as long as that is kept up, this Palestinian suffering is going to fuel Arab and Muslim anger and even hatred of the United States. That is what I believe anyway.
I'm afraid I agree with you. But then what's the answer? As Paul has said, Israel has tried some very different approaches to the problem. None of them have worked all that well. When you've got Palestinian organizations that continually proclaim that they will not rest until Israel is "pushed into the sea" and no longer exists -- organizations that have sufficient clout to keep the hostilities going (Hamas won Palestinian elections, didn't they?) -- there's not much chance of a peaceful solution.
As for the mainstream media... most of them have taken sides, and they're not going to report anything that goes against their pre-decided meta-narrative (even conservative columnists have to work with liberal editors). Carol, you are dead right about that.
Also, there seems to have been a contentious misunderstanding earlier, so at the risk of re-opening hostilities...
Ann, you responded to Roger:
I think you are exaggerating enormously here:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some would say that it's a matter of proportionality. If someone commits a terrorist act and kills one or two, a million dollar missile fired at a ten dollar tent, hitting a camel in the butt is the appropriate response. Taking out the whole country isn't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking out a whole country? What? Are you suggesting that this is something that may be about to happen to the United States? As far as I know, there are 300 million people in America - 300,000,000. There were fewer than 3,000 killed on 9/11, fewer than one in 100,000. Losing one person out of 100,000 is evidence that someone could be taking out your entire country?
And I think you misread him. No, losing one person out of 100,000 is certainly *not* evidence that someone is taking out your entire country, and I don't believe that's what Roger meant at all. He was talking about proportional response. His point, if I read him correctly, is that if a few people are killed, then a missile strike is an appropriate level of response. For the US to move to "take out an entire country" over such a small event would
not at all be an appropriate response.
(The thing about hitting a camel in the rear is a sarcastic reference to an incident that took place during Clinton's administration, and I think it confused the issue.)
It took a much larger event (everyone throws around the 3000 number, but it's only the grace of God that tens of thousands weren't killed that day; if the planes had hit two hours later, or if the towers had fallen more quickly, the death toll would have been much more appalling) and the realization that a future event could take out *millions* of people (dirty bombs, suitcase nukes, etc) that prompted the US to take stronger, pre-emptive measures.
TEEEEJ...
Tell you what, the next time you feel the need to compose a scathing post, you send it to me instead of posting it? I understand where you're coming from, but you can get really, um, abrasive, and it's counter-productive. 'Kay, sweetie?
PJ
