This report, from the BBC no less (the giveaway is that “terrorist” isn’t used), gives you an idea of how divorced from reality is the “peace process”:
Masked gunmen in the Gaza Strip have set fire to a United Nations-run summer camp for children. This follows a similar attack in May on another UN-run summer camp. Some militants view the UN as a symbol of the West and claim that the summer camps allow boys and girls to mix freely – something that the UN denies. The attackers tied up the guard at the camp in central Gaza before setting fire to chairs, tables, easels and other equipment. The UN says about 25 armed men attacked the beach camp in the middle of Sunday night. … Nobody was hurt, and nobody has claimed responsibility for the attack. But in a similar incident last month a previously unknown Islamist group said its had attacked a UN summer camp in Gaza city. The head in Gaza of the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian refugees condemned the attack as “cowardly and despicable.”
But Israel is the subject of the ire of the ”international community” and is chastised for being too exacting in its list of blockaded goods. Well, when everything is a weapon — rope, matches, etc. — it gets hard to decide what should be excluded.
The most chilling part of the report is this: “Hamas also runs rival summer camps.” One can only imagine what their activities must be like and how many young minds are being corralled into the cult of death. Imagine, too, the mothers who choose to send their children to such places, and who pine for their flesh and blood to be martyred.
Meanwhile, there is this report:
The continued power struggle between Hamas and Fatah has left tens of thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip in the dark following the closure of the area’s main power plant. The power plant, which supplies 25% of electricity to the Gaza Strip, was shut down on Friday night because of a dispute between the rival Palestinian parties over payment for fuel that is needed to keep it running. Hamas and Fatah traded allegations over the power outage, with each party blaming the other for the crisis.
Only by turning a blind eye to these and the hundreds of other indications that Israel’s foes remain dedicated to the Jewish state’s destruction does the Obama team imagine that George Mitchell is going to bring “peace” to Israel and the Palestinians. It is hard to make the case that “peace” in our time will come about by his shuffling between the two sides, one of which has not the authority or the will to make a deal and no means of ensuring that summer camps, schools, and hospitals do not remain targets of those who don’t share the vision of a two-state solution.
Ummm. . . no?
Rudy went over VERY well last night with the devoted. And Fred was liked, too.
Lieberman, bless him, was actually the fourth-worst supporting speech (Palin, Rudy, Fred, Liebs).
Trust me on this, you were stuck there, not here.
Absolutely. The movement types were hellbent for Romney (which always struck this Mass. voter as odd), and he was a bust in St. Paul. Pawlenty…. hmm. Lieberman, though, could’ve helped McCain with the post-partisan theme McCain chose to strike tonight. Oh, and Huckabee was fairly good, I thought.
After watching the same parade of former contenders, Gail Collins came to the same conclusion (great minds!). From her NYT column:
“For all her great skills at presentation, many people, including some Republicans who think the microphone is off, believe that Sarah Palin is a terrible choice for running mate. But you have to remember who the other options were.”
Rudy was the only speaker who came close to Sarah in being able to attack Obama with humor & grace, from the speakers I saw/heard in this convention. But he wouldn’t help with those Reagan Democrats in small towns and exurbs in the key rust belt states like I think Palin will.
I agree with Dave. Rudy, Palin, and Fred were all very good.
I did enjoy Lieberman’s speech though. I was watching on ABC and half-way through they cut away to commentators. I switched to CBS to watch the rest of it. ABC did the same thing last Friday when McCain announced Palin as running mate. Half-way through her speech, they cut away to commentators so I had to switch channels to watch the rest. Can’t Stephonopolis wait until the end to comment?!
Huckabee’s a good speaker, but he wasn’t on the short list.
Rudy always gives a good speech, but I’m not sure he’d sell in the Heartland.
Battlefield promotion, based on character. Other choices deeply flawed and Dems already had ammo ready for them anyway. Excellent choice, especially based on the vetting process. Obama took months and came up with…Biden.
“All the other potential VP picks with the exception of Joe Lieberman”
I suspect McCain wanted to pick Lieberman, but I also suspect Lieberman himself asked him, “Are you crazy?”
The whole Lieberman thing was a kabuki performance.
Maybe if I put it in caps you’ll understand – LIEBERMAN ISN’T A REPUBLICAN. Picking him as VP could well have resulted in a significant walkout of the convention, and rightly so. I say that even though I like Lieberman. To be a maverick is one thing, to potentially turn over the party to someone who disagrees with 90% of the platform is run over the cliff nuts.
For a few days, critics of Palin were comparing her to some imaginery perfect choice, who had no vulnerabilities to attack by Democrats. The real comparison is to the other alternatives. McCain made the best choice. My wife is very middle-of-the-road, and after watching Palin at her introductory rally said, “I’m really excited. For the first time this election, I’m really excited.” It seems she’s not the only one who feels that way.
We should make note of who on the conservative side blasted Palin. A year from now they won’t want to be reminded of what they said.
While I admire Lieberman’s courage, he would not remotely have energized the party as Palin has done. In fact, he would have created big problems within the party base, rightly or wrongly.
Without a doubt this is true. Each of the VP also-rans are virtuous but stiff.
Yes, the idea of nominating a Democrat who disagrees with the party on most issues as Veep was always utterly ludicrous.
Rudy, I love him and would have voted for him in a flash, but his personal life and NYC background and pro-choiceness was too hard a sell for the base.
Fred can deliver a good folksy speech, but his battery winds down very fast.
Romney, I never understood the frantic devotion to him among the pundit class. Too rich, too Mormon (sorry, but it would have been a problem), too plastic.
Pawlenty would have been fine but he is dull, dull, dull.
Palin looks a brilliant choice at the moment indeed.
Palin/Jindal 2012 (I’m assuming if McCain wins he will only be a one-termer)!