We interrupt the ususal screeds about the new Administration and the war in Gaza to talk about sports. (After all, the New York Jets’ most recent end-of-season collapse “merited” a New York Times Op-Ed column from Bob Herbert.)
Personally, I am more partial to football than baseball. Much has been written and said about the differences between baseball and football as a sport—that best explained, of course, by George Carlin; and, as a business—particularly how the NFL’s brand of “socialism” has made it the most financially viable of all the major sports leagues, and how baseball has spectacularly failed in maintaining any level of profitability. (Although, in the current economic climate, this may hardly be grounds for strident criticism.)
Still, all you have to do to truly understand why the NFL is much more effective and profitable as a business than MLB is just to look at the two sports’ respective commissioners over the past 35 years.
NFL: Pete Rozelle, Paul Tagliabue, Roger Goodell. All very effective.
MLB: Bowie Kuhn. Peter Ueberroth. Bart Giammatti. Fay Vincent. Bud Selig. Uebberroth was competent, but he only lasted four years; Giamatti could have become one of the all time greats if not for his untimely demise. Kuhn and Vincent were nothing to write home about, and Selig is the equivalent of a fox guarding a henhouse.
So I find it bizarre that in marketing legacies, baseball outdoes football.
At first glance, this isn’t necessarily so surprising. Professional baseball has much deeper historical roots in this country and its early years are much better documented and have a much larger treasure trove of available primary sources. Even baseball’s records from before what is considered the “modern” era—i.e., the American League beginning play in 1901—are very extensive. Football, is of more recent vintage; it really developed from the college game (which it did not truly overtake in popularity until the 1960’s) and the earliest incarnations of the professional game were so anarchic that in many cases record keeping would have been moot. The two sports’ respective Halls Of Fame are illustrative of all of this (although, walking through the “Shrine” at Baseball’s Hall Of Fame and looking at the brass plaques of the inductees, I wondered at times whether I was at a memorial chapel).
That disparity, owing to historical forces, makes perfect sense. What I don’t understand is how the MLB has outdone the NFL legacywise ion the one thing the NFL has always excelled at: marketing. One can see these processes sports’ cable TV networks and the editing and marketing of both sports’ vintage games on DVD’s.
The shenanigans surrounding the NFL Network and the cable companies do not bear repeating; suffice it to say, I have premium cable and MLB Network—but no NFL. Additionally, it seems that MLB Network programs a greater variety of classic games and makes it a larger part of programming than the NFL does.
Ostensibly, from the NFL’s standpoint, this may be in no small part due to the existence of an extensive underground of trading of game broadcasts; the NFL has always been extremely protective of its product. Yet the NFL seems to be following the lead of the RIAA and shooting itself in the foot by restricting its viewers and its viewings.
Furthermore, I have an extensive collection of both MLB and NFL vintage DVD releases. To date, MLB has released numerous sets of games, including close to 15 complete World Series; the NFL has released a comparable number of “Classic Games”, including collections from about 10 teams’ “Greatest Games”, and entire playoff runs of the Super Bowl winning teams from most of the past 10 seasons (with the exception of the New England Patriots; it currently is assembling a compendium of almost all the playoff and Super Bowl games from their 2001, 2003 and 2004 Championship seasons in one 10-disc set).
The MLB games do not undergo nearly the kind of surgery that NFL games do. That may be owing to the nature of both games (in football, editing huddles sometimes makes sense; in baseball, editing waiting periods between pitches would obviously destroy the pace of the games); but the way the NFL games are edited sometimes introduces jumps that compromises the flow of the game.
But what really bothers me is the way most of the NFL DVD’s end: extremely abruptly, with no scenes of celebration, let alone post-game extras. It might be too much too ask to include commercials on some of the Super Bowl broadcasts; but no pre-game shows or post-game interviews? The NFL recently released the Raiders’ three Super Bowl victories. I watched Super Bowl XVIII as it happened; I was in eighth grade. I can understand not necessarily wanting to include Barry Manilow singing the National Anthem; but not to include the coin toss with Bronko Nagurski? And no post-game Al Davis’ “Just win, baby” and President Reagan’s crack about Marcus Allen and the Russians?
Who’s doing the editing?
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
1-20-09
When you get down to it, President Obama's inaugural address was more about a national attitude check then a real declaration of a universal change in US policy. What he seemed to make clear is that he understands what his job is and that there are certain things that must be done, despite (or possibly even because of) the fact that he has been left with a huge mess to clean up.
This is in complete contradisitinction to his predecessor, who was bequeathed with a country that was far better off after eight years of the Clinton Administration, yet took advnatage of some of the starkest challenges face by this nation in order to further a political agenda: creating a "permanent Republican majority."
Ironically, Obama may have been implicitly channeling W.'s "exit interview", where he felt compelled to explicitly state "You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made, but I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions."
(This was almost comically echoed by Ed Gillespie, the White House historian: "I think he would like to be remembered as someone who stuck by his principles, understanding that in making tough decisions not everyone is going to agree with the tough decisions that he's made." As if he had to translate W. Now they tell him.)
It is questionable whether the propensity to characterize W. as the "Worst President Ever" in some circles is more politically transparent or historically fallacious; there are much starker examples of failure of policy and leadership (Buchanan, Hoover, and Van Buren, for example). Additionally, my original assessment that W. didn't care about his legacy may have been slightly premature. Yet it seems that W. woke up to what his job was on the its last day, never mind that there was a legacy attached.
To more clearly illustrate the analog, it is highly plausible that history will be a much kinder judge of Bush and his administration than its current poll number, as it has been to Truman and his administration. One may even draw an analog between "elitist" criticism of both Truman ("hick") and W. ("dumb"). Yet the strongest distinction bewteen the two is the almost naked partisanship of W.'s tenure and the bipartisanship of Truman's (to a fault--it allowed HUAC and McCarthyism. But it was hardly going to score political points).
To the degree that the Presidency is about personality, W. had a distinct advantage coming in: his "everyman" persona, which, combined with his ostensible "anti-intellectualism", made him politically palatable. When he had to look more like a man in charge and everything fell to pieces around him, that asset immediately turned into a liability. The enduring image of W. will be one of beleaguerment.
In contrasts, Obama's intellectual and personality gifts are both without question. The historical import of both his election and the its timing with the country's current difficulties is obviuosly not lost on him. What remains to be seen--aside from the salient question of whether he will govern from the center or the left--is whether his personality and charisma are among a set of skills embodying effective leadership, or whether they will end up being his primary engine of administration and potentially as much a liability as an asset, as they did in W.'s case.
This was the entire point of the inaugural address.
This is in complete contradisitinction to his predecessor, who was bequeathed with a country that was far better off after eight years of the Clinton Administration, yet took advnatage of some of the starkest challenges face by this nation in order to further a political agenda: creating a "permanent Republican majority."
Ironically, Obama may have been implicitly channeling W.'s "exit interview", where he felt compelled to explicitly state "You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made, but I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions."
(This was almost comically echoed by Ed Gillespie, the White House historian: "I think he would like to be remembered as someone who stuck by his principles, understanding that in making tough decisions not everyone is going to agree with the tough decisions that he's made." As if he had to translate W. Now they tell him.)
It is questionable whether the propensity to characterize W. as the "Worst President Ever" in some circles is more politically transparent or historically fallacious; there are much starker examples of failure of policy and leadership (Buchanan, Hoover, and Van Buren, for example). Additionally, my original assessment that W. didn't care about his legacy may have been slightly premature. Yet it seems that W. woke up to what his job was on the its last day, never mind that there was a legacy attached.
To more clearly illustrate the analog, it is highly plausible that history will be a much kinder judge of Bush and his administration than its current poll number, as it has been to Truman and his administration. One may even draw an analog between "elitist" criticism of both Truman ("hick") and W. ("dumb"). Yet the strongest distinction bewteen the two is the almost naked partisanship of W.'s tenure and the bipartisanship of Truman's (to a fault--it allowed HUAC and McCarthyism. But it was hardly going to score political points).
To the degree that the Presidency is about personality, W. had a distinct advantage coming in: his "everyman" persona, which, combined with his ostensible "anti-intellectualism", made him politically palatable. When he had to look more like a man in charge and everything fell to pieces around him, that asset immediately turned into a liability. The enduring image of W. will be one of beleaguerment.
In contrasts, Obama's intellectual and personality gifts are both without question. The historical import of both his election and the its timing with the country's current difficulties is obviuosly not lost on him. What remains to be seen--aside from the salient question of whether he will govern from the center or the left--is whether his personality and charisma are among a set of skills embodying effective leadership, or whether they will end up being his primary engine of administration and potentially as much a liability as an asset, as they did in W.'s case.
This was the entire point of the inaugural address.
Funny; There Was Nary A Word About It In The Inaugural Address
The AP Headline reads: "Israelis, Palestinians hand Obama first challenge".
I thought his first challenge was the economy.
Or Iraq.
Or Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Or partisan rancor.
I thought his first challenge was the economy.
Or Iraq.
Or Afghanistan/Pakistan.
Or partisan rancor.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Banky Moony Surrenders
Maybe Banky Moony was listening after all.
I suppose "unilateral cease-fire" is UN-speak for "unconditional surrender".
If not Orwellian. (Or French).
Lets guess who's supposed to "surrender" here.
AP's story is below.
January 15, 2009
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — The U.N. chief urged Israel Friday to declare a unilateral cease-fire in Gaza, but Israel rebuffed the idea as its diplomats headed for Egypt and the United States in what appeared to be a final push toward a truce.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon floated the idea during a visit to the West Bank on his Mideast mission to try to stop Israel's three-week-old offensive against Hamas militants who have been firing rockets from Gaza for years.
"I strongly urge Israeli leadership and government to declare a cease-fire unilaterally," Ban said from Ramallah, the seat of the West Bank government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a fierce rival of Hamas. "It's time to think about a unilateral cease-fire from the Israeli government."
Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev dismissed the idea.
"I don't believe that there's a logical expectation in the international community that Israel unilaterally cease fire while Hamas would continue to target cities, trying to kill our people," he said.
Ban is on a weeklong trip to the region meant to promote a truce after both sides ignored a U.N. resolution demanding an immediate and durable cease-fire.
He will not meet with Gaza's Hamas rulers, who have been shunned by much of the international community since they violently overran Gaza in June 2007.
It's not the first time that there has been a call for a "unilateral cease-fire" on the part of the Israelis; usually it came from the English Parliament, and those calls were so transparently one-sided that even a hardcore Palestinian sympathizer like Tony Blair had to reject the call at the time.
The interesting item here is, that by Banky Moony bypassing Hamas and thereby tacitly admitting on behalf of the UN that Hamas IS a terrorist oragnization, he further illustrates the true ineffectuality of the UN's involvement in any aspect of dealing with the conflict between the Jewish State and her unequivocally hostile neighbors.
Read that again; even AP can find only so much wiggle room with the facts.
He will not meet with Gaza's Hamas rulers, who have been shunned by much of the international community since they violently overran Gaza in June 2007.
Banky Moony should declare a unilateral moratorium on United Nazions diplomacy in, about, or around Israel, and recuse himself and his "organization" from any pretense to adjudication of the conflict, owing to a clearly blatant conflict of interest.
I suppose "unilateral cease-fire" is UN-speak for "unconditional surrender".
If not Orwellian. (Or French).
Lets guess who's supposed to "surrender" here.
AP's story is below.
January 15, 2009
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — The U.N. chief urged Israel Friday to declare a unilateral cease-fire in Gaza, but Israel rebuffed the idea as its diplomats headed for Egypt and the United States in what appeared to be a final push toward a truce.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon floated the idea during a visit to the West Bank on his Mideast mission to try to stop Israel's three-week-old offensive against Hamas militants who have been firing rockets from Gaza for years.
"I strongly urge Israeli leadership and government to declare a cease-fire unilaterally," Ban said from Ramallah, the seat of the West Bank government of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a fierce rival of Hamas. "It's time to think about a unilateral cease-fire from the Israeli government."
Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev dismissed the idea.
"I don't believe that there's a logical expectation in the international community that Israel unilaterally cease fire while Hamas would continue to target cities, trying to kill our people," he said.
Ban is on a weeklong trip to the region meant to promote a truce after both sides ignored a U.N. resolution demanding an immediate and durable cease-fire.
He will not meet with Gaza's Hamas rulers, who have been shunned by much of the international community since they violently overran Gaza in June 2007.
It's not the first time that there has been a call for a "unilateral cease-fire" on the part of the Israelis; usually it came from the English Parliament, and those calls were so transparently one-sided that even a hardcore Palestinian sympathizer like Tony Blair had to reject the call at the time.
The interesting item here is, that by Banky Moony bypassing Hamas and thereby tacitly admitting on behalf of the UN that Hamas IS a terrorist oragnization, he further illustrates the true ineffectuality of the UN's involvement in any aspect of dealing with the conflict between the Jewish State and her unequivocally hostile neighbors.
Read that again; even AP can find only so much wiggle room with the facts.
He will not meet with Gaza's Hamas rulers, who have been shunned by much of the international community since they violently overran Gaza in June 2007.
Banky Moony should declare a unilateral moratorium on United Nazions diplomacy in, about, or around Israel, and recuse himself and his "organization" from any pretense to adjudication of the conflict, owing to a clearly blatant conflict of interest.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Gazans elected Hamas
Again, Naomi Ragen says it better than me—or almost anybody.
"Gazans elected Hamas, and now Hamas has put weapons in mosques, and boobytrapped their homes. Hamas steals humanitarian food shipments, the ones Israel lets through even during rocket attacks on her civilians, distributing it to armed terrorists, and making civilians pay. There was never a more debased and barbarian movement than that of Hamas, whose leadership sits in bunkers sending out terrorists to fire rockets at Israeli schools from the midst of Palestinian schools, hoping that an Israeli retaliation will provide enough bodies for the world to demand a ceasefire, so that they can claim their victory, get their payoffs from the Iranian mullahs, and rearm. They will never give up, because they don't know how to do anything else. Like Nazis, these Islamic fanatics make peace impossible and unconditional defeat the only option."
How Hamas is raising Gaza's children (no explanation necessary)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGbP55HGi8
"Gazans elected Hamas, and now Hamas has put weapons in mosques, and boobytrapped their homes. Hamas steals humanitarian food shipments, the ones Israel lets through even during rocket attacks on her civilians, distributing it to armed terrorists, and making civilians pay. There was never a more debased and barbarian movement than that of Hamas, whose leadership sits in bunkers sending out terrorists to fire rockets at Israeli schools from the midst of Palestinian schools, hoping that an Israeli retaliation will provide enough bodies for the world to demand a ceasefire, so that they can claim their victory, get their payoffs from the Iranian mullahs, and rearm. They will never give up, because they don't know how to do anything else. Like Nazis, these Islamic fanatics make peace impossible and unconditional defeat the only option."
How Hamas is raising Gaza's children (no explanation necessary)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTGbP55HGi8
Friday, January 9, 2009
Diplo-plexy
It might seem rather heartless to proffer a theory of creative diplomacy that takes advantage of a series of political vacuums while people die.
It also might be even more heartless to find humorous historical analogues between the current Gaza crisis and the international response to it, and complete diplomatic fiascoes of the past.
Yet, since I’ve left no doubt whose side I’m on, and that, despite (or maybe because of) my unabashed Judeocentrism, I’ve also left no doubt about that Israel and her supporters occupy the moral high ground here, my conscience is clear. Even if the propriety of finding humor in carnage is, at best questionable, sensitivity toward an enemy that desires nothing short of my complete disappearance is even less so.
So, aside from my usual attitudes towards the UN, its utility and moral standing, I found it rather funny as to how the most recent machinations of the Security Council’s resolutions were hashed out.
Specifically, two items:
One, that the United States abstained from a U.N. Security Council vote Thursday night urging an immediate cease-fire in Gaza despite the fact that the text of the resolution was hammered out by the United States. This is somewhat reminiscent of Woodrow Wilson’s authorship of the League of Nations being soundly rejected in Washington. Israeli and their supporters should find Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’ statement the United States "fully supports" the resolution, but abstained because it "thought it important to see the outcomes of the Egyptian mediation"-- referring to an Egyptian-French initiative aimed at achieving a cease-fire—especially delicious. If the Israelis were smart they’d leave her and her State Department twisting slowly in the wind for the next week and a half of her tenure.
Two, not only are Israel and Hamas not parties to the vote, but despite the fact that the Resolution is clearly aimed at Israel, their antagonistic counterparts are never identified. This should create a diplomatic conundrum that the Israelis should exploit to the fullest—again, if they are smart enough. They can approach this one of two ways: Israel can insist that until the counterpart to the conflict is properly identified, the resolution is ipso facto null and void; or, they can either declare that Hamas is an illegitimate entity and this war is doing the work the West and Fatah couldn’t—or wouldn’t—do.
Either way, since the resolution was not drafted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which is militarily enforceable, if the Israelis are serious about this series of battles being a microcosm of their wider existential struggle, they will stubbornly persist in the face of what might amount to nothing more than an attack of diplo-plexy suffered by those who were never truly favorably disposed to them in the first place.
It also might be even more heartless to find humorous historical analogues between the current Gaza crisis and the international response to it, and complete diplomatic fiascoes of the past.
Yet, since I’ve left no doubt whose side I’m on, and that, despite (or maybe because of) my unabashed Judeocentrism, I’ve also left no doubt about that Israel and her supporters occupy the moral high ground here, my conscience is clear. Even if the propriety of finding humor in carnage is, at best questionable, sensitivity toward an enemy that desires nothing short of my complete disappearance is even less so.
So, aside from my usual attitudes towards the UN, its utility and moral standing, I found it rather funny as to how the most recent machinations of the Security Council’s resolutions were hashed out.
Specifically, two items:
One, that the United States abstained from a U.N. Security Council vote Thursday night urging an immediate cease-fire in Gaza despite the fact that the text of the resolution was hammered out by the United States. This is somewhat reminiscent of Woodrow Wilson’s authorship of the League of Nations being soundly rejected in Washington. Israeli and their supporters should find Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’ statement the United States "fully supports" the resolution, but abstained because it "thought it important to see the outcomes of the Egyptian mediation"-- referring to an Egyptian-French initiative aimed at achieving a cease-fire—especially delicious. If the Israelis were smart they’d leave her and her State Department twisting slowly in the wind for the next week and a half of her tenure.
Two, not only are Israel and Hamas not parties to the vote, but despite the fact that the Resolution is clearly aimed at Israel, their antagonistic counterparts are never identified. This should create a diplomatic conundrum that the Israelis should exploit to the fullest—again, if they are smart enough. They can approach this one of two ways: Israel can insist that until the counterpart to the conflict is properly identified, the resolution is ipso facto null and void; or, they can either declare that Hamas is an illegitimate entity and this war is doing the work the West and Fatah couldn’t—or wouldn’t—do.
Either way, since the resolution was not drafted under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which is militarily enforceable, if the Israelis are serious about this series of battles being a microcosm of their wider existential struggle, they will stubbornly persist in the face of what might amount to nothing more than an attack of diplo-plexy suffered by those who were never truly favorably disposed to them in the first place.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
The New Unconditional Surrender: How To Fight In Gaza
The latest Gaza crisis might finally present a series of opportunities for the Israelis to introduce a new set of political and diplomatic truisms into the Middle East theater.
The Israelis also can present a new set of examples in how to fight a War on Terror, as well as a war against a regime that supports terror, when their entire raison d’etre is terrorism.
The time has finally arrived when Israel can, through force of arms, sunder the territories and put to rest the diplomatic notion that there needs to be a contiguous Palestinian state made up of the West Bank and Gaza. One may need to come to grips with the fact that there are overwhelming Arab majorities in each respective territory, giving them the right to political self-determination in those territories. Granting that, it does not follow that the Israeli are responsible for correcting an accident of geography and creating another version of mid-20th century Pakistan, which tore itself asunder after 24 years. The Palestinians seems to have doing a good enough job of that anyway.
The “two-state” solution becoming a “three-state” paradigm will also serve to further bury any notions of a “right of return”, as there would now be 2 more Arab states for any Arab---Palestinian or other—to “flee” to.
On the battlefield, the Israelis should introduce two new elements of warfare which aren’t necessarily so new.
The first is that a defensive victorious power can force an unconditional surrender upon their foes without ever having to physically set foot on their opponents’ territory. This can be done through repeated incessant airborne assaults upon the offending territory until it completely reforms itself and pledges to forever cease all hostile behavior and intent and then follows through on that pledge. Any breach of that commitment is automatically construed as an act of war and invites instantaneous further repeated bombing until compliance is reestablished by force.
The second is that the almost inevitable “humanitarian crisis” that results should be laid exclusively at the feet of the entity that initiated the hostilities; in this case, the ruling Hamas gang in Gaza. Any civilian casualties, destroyed infrastructures, collapsed economies, even widespread starvation should be the complete and utter responsibility of Hamas. The Israelis should completely surround Gaza and not let anyone or anything in or out until the society reforms itself from within, no matter the human cost within the territory. This should finally put to rest any notion of the “Pottery Barn rule”’s application here.
Admittedly, this would be a hard act to follow in any other theater in the War on Terror. Most terror-harboring states are, to varying degrees, functioning nation-states. One might say that this is how the Americans should have fought the war in Afghanistan: reduce an entire society-state to absolute rubble if they promote or harbor. Ann Coulter wanted to convert the Afghan populace to Christianity. I would have converted them to pre-history. That would have set the proper example, as opposed to attempting to convert them to democracy.
The Israelis should use Gaza as THE paradigm of converting a people to pre-history. They have been deemed human refuse by their Arab brethren for the sake of their utility as political pawns, so there is no reason the Israelis should not take the Arabs at their word. Hamas was elected by the Gaza populace, so the Gazans have, through exercise of their political franchise, indicated their assent to Hamas’ program of Judeocide.
All the Israelis really have to do withstand the political and diplomatic opprobrium and treat it as background noise while they conduct business that has been unfinished for far too long.
The Israelis also can present a new set of examples in how to fight a War on Terror, as well as a war against a regime that supports terror, when their entire raison d’etre is terrorism.
The time has finally arrived when Israel can, through force of arms, sunder the territories and put to rest the diplomatic notion that there needs to be a contiguous Palestinian state made up of the West Bank and Gaza. One may need to come to grips with the fact that there are overwhelming Arab majorities in each respective territory, giving them the right to political self-determination in those territories. Granting that, it does not follow that the Israeli are responsible for correcting an accident of geography and creating another version of mid-20th century Pakistan, which tore itself asunder after 24 years. The Palestinians seems to have doing a good enough job of that anyway.
The “two-state” solution becoming a “three-state” paradigm will also serve to further bury any notions of a “right of return”, as there would now be 2 more Arab states for any Arab---Palestinian or other—to “flee” to.
On the battlefield, the Israelis should introduce two new elements of warfare which aren’t necessarily so new.
The first is that a defensive victorious power can force an unconditional surrender upon their foes without ever having to physically set foot on their opponents’ territory. This can be done through repeated incessant airborne assaults upon the offending territory until it completely reforms itself and pledges to forever cease all hostile behavior and intent and then follows through on that pledge. Any breach of that commitment is automatically construed as an act of war and invites instantaneous further repeated bombing until compliance is reestablished by force.
The second is that the almost inevitable “humanitarian crisis” that results should be laid exclusively at the feet of the entity that initiated the hostilities; in this case, the ruling Hamas gang in Gaza. Any civilian casualties, destroyed infrastructures, collapsed economies, even widespread starvation should be the complete and utter responsibility of Hamas. The Israelis should completely surround Gaza and not let anyone or anything in or out until the society reforms itself from within, no matter the human cost within the territory. This should finally put to rest any notion of the “Pottery Barn rule”’s application here.
Admittedly, this would be a hard act to follow in any other theater in the War on Terror. Most terror-harboring states are, to varying degrees, functioning nation-states. One might say that this is how the Americans should have fought the war in Afghanistan: reduce an entire society-state to absolute rubble if they promote or harbor. Ann Coulter wanted to convert the Afghan populace to Christianity. I would have converted them to pre-history. That would have set the proper example, as opposed to attempting to convert them to democracy.
The Israelis should use Gaza as THE paradigm of converting a people to pre-history. They have been deemed human refuse by their Arab brethren for the sake of their utility as political pawns, so there is no reason the Israelis should not take the Arabs at their word. Hamas was elected by the Gaza populace, so the Gazans have, through exercise of their political franchise, indicated their assent to Hamas’ program of Judeocide.
All the Israelis really have to do withstand the political and diplomatic opprobrium and treat it as background noise while they conduct business that has been unfinished for far too long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)