I said from the outset that Israel wasn't going to gain anything from its assault on Gaza and the truth of that is becoming increasingly clear as each day passes.
Israel has, once again, brought conventional warfare to a political war, never seeming to understand the futility of bringing a cricket bat to a football game. It's beyond stupid.
Robert Dreyfus, writing in The Nation, notes that even Bush has folded, quietly abstaining on a unanimous, Security Council ceasefire resolution that pointedly omits what Bush had said was his sine qua non, a demand that Hamas rocket fire be halted as a condition of any ceasefire.
...The important shift, undoubtedly brought about by Israel's killing of UN workers, Palestinian civilians, and high-profile attacks on schools and refugees, was by the United States, which abstained rather than veto the resolution. The Washington Post calls it a "sharp reversal" by the White House:
"The resolution demands an 'immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza,' U.S. and Arab officials said. It marked a sharp reversal by the Bush administration, which had refused to allow passage of a cease-fire resolution without binding assurances that Hamas would halt its rocket attacks against Israel."
Eating humble pie, Palestine-style, Secretary of State Condi Rice -- who had earlier parroted the White House line that any ceasefire would have to be "sustainable and durable" and not a return to the "status quo" -- now says:
"We decided that this resolution -- the text of which we support, the goals of which we support and the objectives of which we fully support -- should indeed be allowed to go forward."
Jackson Diehl, the deputy editorial page editor of the Post and no dove, opined blungly in his op-ed:
"Israel's military campaign in the Gaza Strip is failing. ... Every day this war continues, Hamas grows politically stronger, as do its allies in other countries and its sponsor, Iran. ... Now, bogged down, suffering casualties and inflicting many more, creating terrible pictures for television, it will have to accept an unsatisfying settlement."
A commentary by Anthony Cordesmann, a hard-headed realist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, adds:
"Has Israel somehow blundered into a steadily escalating war without a clear strategic goal or at least one it can credibly achieve? Will Israel end in empowering an enemy in political terms that it defeated in tactical terms? Will Israel's actions seriously damage the US position in the region, any hope of peace, as well as moderate Arab regimes and voices in the process?
"To be blunt, the answer so far seems to be yes."
Fortunately the interim leader of the Liberal Party isn't burdened by any of this weighty reality. Maybe someone should tell him that even Bush has moved on. Hey Iggy. Remember that blunder on Iraq? Well, you just did it again. Only this time you managed to drive the Liberal Party into the ditch with you.
14 comments:
In my mind, I don't want either the cons or libs getting a majority govt, along as both Harper and Iggy are in leader positions - both are warmongers and into building empire through violent force.
Of course, their kids are never near a battlefield and as usual, old white men with money get young poor kids to fight their stupid wars. Always has been that way.
Well Jan, I'm in such deep political limbo right now that I'm close to agreeing with you.
I had to read it here to believe it. The US abstained rather than veto the UN Security Council vote - now that is something else.
Iggy made a dreadful mistake in pontificating his views as if he were giving a Harvard lecture to members of AIPAC. He just can't help himself because he seems to believe that he is an expert on these matters.
Harper is just as despicable but he sent his short decree in support of Israel's actions through his emissaries, Cannon and Kent. He didn't go out on a limb defending Israel as some great human rights battle to be won in the long run.
They are both dreadfully wrong and indistinguishable on the foreign policy front. Yet I believe this will hurt Iggy more than Stevo. And that is unfortunate for all Canadians, especially the 60+% who voted against Harper.
Perhaps someone can help me with this:
When Israel left the Gaza strip a couple of years ago, it closed the borders between Israel and Gaza. Israel also kept controls on the Gaza's see boundaries. I also heard that Israel want to control all goods going into and out of Egypt through Israel's border checkpoint on Gaza's southwest border instead of having goods going directly between Egypt and Gaza. Tell me if this is true or not. If it is true, then Gaza's attempt at economic viability was doomed to fail because of closed borders.
Hey Iggy. Remember that blunder on Iraq? Well, you just did it again. Only this time you managed to drive the Liberal Party into the ditch with you.
Exactly.
We should be worried about the economy and lack of jobs - instead Iggy has demonstrated that he is no better than Harper and tainted himself....
In the new Liberal Party, it's the money and the ethnic vote.
I think those involved in the Liberal Party believe that a Jewish vote is worth more tothe party than an Arab or Muslim vote. Under Ignatieff and Kinsella, by shifting the Liberal Party to a pro-Israeli position, the party will get more donations from Jewish Canadians who probably donate more per capita than Arab or Muslim Canadians. Money talks.
Sad to say I think you're right Skinny. Why stand on principle when you can snag a few votes?
Yorkie, I believe you're right too. Steve didn't get where he is on his intellect but by the strength of his political shrewdness. I thought he saw this thing as a disaster waiting to unfold and didn't want any of the fallout to land in his lap. He must be chuckling at Ignatieff's gaffe.
Thanks MoS.
In case anyone wants to call me anti-Semitic, I'm just basing my thoughts on that the Jewish community in Canada has been more established than the Arab or Muslim communities. The situation could change years from now as the latter becomes more numerous and wealthier.
In terms of votes, if Muslim Canadians decided to switch their votes to the NDP because of a pro-Israel change in Liberal policy, it would have as much impact as Jewish Canadians switching some of their votes from the Conservatives to the Liberals. Muslims switching votes won't affect the Conservatives as much as Jews switching their votes.
There's a demographic shift already in the US where Muslim voters now outnumber Jewish voters.
Watch FREE full-length Movies, TV Shows, Music (over 6 million digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, and FREE College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) @ InternetSurfShack.com
Trivial facts:
Based on the 1990 US census, the number one religion of Arab-Americans was...
...Christianity (approx. 75%).
In Canada, based on the 2001 census, about 50% of Arab-Canadians were Christians.
SD, I'm not sure what an economically viable Gaza would look like or if it's even a feasible prospect.
30% of the territory's GDP has been agricultural but there's a growing salination problem with the groundwater. Some experts believe Gazan agriculture will be dead within ten years.
Apparently Gazan farmers have already been switching from salt-sensitive plants i.e. citrus to more salt tolerant alternatives.
Setting aside the question of a viable Gazan economy, the territory itself may not be viable for habitation in the foreseeable future without a major expansion of its limited desalination systems.
Post a Comment