Posted on 07/27/2006 8:42:04 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
Isn't it generally assumed that when two countries are at war, that it is the right and duty of those countries actually in the conflict to decide when that war might be over and how it is prosecuted? Certainly other nations might attempt to diplomatically intervene to help resolve the crisis but, when all is said and done, isn't it still the duty of the warring parties to arrive at their own conclusions?
Not according to The New York Times. The Times has pronounced it the duty of the vaunted "World Powers" to end Israel's security measures in Lebanon as if neither Israel nor Lebanon have a thing to say about it.
Naturally, it's all the USA's fault that they couldn't agree on a policy, too.
"World powers failed to agree Wednesday on a plan to end the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, underscoring the power of the United States to prevail when it comes to dealing with Israel."So, those nice "world powers" want to stop the war, quite regardless of what caused it, but that darned old USA has taken sides again.
"'In their formal statement, the United States, the Europeans, and Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia expressed a vague 'determination to work immediately to reach with the utmost urgency a cease-fire that puts an end to the current violence and hostilities.'"It should be pointed out that all the parties mentioned above are practically enemies to Israel except the USA. So, could anyone imagine that these "world powers" would have a balanced and unbiased desire to solve these problems when 90% of the body mentioned support Hizbullah terrorists? With the USA as the only ally to Israel in that group, it's no wonder that these "world powers" are upset at the inability to settle on a policy.
But, here was some supreme hypocrisy. On one hand, these "world powers" seem to think that they have the right... no the duty... to intervene in this conflict and stop the war with favorable provisions for one side (Hizbullah¹s) assured, yet when it comes to creating a military force that could help ensure this "peace" they imagine is their duty to create, suddenly that effort is one that they don't think is their job!
"But the Europeans, who are expected to make up the bulk of any force, as well as the United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, said that it would be impossible politically to send the world¹s most powerful military alliance, which is so closely identified with the West, to police a conflict between Israelis and Arabs."It's all wonderful and fuzzy for them to sit comfortably in Paris, Cairo, or Riyadh and tsk, tsk at Israel, telling them what should be done to assure Israeli security, but to put their own people in harm's way? "Well, hey, now, we can't be doing that, why it isn't our job to actually help with substantive measures", say the helpful "world powers".
So, let me get this right, New York Times: It's OK for these "world powers" to make the claim that it is in their power to stop the war, but it ISN'T in their power to create a force of their own people that they can send to help enforce this peace?
But wait, it gets even more absurd. It is hardly disputed that this action in Lebanon started over the ultimate refusal of the Lebanese government to live up to its promised UN commitments to eliminate Hizbullah. Yet, Jaques Chirac insists that the same "world powers" that insisted Lebanon eliminate Hizbullah then, now won't even ask them to live up to that agreement anymore.
"Mr. Chirac, who did not rule out French participation or even command of a force, said it could only be deployed after a cease-fire and a solid political agreement was in place. In the absence of a political agreement, he added, an international force would not 'have the capacity or the mandate to disarm Hezbollah,' which he said had to be done by the Lebanese authorities."So, he'll trust the same government that already failed to fulfill its past commitments to fulfill them now, but he won't agree to force them to do so to get his sought after "peace"? Chirac's refusal to admit to the fact that Lebanon's failure to fulfill its agreement was the entire reason the Israelis went into the area in the first place reveals his support of Hizbullah and bias against Israel.
Chirac is, in essence, saying that the entire onus is on the Israelis and none on the Lebanese. Yet, the French still demand that the fighting stop, even though they are directly and wholly supporting Israel's enemy, giving them succor and protection, and offering Israel nothing in return to entice them to the bargaining table.
"'We demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities, and the majority of the other parties insisted on our line," the French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, said in a telephone interview from Rome, but the Americans disagreed."You bet the Americans "disagreed". This situation is exactly how it might have been if Japan told the USA and England to pull out of Germany in 1945, just before Hitler's regime had completely fallen, and to initiate a cease fire calling that "peace". There would have been nothing in such a plan for the allies and it would have been laughable for an axis power to urge the allies to give "peace" with no costs to one of its own friends.
Chirac acting as an Imperial Japanese emperor scolding the USA and England to give "peace" to a beleaguered Nazi Germany just before that crushing blow could erase Nazism forever is just too rich an analogy to ignore. But, there you have it. Chirac wants to save Hizbullah just as Israel is on the verge of materially hurting them, perhaps beyond recovery.
The loverly and oh so helpful "world powers" have taken the side of terrorists.
I guess the Democrats will now shun the NY Times for not coming out firmly in favor of Israel and against Hezbollah since many of them critized Iraqi PM Malaki on the same basis yesterday, even unseemingly boycotting his speech.
bump
Now that astute point nearly made me choke on my chili!
I won't hold my breath...:)
Good one!
From the highly entertaining www.flashbunny.org site!
Just A Nobody! That's a great graphic!
(By the way...it was a PRIVILEGE to meet you last week!)
The privilege was all mine! I hope you enjoyed your time with us. Looking forward to a return trip with a few of your friends. ;*)
should read "shoot missles at Israel"
MikeA was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrats who boycotted the Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's address of Congress yesterday.
He is drawing a parallel between the non-support of Israel by the NYT and the Iraqi PM. The Rats boycotted and lambasted Maliki because he would not specifically denounce Hezbollah in front of cameras (which he probably declined to do for simply internal political reasons)
I think both MikeA and myself are on the same page as you are...
Funny!
The NYT: Manual of Doom.
Saddam murdered more of his own citizens in a month than have died so far in the conflict between Israel and Lebanon. Why is the NYT far more worried about the Lebanese who have died than Saddam's victims?
Hmmm...why...why...why...?
(rlmorel searches mental Ann Coulter Archives for the single most appropriate reason out of dozens...)
To quote a recent Ann Coulter column...
"...Their reaction to al-Zarqawi's death was to lower the U.S. flag at the Times building to half-staff. (Ha ha -- just kidding! Everybody knows there aren't any American flags at The New York Times.)"
This filthy rag isn't even fit to line a bird cage with.
The New Jerk Slimes isn't fit to use as backup toilet paper!
Could that somehow be made into a flashing poster?
The travesty is that they have one and fly it--to the right of New York State, New York City, and THEIR OWN FLAG!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.