- Ezzedeen Al-Qassam Brigades Information Office: "Joy and maximize joy in the Gaza Strip Hebron heroic operation"
- "I ... am in the position to grant nothing"
- Cohen's revision
- This is a defense?
Posted: 31 Aug 2010 05:08 PM PDT
Autotranslated, but understandable a good deal of the time:
Pervaded atmosphere of joy and happiness the Gaza Strip, after a heroic Hebron, which was adopted by the "al-Qassam Brigades" military wing of the movement "Hamas", which resulted in the deaths of four rapists Zionists.The Al-Qassams Brigade seems to be claiming that this attack was part of something called "Operation Fire Sale." Any Arabic speakers out there?
Update: Maan News:
A Palestinian group calling itself the Al-Haq ("Rights") Brigades has claimed responsibility for Tuesday's shooting that left four Israeli citizens dead in the occupied West Bank . . . The operation was in response to the PLO's decision to return to negotiations with Israel, the statement said.A front for Hamas but the real reason for the attacks?
Crossposted on Judeopundit
Posted: 31 Aug 2010 03:59 AM PDT
All Palestinian political factions, bar one, have denounced the direct talks, some in harsher language than others.
Related, see Daled Amos.
In his second term, Mr. Netanyahu is strong inside and weak outside. Facing no serious challengers, he enjoys political strength like no predecessor in the past generation. Improved security and an excellent economy support a quiet home front. Looking out the window, however, Mr. Netanyahu sees dark clouds surrounding Israel. The country is increasingly isolated, facing a global fatigue over its endless conflict with its neighbours, and a consensus against occupation, settlement expansion and excessive use of military force. And on the horizon, Iran's nuclear project is looming.
If PM Netanyahu were to make a deal he would have support to do so. But Abbas has no standing to make a deal. Palestinian nationalism has always been built on a premise on the destruction of Israel, so this is hardly a surprise. As Richard Cohen observed, nothing's changed in the Arab world regarding the acceptance of Israel. And certainly not in the Palestinian world.
It kind of reminds me Khan's famous rebuke to Captain Kirk.
Crossposted on Yourish.
Posted: 31 Aug 2010 03:54 AM PDT
A few years ago, Richard Cohen wrote an article saying that Israel was a mistake. Though I've read that he didn't mean it the way he wrote it, it was still offensive. Today he writes, Time Stands Still in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which, I believe what he was trying to say in that earlier column.
First Cohen observes that despite the pressure President Obama exerted against Israel ...
For Obama, the figures must be disheartening. They strongly suggest that his attempt to woo the Arab world, to convince it that America can be an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians, has dismally failed. In fact, the extent of this failure is most stark in Lebanon. There, 100 percent of Shiite respondents -- in other words, Hezbollah and others -- have no faith in Obama and his good intentions. This may be a setback for Obama, but it is paradoxically a success for American values.
I wouldn't describe the hatred of the Arab/Muslim world as understandable, but overall this is pretty accurate.
Towards the end Cohen writes:
This is why Obama's overture to the Arab world, clumsily executed, was never going to succeed. America can please some Arab governments -- Egypt and Jordan, for instance -- but not the Arab people. What they want, and what they have been told repeatedly they deserve, is a return of Palestinian refugees to what is now Israel and control over all of Jerusalem. These are both out of the question as far as Israel is concerned. It is not willing to give up its capital and, in a relatively short time, its Jewish majority.
Of course if the Arab people weren't fed a steady stream of antisemitic propaganda, this might not be the case. But then Cohen's conclusion doesn't quite match the rest of his op-ed:
This week, Palestinians and Israelis will once again talk peace in Washington. But until both sides, particularly the Arab peoples, give up on what they really want, the clock will remain where it has been. Those Pew polls show that's around 1947.
Posted: 31 Aug 2010 03:42 AM PDT
In Paul Bedard's Rewriting History on Kennedy's Chappaquiddick Accident he writes (via memeorandum):
Now, a year after Kennedy died, his lifelong biographer Burton Hersh, armed with fresh interviews with Kennedy's mistress at the time, tells Whispers that the whole July 1969 episode should have been handled as a simple crash, leaving the senator's legacy untainted. "It was a car accident," he says. "Ted was a terrible driver. He never paid much attention to where he was going."
Hersh goes on to say that Kennedy felt guilty and that he didn't know what he was doing. So what? How does anything here change the fact that Kennedy left the scene of an accident and left someone to die?
If he was a terrible driver then he never should have gotten behind the wheel.
And I love the conclusion:
He also brushes off tales that Kennedy was a playboy more than a lawmaker. "Kennedy's central project was accomplishing as much as he could in public life. And all of the things, including the drinking, the women, and the rest, were sort of supportive activities. They were amusements."
There was more than drinking and women? Maybe some song? How does this improve Ted Kennedy's legacy? He was a rich drunken playboy who passed some laws.
Newsbusters isn't impressed either.
|You are subscribed to email updates from Soccer Dad |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|