It is a good thing that the influence of America in the Middle East
is diminishing because if it did not, everything American, including the latest
editorial by the New York Times, would carry weight. That editorial has the
title: “Making the Gaza Cease-Fire Last” and would be worth something when in
reality it is worth no more than a toilet paper with something like 600 words
scribbled on it. The editorial was published on August 7, 2014.
The moment that you get to the point in the editorial where
you read: “Hamas knowingly targeted Israeli civilian centers in violation of
any civilized standards and launched weapons from populated areas in what looks
like a deliberate effort to draw Israeli fire on innocents,” the publication
that had transformed in your eyes into a cheap rag, has transformed again, and
has now become a used toilet paper. And there is nothing civilized you can
bring to bear that would counter the extreme stink emanating from it.
And when you read a passage like this: “In a mockery of its
claim to have a political arm independent of its armed wing, political
officials of Hamas were crowing about its determination to regroup and attack
again,” you wonder what these people have in their craniums. You ask yourself
if they ever heard Netanyahu (the political operative) threaten that he will
get the Israeli army to attack again if his conditions were not met. Was he
making a mockery of the claim that Israel 's political institutions
were independent of its military? What do the editors think about that? Or do
they think at all besides mouthing off the Jewish talking points?
And what about this passage: “the extremists among them will
always find an audience if there is no responsible moderate leaders to point
the way to a better future.” Were the editors of the New York Times talking
about the Israelis? About both sides in the conflict? No. They were only
talking about the Palestinians. Which is why you dismiss this whole exercise as
just another case of verbal diarrhea. Pull up more of the toilet paper, and get
busy cleaning up the mess that American journalism has been reduced to at the
hands of the Jews. It stinks around here, man, it stinks.
Guess what these characters do next. They wish to say this
is an important problem that begs a solution, which is what the Arabs have been
saying all along. But instead of suggesting that the solution must address the
root causes of the problem as do the Arabs, the editors of the Times say
something weird … very weird. Look at that: “[This] conflict [can] no longer be
endured, contained or managed.” They go on: “The Middle
East is unsettled …the spread of Sunnis, the Sunni-Shiite rivalry
and even the intra-Sunni divisions. Sunnis in Iraq are attacking Kurdish and
Christian populations … There is extremism and instability everywhere in the
region.”
So you exclaim: What!? And they tell you what: “that is why
it is so important that indirect talks between Israelis and Palestinians in Cairo lay the groundwork
for something bigger and more durable than one cease-fire.” Are these
birdbrains suggesting that the Palestinian and Israeli negotiators in Cairo need to tackle problems elsewhere in the Middle East , and come up with a master solution? Not
knowing what to do with this display of idiocy, you dismiss it as the wrong
sheet of talking points going from one file into another by mistake.
But then you hit on another passage that forces you to throw
your hands up in the air and wish you could walk away from this sickening mess.
Look at that: “Certain conditions are clear. Rocket attacks into Israel by Hamas
and other extremist groups must stop, along with other terrorist attacks. So
does the smuggling of weapons into Gaza
and the production of new supply of rockets.” But you don't walk away because,
seeing that the situation has been turned upside-down by the upside-down brains
of the birdbrains, you resolve to turn things right side up again. And so, you
write this: Certain conditions are clear. Missile attacks into Gaza by the Israeli Terrorist Force (ITF)
must stop. So does the supply of new arms to Israel
by America
and the other NATO countries.”
You don't stop here but go on to write: There will be
demands that America maintain afloat the economy of the terrorist state of
Israel, but with assurances that the Netanyahu will not divert money for
civilian use into buying weapons. Otherwise there is little chance that Hamas
would end the self-defense measures that have confined Israel to the
category of pariah nation in the eyes of the world.