Letters to the Editor
-
Re: "...Are you out of your Mind???" (Lou Reed)
Wow, it must be difficult trying to communicate your "ideas" when you're ignorant and illiterate.
-
Re: "Too much of Salon.com makes one sick in the stomach!!!"
Checking... no. No, I'm pretty sure it was the burrito I got from Ralph's Lunch Wagon. Thanks for the tip though. I'll, uh, keep it in mind.
-
That old chestnut...
I'm sick of Juan Cole and I'm sick of Salon.com for giving him a public forum to espouse his Jew-hating ideas. It's not enough to say that there should be balance here by providing an alternative view-point alongside his. Sometimes some people, no matter how articulate they are or how distinguished their resume is, should be told that their bigotry should be left at home.
Because Juan Cole refuses to simply dismiss Hamas as "savages" he's a "Jew-hater"?
Juan Cole is clearly on the side of seeing the Israel/Palestine conflict through to a peaceful resolution. The Jaw-Hater label is inaccurate and unfair.
-
Let's get the F...out of this world! FAST!!!
by: "thank you for the letters before this one", I meant:
"thank you for the letter before this one!" obviously!
The nausea issue concern only people like myself! With a Heart and a Soul!!! With enough Clarity and enough Guts to accept the Scary Game called Awareness: and so accepting to SEE thru People's Hearts and Minds!
I say Thank God Hamas won and we wont loose time having to flatter the other fascist group called Fatah!!!
But Give Democracy a chance!!
And Accept this wake up call...including for the Palestinians themselves.
Their LUCK is to have America (and finally the world!) there to supervise every step of the process...
The easiest solution to the prolblem of the world is to love JEWS and LOVE AMERICA and GLOBALIZATION (not of ISLAM and MARX, but of FREEDOM and CIVILTY and ALL COLORS!)
-
Glass Houses
"Democracy depends not just on elections but on a rule of law, on stable institutions, on basic economic security for the population, and on checks and balances that forestall a tyranny of the majority. ... Bush is on the whole unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad."
Considering Bush rose to power under the specter of questionable election results, it's only natural that he emphasize the importance of elections in democracy. As both recent and old events (NSA wiretapping, Iraqi prisoner abuse, Abramoff fallout, ENRON, and many others) indicate, the rule of law isn't exactly a strong point of this administration. Neither are the concepts of "checks and balances" (claiming absolute executive power for one) or "stable institutions" (turnover within institutions such as the CIA, FEMA, Homeland security, the EPA, and others).
In describing the requirements for democracy, Juan Cole has described exactly what the Bush administration would have us forget: people in glass houses should not throw stones. And I fear that America is quickly becoming a glass house. Not only is Bush "unwilling to invest sufficiently in these key institutions and practices abroad," but that same unwillingness is evident within his own country. What, may I ask, is the state of New Orleans? How are the Supreme Court nominations going? What about funding for higher-education student loans?
As long as the American people are focused on the Greater War On Terror (never mind exactly what that is), important issues like these are swept under the rug. In doing so, we weaken the foundation of this country in return for a short-term facade of strength and, perhaps, hubris.
-
1st time reading Juan Cole. Unimpressed.
My first trip into Salon. I hope all their writers don't wear so much agenda on their sleeve as this guy?
>>from the article<<
>>Bush allowed then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to sideline the ruling Fatah Party of Yasser Arafat, to fire missiles at its police stations, and to reduce its leader to a besieged nonentity. Sharon arrogantly ordered the murder of civilian Hamas leaders in Gaza, making them martyrs.<<
Who are the innocent parties here that were assaulted? The Hamas leaders, the organization that ordered and carried out numerous terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens? Or Arafat? Yes, let us be moved to pity. He, as much as anyone, is responsible for the suffering of his people. To suggest Israel is the party with little regard for innocent lives, which implies the other side is more compassionate, is beyond sane.
Here’s an old cartoon which kind of captures the reality. It’s at the bottom of the page. The top part has two very telling photos by chance as well. http://www.politicsnow.co.il/realpic.html
>>Meanwhile, Israeli settlements continued to grow, the fatally flawed Oslo agreements delivered nothing to the Palestinians, and Bush and Sharon ignored new peace plans -- whether the so-called Geneva accord put forward by Palestinian and Israeli moderates or the Saudi peace plan -- that could have resolved the underlying issues.<<
“new peace plans – that could have resolved the underlying issues” ??? Are you serious? To even suggest that Israel is the reason peace negotiations get kiboshed is so disingenuous. The last real chance at negotiations was the 2000 Camp David Accords with Clinton, Arafat, and Baruk. Clinton was not big time buddy of Israel. But it is very well known how incensed he was with Arafat. Israel put their neck out and offered 90% of their settlements immediately, West Bank and Gaza autonomy, a deal even to be considered on Jerusalem, all for basically nothing and what did Arafat do? Nothing. Nothing. He would not even offer one counter-proposal. It’s a all a sickening game he and his handlers and whoever else in the Muslim world have been playing for scores of years. Their goals are stated in their covenants. The destruction of Israel.
>>The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which should have been a big step forward for peace, was marred by the refusal of the Israelis to cooperate with the Palestinians in ensuring that it did not produce a power vacuum and further insecurity.<<
Yah, whatever Juan. Blame Israel for every single terrorist in Islamic garb. The only reason the Middle East is not more tumultuous and violent is because as long as they have one common enemy, the Jew, they won’t do as much turning on each other. So Israel unilaterally withdraws from Southern Lebanon with no guarantee that bombings and attacks will not continue as they did prior to 1982 which is why Israel was forced to go in in the first place and they get no thanks from the world and no concessions in the least from the Arabs. Now, similarly, Israel again withdraws from Gaza, a place they don’t have the least desire to be in but have to for their own security and survival, and what happens, they get blamed again because the Arabs don’t have any sensibilities of caring for their own people. Or so it often seems.
>>Frustrated, the Palestinian public predictably swung to the far right. Their embrace of Hamas does not indicate that most Palestinians are dedicated to destroying Israel; polls show that most support a two-state solution and are weary of the endless violence. Rather, they are sick of the Palestinian Authority and believe that Hamas will be more effective negotiating partners with the Israelis.<<
Yeah, you nailed it Juan. Sure giving the Palestinians a lot of credit for smartness. They so desperately want peace that they give up on a moderate militant and bring in those who really hate the Jews. Any change will do I guess. No, maybe the poll Engram produced yesterday on the fray could be accurate. Maybe they would rather have poverty and Israel gone than a higher standard of living for themselves and their children. I don’t know? And if the Arabs are tired of the endless violence, then don’t go blow anyone up. And don’t bring in shipments of heavy arms. To suggest Israel is the initiator of these killings is a lie.
>>As a Saudi political talk show host told the Associated Press, "They [Hamas] will be the Arab Sharon. They will be tough, but only a tough group can snatch concessions from Israel."<<
Oh, brother. What is one to believe. Lay out these “tough” negotiations (without violence mind you) that will be so effective, since Israel has been the obstinate one thus far. Mind you in Camp David, when Israel conceded a ton right off the bat without concessions, Arafat not only balked but never offered one counter-proposal. Well, let’s hear one of those proposals now.
That’s all I have time for. Be well world.
-
Talking to the other side
One must talk to the otherside not just sideswipe them
Mr Bush says that others must renounce violence but he refuses to take violence off the table himself. Conde Rise repeatedly says that a military response must not be taken off the table in regardss to Iran Yet wants others to take the military response off the table.
Any legitimately elected government has a right to express long term hopes and dreams.Just as we did speaking of an Axis of evil. It seems that one man's sauce is another man's poison.
The hustle and bustle of world politics can knock the edge off the sharpest of knives, most terrorists (including Sheron) sooner or later renounce violence as a method of solving problems MO Moland when asked how do you deal with violence and terrorists replied you pick up the phone and start talking.
-
"...it's so cold in Alaska"
to BMcG:
...thank you for such grace, JESUS wouldn't have said it better
-
Tap dancing around the truth
Dance for me Bush... DANCE!!!!
-
Fantasylands
Sorry, Professor Cole, but this assertion of yours--"More fundamentally, even Hamas' charter could change. As the ICG points out, Hamas 'has accepted the principle that there is no religious prohibition against negotiating or co-existing with Israel and that the provisions in its charter providing for Israel's destruction are not indelible'"--is clear proof that you live in a fantasyland that is every bit as detached from reality as the one that President Bush inhabits.