The breakdown on how much the presidential candidates spent on TV ads is stunning. Mitt Romney ran 34,281 ads costing $29M. John McCain ran 10,830 ads costing $8M. Mike Huckabee ran 5831 ads at a cost of $2.6M. What did it get them? McCain has 93 delegates (that is approximately $86,000 in ad expenditure per delegate), Romney has 59 delegates (a little more than $490,000 per delegate), and Huckabee has 40 delegates (just $65,000 per delegate).
Some commentators questioned McCain’s management skills when his campaign spent too much and ran aground last year, but he appears to have been the turnaround artist here, operating with extreme frugality and getting an excellent return on his investment (with a bank loan to assist him). He did not run an operation which was staffed to the hilt and sent out e-mails every time the candidate sneezed. There’s a lesson or two in there.
We always hear that “X” or “Y” will enrage the Arabs (not only Palestinians). Major past concessions by Israel left the Arabs enraged, regardless. Evidently, the Arabs have been conditioned by their various ideologies to be permanently enraged. Their only way out of that box is a new, non-pathological ideology. Can it be shown that the Arabs in Iraq have had an overall reduction in rage over the last year or so, under American influence?
Last week, in any blogger Daled Amos noted a Khaled Abu Toameh article that reported just the opposite. It’s possible that things have changed. It’s also possible that, as Jeffrey Goldberg noted: there’s not a lot of love lost between Hamas and Fatah.
I’d like to add that most Lebanese supported Hezbollah in the 2006 war…until Israel cooled its guns. Then most Lebanese reacted with such furious rage that Hassan Nasrallah was forced to apologize.
By the way, Fatah does not cease to be a terrorist organization just because it’s not Hamas and its main man wears a business suit.
Anger rising in the Arab street? Say it ain’t so!
Palestinian Arabs may be too dense to requite the expectations of the NYT, but at least anger is rising on schedule among American Jews:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/jewish-activist.html
I would imagine that most of the Arabs in Judea and Samaria are simply afraid of Hamas. I would be. After all, they’re shooting their human shields in the foot to keep them from fleeing Gaza City and grabbing kids off the street to hide behind them. That is, when they’re not hiding out in their bunker under a hospital or stealing the humanitarian aid that Israel is letting in (111 truckloads today, plus over 27,000 gallons of fuel — you won’t read that in the NY Times). It’s a win-win situation for Hamas: If they kill Israelis, they win,and when Israelis kill them, they also win – in propaganda, media and public opinion.
Meanwhile the UN Human Rights Council has adopted a resolution – http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/7346.pdf – that doesn’t mention Hamas, and condemns only Israel for her “aggression,” deliberately targeting civilians and other “grave violations of human rights.” Only Canada voted against. The EU abstained.
Plus Osama is rearing his ugly head, and Ahmadinejad is in the background conjuring up nukes.
So come to think of it, I don’t care which of the two bad sides the so-called palestinians fall out on. I’m more worried that the civilized world isn’t really, and that Jews everywhere are sunk.
How offensive to NY Times’ readers that it uses an onsite reporter who doesn’t know enough basic Arabic to translate what you, Eric, have done for us. Your translation imbues the Times’ story with a whole new narrative, and I only wish that the NY Times had you on its payroll! Then, it would be a true paper of reccord with all the news that’s truthful to print.
Bravo!
By the way, it is very nearly impossible to work in the Middle East and not know what “la” means in Arabic. That’s like working in Russia and not knowing what “nyet” means.
fatah hate their rivals hamas AND israel. next!
Eric, in this particular context we could also translate “la” as not rather than no. However, your point is accepted.