The you read ’em, I’m busy briefs

Syrian WMDs: Apparently, not a casus belli for the world. Syria aimed chemical warheads at Israel and was ready to fire them after the attack on the nuclear plant. Good to know for the future. I’m sure the IDF will be on the lookout for that now. Thanks, Wikileaks!

Another casus belli for Iran: I think Israel should tell Iran that the next time Iranian-made or Iranian-bought missiles hit their territory, Israeli missiles will hit Tehran. That might stop them from manufacturing missiles specifically for the purpose of being smuggled through the Gaza tunnels.

That’s funny, I thought the new, “moderate” Egypt wasn’t going to be a problem for Israel: Say, remember those people who said Mubarak’s downfall wouldn’t affect the peace treaty with Egypt? Shyeah. Right.

But it is not only the gas deals that worry the ostensibly moderate Facebook generation in Egypt. They do not want to see the Israeli embassy reopened. Nor do they want to see Israeli diplomats returning to Cairo.

Instead, the Egyptians want their government to lift the blockade on the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. The Facebook and Twitter demonstrators would rather see a Hamas ambassador sitting in the Israeli embassy in Cairo.

Moderates. Remember, they’re moderates. So they must be better, right? (Feel free to insert eye roll here.)

Ah, the Reuters optimism about all things Israel: The Reuters analysis of Iron Dome, complete with a warning of impending doom in the end. Cheerful reading.

This entry was posted in Gaza, Iran, Israel, Middle East and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The you read ’em, I’m busy briefs

  1. Soccerdad says:

    You’re right. This is sick.

    Some commentators cautioned that Israelis, buoyed by Iron Dome’s success, could themselves lose sight of the diplomatic impasse that has deepened doubts about prospects for peace.

    “In slightly less than a decade, Israel has surrounded itself with a defensive wall and a lack of hope, while reconciling itself to the adversarial nature of the region we live in,” wrote Udi Hirsch in Maariv newspaper.

    “At some stage we will understand that the Iron Dome system is a phenomenal tactical victory, behind which lies an ongoing strategic catastrophe.”

    And constantly being bombarded by rockets is a strategic victory? Some folks are convinced that making a counter-intuitive is the same as profundity. Often it is just plain silly.

    The other day the NYT did something similar:

    Nonetheless, independent commentators noted that the Iron Dome system could not protect Israeli communities close to the border and does not preclude the possibility of either Hamas or Israel carrying out a strike that exacts a large civilian toll, even unintentionally, and setting off a war.

    Got that? Iron Dome could actually cause even more civilian casualties. That misdirects readers from reflecting that it was developed to combat the regular targeting of civilians.

    There’s a joke about having a mind so open that one’s brain falls out. We’re seeing demonstrations of that in these cases.

  2. In the case of Reuters and the NY Times, I think the issue is that no matter what Israel does, it’s wrong. Even if Israel were to give in to all of the Palestinian demands, including sharing Jerusalem, the next op-ed would be about how Israel stole Palestinian land from the “indigenous” inhabitants and there should be only one state, Palestine, from the river to the sea.

Comments are closed.