The New York Times Truly Makes Me Sick
If the New York times is not busy blowing United States national security secrets, and hiding when the ceiling falls in ont them, they are busy making fools of themselves in other respects. And when it comes to complicit, simplistic idiocy, nothing matches their editorial board. Today, the editors decided to tackle the war unfolding between Israel, the Palestinians, and Hezbollah.
What is truly disingenuous about their editorial is the wording. See if you can pick up on it the way I did. (My "notes" are bolded in the piece.)
Kidnapping Israeli soldiers to use as bargaining chips for the release of Arab prisoners is horrible behavior for groups that claim international recognition and political legitimacy, as Hamas and Hezbollah do. The same applies to lobbing rockets over Israel’s borders in the hope that they might kill unsuspecting civilians. In response to such unacceptable provocations, Israeli forces are now engaged in major military operations in Gaza, to the south, and in Lebanon, to the north.
But even when acting justifiably in the face of aggression, Israel best serves its long-term security interests by acting wisely and proportionately. Its guiding principle must always be to focus military actions as narrowly as possible on those individuals, organizations and governments directly complicit in the attacks, while sparing the civilian populations that surround them.
That is, of course, far easier said than done. Military actions in inhabited areas cannot be fine-tuned. Yet surely the repeated lesson of recent history is that inflicting pain and humiliation on Arab civilians does not make them angry at the terrorists who provoked the violence. It makes them angrier at Israel.
It is too soon to judge how well Israel is hewing to this standard in Lebanon. The political context there is different from that in Gaza. Hezbollah, whose militia is to blame for the kidnappings and rocket fire, has deputies in Lebanon’s Parliament and ministers in its cabinet. But it is not the main party of government, as Hamas is in the Palestinian territories. And Lebanon, unlike Gaza and the West Bank, is a legally sovereign state. A great deal of international effort has been invested in trying to free it of foreign military and political meddling, and restore real content to its sovereignty.
Obviously, that effort has not been fully successful. Hezbollah’s role as an autonomous militia controlling the international border with Israel makes that painfully clear, and Israel cannot be expected to put up with it. But in responding, it needs to make careful distinctions between Hezbollah guerrillas and Lebanese civilians; calling the rockets an “act of war” by Lebanon’s government was not a good idea.
In Gaza, where Israeli operations have been going on for two weeks and seem to be expanding day by day, it is not too soon to question Israeli military strategy, as many Israelis themselves are now doing. Israel’s initial foray into the southern part of Gaza, after one of its soldiers was kidnapped near the border, was appropriate, as were the initial airstrikes on bridges, meant to impede the movements of the kidnappers.
But after these steps failed to produce their intended result, the operation seemed to lose its clear territorial and counterterrorist definition and began to take on a perverse momentum of its own. Israel should not back off its efforts to secure the release of its kidnapped soldier. But it needs to refocus its Gaza operations on that very specific goal.
Is it me, or does the New York Times have a problem typing the word "terrorist" out? Hezbollah militia? Hezbollah guerillas? They are terrorists, plain and simple. And they are terrorists who are backed by both Syria and Iran. The momentum that the New York Times seems to observe as being "perverse" is not such to a scholared observer. The Palestinians have lobbed over 1000 Kassam rockets into Israel proper for ten months. The kidnapping simply was the spark to force Israel to undertake some sort of action.
And while I agree, in part, with the New York Times calls for restraint when it comes to civilians, we know that in war some civilians are likely to die. Like we do, Israel takes the greatest care it possibly can to assure as little "collateral damage" occurs. Butr like us, they are not willing to sacrifice the lives of their troops in such actions. The soldiers' general safety must be taken into account, and Israel is doing that.
The New York Times is wholly incorrect in pointing out that any harsh treatment of Arab civilians or terrorists will ignite their brethren to hold Israel responsible, and incite further violence. They state that they are basing this assessment on recent history. I beg to differ with the New York Times editors; Iraq is a fine example of that.
When al-Qaeda bombed the al-Askari mosque, the Sunnis and Shias did not hold the United States responsible. Nor did they hold their opposing Muslimn brothers responsible. Al-Qaeda was hoping they would, and that they would spark a civil war in Iraq.
As we can see, no civil war erupted. That is not to say that there was no violence that followed the mosque bombing, but it was clear that the al-Qaeda strategy backfired horribly. In fact, according to CENTCOM reports since then, the populace has turned against al-Qaeda. In addition to one of his own inner circle mates, al-Zarqawi's hiding place was outed by Iraqi civilians. They know that al-Qaeda is there not to fight on their behalf. That is evident as al-Qaeda continues to target civilians, security personnel, and military personnel in their continuing, yet diminshed, campaign of suicide bombings.
Populaces tend to turn against those actually causing them to be harmed by outside forces. We have seen it in Iraq, and we will see the same thing in Lebanon. Meanwhile, the Lebanese government has to remind their people that Israel is not gunning for them. Israel wants the Hezbollah terrorists killed, and out of their hair for good. Only through the methodical tactics Israel is using can they accomplish that goal. Israel, on the flip side, could communicate with the Lebanese government to convey that message directly. Prime Minister Olmert needs to remind Lebanon, and Israel proper, that their targets are not civilians, but rather the terrorists.
And the New York Times needs to simply keep quiet. Their forays into the law, and now geopolitical strategy, is pitiful and platry. I say reassign all of them to the restaurant guide. They are better apt to report to the general public the restaurants they frequent and enjoy.
Marcie
If the New York times is not busy blowing United States national security secrets, and hiding when the ceiling falls in ont them, they are busy making fools of themselves in other respects. And when it comes to complicit, simplistic idiocy, nothing matches their editorial board. Today, the editors decided to tackle the war unfolding between Israel, the Palestinians, and Hezbollah.
What is truly disingenuous about their editorial is the wording. See if you can pick up on it the way I did. (My "notes" are bolded in the piece.)
Kidnapping Israeli soldiers to use as bargaining chips for the release of Arab prisoners is horrible behavior for groups that claim international recognition and political legitimacy, as Hamas and Hezbollah do. The same applies to lobbing rockets over Israel’s borders in the hope that they might kill unsuspecting civilians. In response to such unacceptable provocations, Israeli forces are now engaged in major military operations in Gaza, to the south, and in Lebanon, to the north.
But even when acting justifiably in the face of aggression, Israel best serves its long-term security interests by acting wisely and proportionately. Its guiding principle must always be to focus military actions as narrowly as possible on those individuals, organizations and governments directly complicit in the attacks, while sparing the civilian populations that surround them.
That is, of course, far easier said than done. Military actions in inhabited areas cannot be fine-tuned. Yet surely the repeated lesson of recent history is that inflicting pain and humiliation on Arab civilians does not make them angry at the terrorists who provoked the violence. It makes them angrier at Israel.
It is too soon to judge how well Israel is hewing to this standard in Lebanon. The political context there is different from that in Gaza. Hezbollah, whose militia is to blame for the kidnappings and rocket fire, has deputies in Lebanon’s Parliament and ministers in its cabinet. But it is not the main party of government, as Hamas is in the Palestinian territories. And Lebanon, unlike Gaza and the West Bank, is a legally sovereign state. A great deal of international effort has been invested in trying to free it of foreign military and political meddling, and restore real content to its sovereignty.
Obviously, that effort has not been fully successful. Hezbollah’s role as an autonomous militia controlling the international border with Israel makes that painfully clear, and Israel cannot be expected to put up with it. But in responding, it needs to make careful distinctions between Hezbollah guerrillas and Lebanese civilians; calling the rockets an “act of war” by Lebanon’s government was not a good idea.
In Gaza, where Israeli operations have been going on for two weeks and seem to be expanding day by day, it is not too soon to question Israeli military strategy, as many Israelis themselves are now doing. Israel’s initial foray into the southern part of Gaza, after one of its soldiers was kidnapped near the border, was appropriate, as were the initial airstrikes on bridges, meant to impede the movements of the kidnappers.
But after these steps failed to produce their intended result, the operation seemed to lose its clear territorial and counterterrorist definition and began to take on a perverse momentum of its own. Israel should not back off its efforts to secure the release of its kidnapped soldier. But it needs to refocus its Gaza operations on that very specific goal.
Is it me, or does the New York Times have a problem typing the word "terrorist" out? Hezbollah militia? Hezbollah guerillas? They are terrorists, plain and simple. And they are terrorists who are backed by both Syria and Iran. The momentum that the New York Times seems to observe as being "perverse" is not such to a scholared observer. The Palestinians have lobbed over 1000 Kassam rockets into Israel proper for ten months. The kidnapping simply was the spark to force Israel to undertake some sort of action.
And while I agree, in part, with the New York Times calls for restraint when it comes to civilians, we know that in war some civilians are likely to die. Like we do, Israel takes the greatest care it possibly can to assure as little "collateral damage" occurs. Butr like us, they are not willing to sacrifice the lives of their troops in such actions. The soldiers' general safety must be taken into account, and Israel is doing that.
The New York Times is wholly incorrect in pointing out that any harsh treatment of Arab civilians or terrorists will ignite their brethren to hold Israel responsible, and incite further violence. They state that they are basing this assessment on recent history. I beg to differ with the New York Times editors; Iraq is a fine example of that.
When al-Qaeda bombed the al-Askari mosque, the Sunnis and Shias did not hold the United States responsible. Nor did they hold their opposing Muslimn brothers responsible. Al-Qaeda was hoping they would, and that they would spark a civil war in Iraq.
As we can see, no civil war erupted. That is not to say that there was no violence that followed the mosque bombing, but it was clear that the al-Qaeda strategy backfired horribly. In fact, according to CENTCOM reports since then, the populace has turned against al-Qaeda. In addition to one of his own inner circle mates, al-Zarqawi's hiding place was outed by Iraqi civilians. They know that al-Qaeda is there not to fight on their behalf. That is evident as al-Qaeda continues to target civilians, security personnel, and military personnel in their continuing, yet diminshed, campaign of suicide bombings.
Populaces tend to turn against those actually causing them to be harmed by outside forces. We have seen it in Iraq, and we will see the same thing in Lebanon. Meanwhile, the Lebanese government has to remind their people that Israel is not gunning for them. Israel wants the Hezbollah terrorists killed, and out of their hair for good. Only through the methodical tactics Israel is using can they accomplish that goal. Israel, on the flip side, could communicate with the Lebanese government to convey that message directly. Prime Minister Olmert needs to remind Lebanon, and Israel proper, that their targets are not civilians, but rather the terrorists.
And the New York Times needs to simply keep quiet. Their forays into the law, and now geopolitical strategy, is pitiful and platry. I say reassign all of them to the restaurant guide. They are better apt to report to the general public the restaurants they frequent and enjoy.
Marcie
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:51 PM
1 Comments:
I expect to the NYT's to oppose Israel and support Hamas and Hezbollah. The paper doesn't recognize them as terrorists. For a paper to oppose war, it sure likes to instignate conflicts or throw gas on one. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home