most of the details.
What I have not forgotten is the following: the State of Israel is a democracy with the rule of law and respect for human rights (yes, imperfect, unlike the United States and Europe, which, as we all know, are perfect); demonic hatred of Jews is a real and persistent fact of history and when left unchecked it always leads to atrocities; this demonic hatred is absolutely clearly distilled into the enemies of Israel; and most, most importantly this: if tomorrow Hamas, Hizbullah and other enemies of Israel dropped their weapons, peace would break out; if tomorrow Israel dropped its weapons, a genocide would break out.
There is, there can be, no moral equivalency. Sometimes there really are Good Guys and Bad Guys.
That the Palestinians are weak and poor while Israel is comparatively strong and rich changes nothing. That Israel is often unwise and, yes, occasionally criminal, changes nothing.
To take a purposefully provocative analogy: yes, during World War II, the Allies (even excepting the Soviet Union) committed war crimes. The strategic bombing of Germany and the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagazaki were war crimes. Elizabeth Anscombe was right to denounce Truman. It nonetheless remains true that if you lived through World War II and pretexted of Allied crimes to portray the sides as morally equivalent, or to refuse to take sides, you were guilty of moral cretinism and cowardice.
This is a conflict where there really are Good Guys and Bad Guys and to pretend otherwise is indefensible. The chief culprit of the plight of the Palestinians is not Israel but the terrorists and fanatics who use them as tools of their ravenous bloodlust.
Golda Meir was right then, and is right now. The conflict will end when the enemies of Israel start loving their children more than they hate Israel.
#2
1. "if Israel dropped its weapons, a genocide would break out" and 2. "The conflict will end when the enemies of Israel start loving their children more than they hate Israel."
So true. And if other Islamic states, some in the West and the U.N. would stop funding terrorism which keeps this cycle going.
[Ynet] Paleostinian delegation to Cairo talks toughened negotiating positions because they have nothing to lose.
Over the weekend, the Paleostinian delegation to the ceasefire talks in Cairo changed its tune. Officials from Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason,, Islamic Jihad ...created after many members of the Egyptian Moslem Brotherhood decided the organization was becoming too moderate. Operations were conducted out of Egypt until 1981 when the group was exiled after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat. They worked out of Gaza until they were exiled to Lebanon in 1987, where they clove tightly to Hezbollah. In 1989 they moved to Damascus, where they remain a subsidiary of Hezbollah... , and even representatives of the ineffectual Mahmoud Abbas ... a graduate of the prestigious unaccredited Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow with a doctorate in Holocaust Denial... — who expressed optimism on Friday — tempered their tone on Saturday.
The delegation now says that the Egyptian proposal does not answer their demands and has threatened to let the ceasefire expire on Monday and begin a war of attrition against Israel.
There are two reasons for this turn around in public declarations.
The first is that Hamas and the other Gazook factions did not receive any concession in the Egyptian draft that they could not have elicited before Operation Protective Edge.
Essentially, the Egyptian proposal is an improved version of the understandings reached during Operation Pillar of Defense — it includes the transfer of salaries for Hamas' civil employees, which Israel first offered through UN envoy Robert Serry a month before the beginning of the military campaign.
Therefore Hamas and the other Paleostinian factions must demonstrate resilience in the negotiations, which will create the impression they received a respectable concession when, in reality, they elicited nothing from Israel as a result of the fighting and Egypt only offered opening the Rafah border crossing under Paleostinian Authority — and likely European — supervision.
This was not the "lifting of the blockage" that the Paleostinians declared as the central aim of the operation. It is possible the Paleostinians will reject the Egyptian offer during the negotiations that start Sunday in Cairo, preferring a de-facto ceasefire to a fruitless Egyptian proposal.
Currently the Rafah border crossing remains closed, and it will likely stay dormant for the extended future. Hamas is in a difficult position because the leadership in Gazoo feels both a commitment and a need to ease the suffering of the locals and allow them to rehabilitate their lives.
The Gazooks cannot return to their lives as long as there is no formal ceasefire and the fighting may resume. The factions may threaten Israel with a war of attrition, but they recognize that such a war would cause great suffering in Gazoo and may even push the local population to rebel.
The second reason to the change in tone from the Paleostinian delegation relates to meetings Hamas political chief Khaled Mashal conducted in Qatar over the weekend.
The political bureau leader, currently enjoying the luxuries of Doha, never wanted the temporary truce, preferring to negotiate a ceasefire while the fighting continued — hoping that the soft Israeli public would pressure the government and Netanyahu to give in to Hamas' demands.
Mashal has maintained his position and has even managed to influence the Paleostinian delegation to toughen its stance and threaten Israel with war. Khaled Mashal was and remains the central source of the hardened Paleostinian positions and their increasingly exaggerated demands.
Mashal clarified this today in an interview with Al Jazeera, where he reiterated that Hamas would not concede on a future seaport or airport.
The Israeli outlook
Israel has two plays in this game. It continues its diplomatic maneuvers with Egypt in order to assure that Hamas could not rebuild and rehabilitate its military wing even if the Rafah crossing is opened by the Egyptians.
Israel has also made it clear that opening a seaport and airport in Gazoo was not feasible in the near future and that such a possibility would only be accepted if the Paleostinians agree to turn over their weapon caches, including rockets and mortar, and handed over a map of all the tunnels dug under the Strip.
All of this, though, is in the distant future. In the short term Israel is essentially negotiating with Egypt to assure that the supervision of the Rafah crossing involves not only Paleostinian Authority security forces, but also European ones.
On Friday the foreign ministers of the European Union ...the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, only without the Hapsburgs and the nifty uniforms and the dancing... announced they offered to send European personnel to supervise the Rafah crossing (as previously occurred after the disengagement from Gazoo). They also offered to train the personnel deployed by Abbas — if such an agreement is reached — along the security barrier with Israel.
Israel is gladly advancing such initiatives as it is interested in returning Abbas to the Strip, but also because the Europeans have a reputation as honest supervisors.
Additionally, comprehensive negotiations — through Egyptian mediation — between Israel and the Gazook factions are deliberating on measures to implement of the new understandings, in such a manner that does not allow Hamas and Islamic Jihad to utilize the arrangement to rearm.
The Israeli conclusions:
o The calm will be maintained using the deterrence measures Israel achieved during the operation. If the calm is not maintained, Israel will act with force and will not allow the rehabilitation of the Strip until its deterrence is restored. It is possible a partial seizure of the Gazoo Strip would be required in order to achieve an immutable deterrence that would lead to a few years of quiet.
o Prevention of reinforcement of Gazoo by having Egypt destroy the smuggling tunnels around Rafah, with close supervision over crossings by Israel, and supervision of Strip projects by European and UNRWA personnel — to assure that the cement and other construction materials are not used by Hamas to manufacture rockets and dig tunnels.
o Preventing any political gain by Hamas to assure they do not strengthen their position on the Paleostinian street or the international arena. Egypt and Israel see eye-to-eye on this issue, as Egypt has worked towards that end without any influence from Israel.
o The current estimate is that even though Hamas has not achieved its aims, it will maintain the ceasefire even without a formal agreement. Israel will accept that scenario, though it clarified that if hostilities resume the Israeli response will be forceful and disproportionate. Israel will not accept a war of attrition, and would prefer another incursion into Gazoo over a war of attrition which denies southern residents the opportunity to return to their homes.
[DAILYINTERLAKE] Conservative readers question me on a regular basis about why the Daily Inter Lake publishes the somewhat confrontational column by liberal Gene Lyons every week. I've never heard of Lyons, but I suppose somebody must if they read him. Or does anybody read him?
The straightforward answer is because liberals exist and therefore they need a column to read. Far be it from me to shut down the free exchange of ideas. Try getting that idea on MSNBC...
The more amusing explanation is that rooting for Lyons to get something right is a bit of a guilty pleasure. He's like a 100-to-1 underdog at the Kentucky Derby. He's lost race after race, but the ever-present possibility that Lyons might actually prevail in his effort to put one foot in front of the other to reach a logical conclusion is so giddily intoxicating that reading his column can actually become addictive. Ahah.I misunderstood. He's a chew toy.
What brings me out of the closet as a Lyons reader, however, is last Thursday's column in which he bravely but foolishly defended the bedraggled climate scientist Michael Mann from the ripostes of Mark Steyn, perhaps the most capably armed social critic since Edmund Wilson.
According to Lyons, Steyn is due for a comeuppance because of his nasty personal attacks on Mr. Mann's character. Indeed, Mann has sued Steyn, National Review, Rand Simberg and the Competitive Enterprise Institute for their audacity in challenging the Penn State climate scientist's theories (most famously the global-warming hockey stick), his credentials, and most importantly his character.
Lyons thinks it is inappropriate for a social critic to actually criticize, and has come down against the First Amendment and in favor of Steyn being pilloried in the common square (NOTE: this is an exaggeration for rhetorical effect, and I would appreciate not being sued over it).
Steyn's apparent offense is that he dared to challenge the scientific orthodoxy on climate change, "E pur se non muove."
and he did it most colorfully. This is somewhat ironic since Lyons is himself noted for his acerbic barbs, aimed mostly at poor country bumpkins and rich Republicans. Noted for potshotting at the unarmed, is he?
Lyons wrote his column partly to commiserate with poor Michael Mann for being so abused while on a high pedestal of social acclaim, but more importantly to warn climate critics to keep their opinions to themselves.
What Lyons selectively omits from his column is the well-known fact that Steyn, unlike the other defendants, has dropped any effort to dismiss the libel charges against him because he relishes the idea of going to trial and getting a court to actually adjudicate the validity of the "hockey stick" and Mr. Mann's claims to being a Nobel Prize-winning scientist.
I strongly encourage anyone interested in either brilliant writing, a good laugh, or a wistful farewell to Western civilization to visit Mr. Steyn's website at www.steynonline.com and read at random from any of his essays. You will not be disappointed.
In particular, Mr. Steyn is an unabashed advocate of free speech. Not surprisingly he has therefore been the frequent target of those people (usually liberals with limited understanding of the roots of liberalism) who aim to shut down free speech. He means people with dictatorial tendencies.
In Canada, Steyn was the victim of that country's "hate speech" law, which attempts to prevent him or anyone else from accurately describing the beliefs of the Moslem religion because it might "incite hatred" against Moslems. Steyn prevailed in that prolonged persecution, but now he is the target of Michael Mann's petulant lawsuit.
Mann took offense at the fact that Steyn quoted another author, Rand Simberg, who wittily compared Penn State scientist Mann to Penn State serial molester Jerry Sandusky by saying that Mann had "molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet."
Never mind that Steyn said he thought Simberg was overzealous in his extended metaphor; Mann was unhinged by the audacity of Steyn claiming that the famous climate-change hockey stick was fraudulent. ... millions of dollars of grant money later...
The good news is that it is either fraudulent or it isn't, and a presumably impartial court is now going to have to decide the matter. Steyn will be able to present evidence about how the inventors of the hockey stick manipulated data in order to create what Steyn calls "the single most influential image in the campaign to sell Big Climate alarmism at the turn of the century."
Posted by: Fred ||
08/18/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Gadzooks, this is going to be more fun to watch than the Cairo "peace talks."
Where's the popcorn?
I'll take Steyn to win by a standing TKO in the third inning...what's the overs and unders?
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
08/18/2014 1:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I encourage all of you to do your own research on the “hockey stick” and Mr. Mann and make your own minds up whether you can believe everything either one of them says. And, I guess, that goes for Mr. Lyons, too!
#3
Kind of depends on how much damage Steyn did representing himself at the trial court. Could be very hard to come back from.
Posted by: Marilyn Hupurong1079 ||
08/18/2014 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Marilyn - he only represented himself very briefly, and during the interim after parting ways with a joint defense with National Review and before he retained a defense team. I believe he only filed a brief or two, neither the original answer, nor, interestingly, the most recent counter claim in which his counsel argues for a swift trial and damages from Mr. Mann.
However, his opinion columns have been his own throughout, and with his distinctive approach to events.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[DAILYINTERLAKE] Conservative readers question me on a regular basis about why the Daily Inter Lake publishes the somewhat confrontational column by liberal Gene Lyons every week. 
