< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://bokertov.typepad.com/ btb/" >

Friday, July 23, 2004

Searches prompt detour onto Memory Lane

September 19, 2003

I've been getting a lot of hits from image searches, and I was trying to figure out if there was any rhyme or reason to this phenomenon when I noticed one of my old posts.

Sept. 19th of last year.  "UN General Assembly (((in special emergency session)))  passes resolution demanding Israel drop its threat against Arafat." 

The vote was 133 to 4, and the negative votes were from Israel, the U.S., Marshall Islands and Micronesia.

The Reuters headline, "UN Backs Arafat."

Also that day I had a post on a Wiesenthal Center campaign demanding UN condemnation of Palestinian terror groups.
". . . since its founding, the UN has passed over 1,000 resolutions condemning Israel, but never one explicitly condemning the Arab groups for their consistent campaign of terror against the Jewish State." 
This post showed what the SWC called the "Gang of Four" -- Arafat (Fatah), Yassin (the Hamas), Ramadan Shalah (Islamic Jihad) and Nasrallah (Hez b'Allah).  


[this photo wasn't on my blog that day, but I cannot resist adding it now] 

That day, less than a year ago, President Bush was quoted as saying that Yasser Arafat "has failed as a leader" and James Carroll wrote in the Boston Globe: "Bush himself has . . . become the ultimate suicide bomber."  A Rutgers student hit Israeli Minister Sharansky with a pie,  and I ranted, somewhat excessively, about an editorial in the New York Times. 

Since I find it amusing and have no have  word limit or editors to stop me, I repost my riposte:
Is today's editorial about the fact that two recent suicide bombers came from the hundreds of Palestinian criminals released by Israel as a "good will gesture," uncalled for by the road map and scorned by the Palestinian leadership? No.

Is today's editorial about Araft offering HAMAS portfolios in his new and improved "Abu Ala" government? No.

Is today's editorial about how King Abdullah's government promised that Jordan's banks would refuse business from known terrorists, and then within 24 hours backed down and rescinded that order, after being reprimanded by HAMAS? Nope.

I know, today's editorial in the New York Times is about the six-month-old Arab girl from Gaza who received highly advanced eye surgery in Israel, which restored her sight. No, not today, though I'm sure that story will be found somewhere in the Times at some point.

Last guess. Today's editorial is about how Abu Mazen's resignation as prime minister came just one day after multimillion-dollar fraud charges were dropped against his brother by the kingdom of Jordan.  No, that's not in the New York Times and never will be.

TODAY'S EDITORIAL IN THE NEW YORK TIMES accuses Israel of so poorly understanding the Palestinians that they have caused Arafat to be propelled "back into the warm embrace of his besieged and increasingly desperate people." It's Israel's fault, you see, that . . . Palestinians cling to and celebrate a leader who provides them with less than nothing, makes himself mega-rich in the process, and demands that they blow themselves up.

The Times goes on and on with this ridiculous criticism: it is Sharon's government that should "pull back from their explosive language" -never mind that the PA is constantly churning out antisemitic incitement- and it is Sharon's government that should somehow "alter the Palestinian political dynamic."

What Israel does is Israel's fault, and what the Palestinians do is Israel's fault.
 
The Times gives Israel one back-handed break: it is relieved, whew, that Israel's foreign minister issued a clarification that killing Arafat is not official policy. Yeah, good. Who wants to imagine a world without Arafat?
 
With Israel being so stupid and inept, the Times has to spell out for them what it is they should do: "outflank [Arafat] by empowering his reformist rivals." Pretty clever, huh? and only slightly reminiscent of the road map/Abu Mazen period. How many Jews were killed in that effort? It would have worked, only guess who screwed it up? According to the Times, Sharon "failed to grasp the opportunity" --
He freed a few hundred prisoners, lifted a few roadblocks and handed out a few thousand work visas to Palestinians. But he did nothing about the core issue: ending Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Oh, and in case you thought that Arafat elbowed, stonewalled and sabotaged Abu Mazen out of power, it's apparently not true. The Almighty Times says that Abbas "resigned in disgust with Israel," presumably for failing to alter that pesky Palestinian political dynamic, which, after all, the Palestinians can't  [alter] themselves.
 
The Times does see a light at the end of the tunnel. "Israel has something of a second chance" - Hallelujah-  in the person of Abu Ala, the newly appointed (not elected) prime minister, Arafat's fellow terrorist and Yes-Man. I guess that means Abu Mazen was Israel's first chance. What are they using - a BBC timeline?
 
Anyway, with this "second chance" in place, the Times makes it clear that all Israel has to do now is withdraw from "occupied lands." This is The Core Issue: "ending Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."
 
The Times assumes what? That if you get those Evil Jooooos out of the terror-tories, then the ethnically-cleansed West Bank and Gaza will suddenly be peaceful? That if the Arabs don't have to share the air they breathe with infidels, they will suddenly stop blowing themselves up?

Settlers BAD, Abu Ala GOOD
 
The New York Times holds that Arafat is still vulnerable. The Times has gleaned this insight from unnamed "Palestinian analysts." I'm impressed.
 
Now IF ONLY Israel would help "those trying to ease him from power." Do you see any Palestinians trying to ease Arafat from power? It doesn't matter. Israel should find them and help them, help them by giving them something more, something new. Great idea. Israel should help them, give them, fix them, get out of their way. Withdraw from "occupied" lands.
 
Then what will the Times say when that doesn't work? Withdraw to the '67 borders? If that doesn't work, withdraw from Jerusalem, Haifa, Tel Aviv? Whatever it takes to pacify the Palestinians, Israel should do. All Jews, stop breathing. That surely will ease Arafat from power.
 
And if Israel doesn't follow the exhortations of the Times? Then the US "can do much more to push Israel." The Times likes it when the Bush Administration uses loan guarantees "as a stick to prod Israel." They call that a "small step in the right direction."
 
That "right direction," out and away from the terror-tories, must be West. It seems to me that The Times is calling for the US to prod Israel, with a stick, into the sea. To appease terrorists.
 
It's disgusting.
 
Well, at least I'm consistent over time.