<< BRING IT ON ~ MAIN ~ HAPPY HOUR >>
COMMANDER JONES DEFIED
Daniel Pipes deals with Australian ABC host Tony Jones, on the issue of the latest Israeli-Palestinian peace moves:
TONY JONES: It’s time, isn’t it, to put aside that sort of skepticism and, as Condoleezza Rice says, seize the chance for the best opportunity we may see for peace for years?
DANIEL PIPES: Is that an order?
The ABC tries; oh how it tries. PM on 8th February:
Edmund Roy on the new initiatives—
But as always, reality intrudes with real problems. They include, in no particular order, the settlements, the refugees, the borders, the prisoners, the military occupation and the status of Jerusalem.
No mention of the single, major, overriding problem: Palestinian terror attacks on Israel. Mr Roy does not see this as a real problem.
The bulk of the problems are caused, in Mr Roy’s view, by Israel. Not a particularly impartial reporter is he? But then, he’s from the ABC.Posted by walterplinge on 2005 02 10 at 06:32 PM • permalinkAbout time the US got rid of looneys like Pipes as advisors. His “reasoning” is - any pullback from Palestinian territories will be seen as a sign of weakness, and they will then be emboldened to drive Israel into the sea….is this shit or what?
Ooh look. The IDF have pulled back. They’ve stopped tearing down our homes. No more tank shells, their snipers have stopped shooting our boys in the eye…Now is our chance, this is a sign of WEAKNESS!!!!!No, it’s not an order. It’s a question and it’s rhetorical because the answer is obvious.
Shorter Pipes: “I won’t stop hating them because they still hate us, even if they say they don’t.”
He is a petulant blowhard attempting to promote a self-fulfilling fantasy of violence. He accuses the Palestinians of blind hatred and uses that as justification for his own. And you call this a logical thinker?
Jones is the most biased so called journalist on the most biased station in the country but it doesnt excuse Israeli behaviour.
Posted by Astonished on 2005 02 11 at 01:24 AM • permalinkbecause the Palestinians have nothing to do with it…right?
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 02 11 at 01:55 AM • permalinkorang
There is no coincidence in the fact that the second intafada began about the same time as the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. The Arab world see concession as a sign of weakness. Their aim is to wipe out Israel and the only reason they do not try do it is because they are scared. Pipes is correct - any sign of weakness is met with aggression from the Arab world.
err, Tom, it relates to the post directly above it. Perhaps you spent too much time in English classes being indoctrinated by your commie teachers than on comprehension?
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 02 11 at 02:18 AM • permalinkacts of violence by palestinians in the occupied territories are no less legitimate than the resistance of partisan groups in ww2 against the germans. Sorry but the middle east is NOT a left/right issue.
Posted by Astonished on 2005 02 11 at 02:40 AM • permalinkAh. So, your message was actually:
“Jones is the most biased so called journalist on the most biased station in the country but it doesnt excuse Israeli behaviour because the Palestinians have nothing to do with it…right?”
Comprehension was different when I went to school. It was about making sense.
PS “Commie”? Is it 1985 where you live?
No, I don’t recall studying communism, but I do remember learning to write “sentences”. ( You can Google that. )Seems like there are more of those posters here who have not absorbed middle eastern history in its fullness.
The West Bank was taken from JORDAN in the 1967 war. Not Palestine - Palestine was a large area and a general term - it no longer exists! Much of it is in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria - NOT JUST ISRAEL!!
Gaza was not part of the originally APPROVED state of ISRAEL (THE UN ... rmember the UN?) but was occupied by them in 1956 and again in 1967 when the state of Israel had to defend itself against attacks by forces from Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
I presume you have also lobbied hard during your lifetime to return all the states occupied by the Soviet Union in Europe (took quite a while did it not? Probably without a jot of help from you) and that you are actively campaigning for the return of Pakistan to India, along with Bangla Desh. Are you also interested in the return of West Papua to the rightful inhabitants, or do you support the Indonesian takeover in the 1960s? Are you in fact interested in ANY downtrodden people apart from the newsworthy in the daily papers?It’s time, isn’t it, to put aside that sort of skepticism and, as Condoleezza Rice says, seize the chance for the best opportunity we may see for peace for years?
Neville again.
If the Israelis make another attempt at appeasement after everything that’s happened over the last few years, they deserve everything they get.
Posted by Jim Geones on 2005 02 11 at 07:34 AM • permalinkPS “Commie�? Is it 1985 where you live?
Most of your leftoid conspiracy theories and prejudices are at least that old so I thought I’d put it in terms you could understand. Have you ever had an original thought or do you just rely on the ABC/SMH commentariat?You can Google that
How about googling “pretentious, unoriginal, chattering class git”?
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 02 11 at 08:24 AM • permalinkMost of Israel is not part of the approved state of Israel Blogstrop thats the whole point! Shot yourself down in flames mate sorry.
Posted by Astonished on 2005 02 11 at 10:44 AM • permalinkPipes is certainly right about the problem of showing signs of weakness. It’s funny to see a leftist ridiculing (in entire lieu of argument, no less) the idea of avoiding a show of signs of weakness, when that is exactly what the left wants civilization to do like a puppy rolling on its back and pissing in the presence of a big strong dog. Oh then oh then the terrorists won’t hurt us! Play weak! Play dead! Doittoday!
Pipes is wrong, however, to say that the US military should not have gotten involved in things like rebuilding and building up the electrical grid. Strangely, he misses the big picture, which includes getting Iraq on its feet asap and moving toward becoming a modern economic society. It also includes minimizing humanitarian problems that could get out of hand or impede good things—Pipes seems to be wary only of the kinds of sudden humanitarian disasters and their particular kinds of world political impacts, which the left mis-predicted before the invasion.
Now I’m astonished. Since when does a country require international approval to exist or defend itself? The occupied territories were lost in wars launched by enemies. So sorry; and no, you can’t have it back. The only reason Palestinian leaders want any of it is to A) publicly twit Israel and B) get that many acres closer to their ultimate goal: “Palestine from the river to the sea.” If they could reconquer it by force they’d have tried it already.
Israel, on the other hand, restrains itself. The IDF, being much the superior army in those parts, could have taken and held far more land in those conflicts; they could be much more indiscriminate in their sorties against terrorists today. (Being answerable to an electorate has certain benefits, not only to the country in question but all of its neighbors.)
No nation has any legal right to territory seized in war. the big problem for Israels obsequious apologists is that damn international law keeps getting in the way. If you had any sense of balance you would be asking why the IDF has been alowed in the past to kill US Servicemen and spy on the USA with impunity.
Posted by Astonished on 2005 02 11 at 11:29 PM • permalink“No nation has any legal right to territory seized in war”
Yes but when Israel seized the territory in a defensive war there was not one to negotiate a settlement with because none of the countries involved would negotiate with a country they did not recognise.
I just wished some of you people learnt a bit of history.“No nation has any legal right to territory seized in war.”
Yeah well tough shit. I look forward to your campaign against the State of Qin.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 02 12 at 09:47 PM • permalink1. Well only the muddle headed would confuse 221 BC with 1967 as the laws then were ‘somewhat’ different to the 20 th century.
2. The dont show weakness argument falls flat because it has worked before namely as where Israel has pulled back to its unofficial border with Leabanon no subsequent attacks across that border have been recorded.
3. A majority of Israelis dont believe in the annexation of the west bank if the opinion polls are to be believed and
4. To describe Israels wars with the exception of Yom Kippur as defensive is laughable. The Melanie’s and Andrea’s of this world need to do some background reading me thinks.
5. The whole world except for the extreme right in Israel and the USA believe in land for peace. No traditional US allies support the Christian Fundamentalist Right’s position in the Mid East. Therefore Israel can choose the land for peace path or the path of inevitable nuclear attack. Whats it going to be?
6. 1967 “a defensive war” I’m still laughing.
Posted by Astonished on 2005 02 12 at 10:27 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Hamas answers Commander Jones with a rocket and mortar barrage: Cease-fire this!