Column: November 19, 2004 -- Rush, Sean, and the Settlers
Arafat finally, finally died and Rush Limbaugh was talking about the talk surrounding it on the radio:
" It's nine-miles-wide country (Israel), and it's something. You know, I think that people talk about "a new day for peace" here, and yeah, there are calls for Israel to step up and make more concessions. But the real opportunity, if there's a new opportunity for peace here, it is solely, solely on the Palestinians. Are they going to have somebody running the show here who is actually interested in some accommodation and getting along with and side-by- side peaceful coexistence? I just don't see it. They can have a leader that stands for it and this guy's going to get shot or AIDS or poisoned or whatever, because the militants, you know, are just not going to go for this. So that's why this is going on. This is how long it's been going on and it's going to go on and on an own until one side defeats the other -- and for that to happen, the world's going to have to stand back and let it happen and I don't think that's going to happen either. So we're smack-dab in the middle of irreconcilable differences and I hate to put it that way but "that's the way it is." (November 12th 2004)
The above is just one example of Rush Limbaugh's statements in support of Israel. Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and others on Talk Radio have shown that not only are they a major force to contend with on the American political scene -- perhaps decisively so, as seen in these past elections -- but that they are good friends and supporters of Israel.
This is much appreciated since "Old Media" -- as Limbaugh calls it -- has never given Israel a fair shake and this is many more times true when it comes to the "settlers" in Judea, Samaria, and Aza. Their support has got me thinking. If Rush and Sean and others were more familiar with the communities of Judea Samaria and Aza would they not be invaluable allies? Is it yet possible to turn public opinion in America around and blunt the International Left's campaign to destroy these communities and reduce Israel to indefensible pre-67' borders?
If tens of millions of Americans could hear all that is good about the settlers and their traditional family lifestyle (certainly admirable to those that cherish Bible-based values) and all that is wrong in uprooting them only to be replaced by terrorists and missile launchers, could not a real change be effectuated?
Of course, I include the Israeli Left in the International Left.
In a revealing rant in Ha'aretz, Akiva Eldar unabashedly talks the Leftist anti-Israel and anti-Bush (read anti-American?) talk. "Time to Implement Bush's Vision" (November 15, 2004) is not only a haughty demand that Bush tow the Leftist line and jump at the new "opportunity" presented by Arafat's death -- ignoring of course all the conditions that Bush has placed on the "Palestinians" for any resumption of any "map" or "process" -- but he openly attacks Bush personally in true International and American Leftist fashion. Here's some of what Eldar said:
"Yesterday's headlines would lead one to believe that President George W. Bush was about to stop playing golf and watching westerns, and was going to let the Iraq crisis ride in order to throw himself energetically into dealing with the Israeli occupation of the territories.
...In light of the passivity the US has evinced in our area, the burden of proof concerning the fact that our place on Bush's agenda has changed, is on the US president. The attitude of the US to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be determined to a great extent by whether Arafat's death does open a new era in the region.
... Seekers of peace among the Palestinians (and the Israelis) will believe Bush is not leading them on with empty words if he appoints a senior emissary (for example, former secretary of state James Baker) to prepare the groundwork for renewed negotiations on a final status settlement. ... The participation of Europe and the UN, which cannot exactly be perceived as siding with the Israelis, in diplomatic and security processes, can serve as yet another important sign of change. .
... In his death, Arafat has given Bush a rare opportunity to prove to the Arab world that the vision of democracy for the Middle East is not a code-name for the lust for power, oil, small-minded local politics or just plain laziness."
It is worthwhile to read the whole article if you can stand it.
Meanwhile, Colin Powell has resigned and Condoleeza Rice, according to early reports, is to replace him.
That should throw some cold water on any Leftist hope of replacing the Bush Doctrine with Eldar's version of the "Bush Vision" as the centerpiece of Bush's foreign policy.
" It's nine-miles-wide country (Israel), and it's something. You know, I think that people talk about "a new day for peace" here, and yeah, there are calls for Israel to step up and make more concessions. But the real opportunity, if there's a new opportunity for peace here, it is solely, solely on the Palestinians. Are they going to have somebody running the show here who is actually interested in some accommodation and getting along with and side-by- side peaceful coexistence? I just don't see it. They can have a leader that stands for it and this guy's going to get shot or AIDS or poisoned or whatever, because the militants, you know, are just not going to go for this. So that's why this is going on. This is how long it's been going on and it's going to go on and on an own until one side defeats the other -- and for that to happen, the world's going to have to stand back and let it happen and I don't think that's going to happen either. So we're smack-dab in the middle of irreconcilable differences and I hate to put it that way but "that's the way it is." (November 12th 2004)
The above is just one example of Rush Limbaugh's statements in support of Israel. Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and others on Talk Radio have shown that not only are they a major force to contend with on the American political scene -- perhaps decisively so, as seen in these past elections -- but that they are good friends and supporters of Israel.
This is much appreciated since "Old Media" -- as Limbaugh calls it -- has never given Israel a fair shake and this is many more times true when it comes to the "settlers" in Judea, Samaria, and Aza. Their support has got me thinking. If Rush and Sean and others were more familiar with the communities of Judea Samaria and Aza would they not be invaluable allies? Is it yet possible to turn public opinion in America around and blunt the International Left's campaign to destroy these communities and reduce Israel to indefensible pre-67' borders?
If tens of millions of Americans could hear all that is good about the settlers and their traditional family lifestyle (certainly admirable to those that cherish Bible-based values) and all that is wrong in uprooting them only to be replaced by terrorists and missile launchers, could not a real change be effectuated?
Of course, I include the Israeli Left in the International Left.
In a revealing rant in Ha'aretz, Akiva Eldar unabashedly talks the Leftist anti-Israel and anti-Bush (read anti-American?) talk. "Time to Implement Bush's Vision" (November 15, 2004) is not only a haughty demand that Bush tow the Leftist line and jump at the new "opportunity" presented by Arafat's death -- ignoring of course all the conditions that Bush has placed on the "Palestinians" for any resumption of any "map" or "process" -- but he openly attacks Bush personally in true International and American Leftist fashion. Here's some of what Eldar said:
"Yesterday's headlines would lead one to believe that President George W. Bush was about to stop playing golf and watching westerns, and was going to let the Iraq crisis ride in order to throw himself energetically into dealing with the Israeli occupation of the territories.
...In light of the passivity the US has evinced in our area, the burden of proof concerning the fact that our place on Bush's agenda has changed, is on the US president. The attitude of the US to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be determined to a great extent by whether Arafat's death does open a new era in the region.
... Seekers of peace among the Palestinians (and the Israelis) will believe Bush is not leading them on with empty words if he appoints a senior emissary (for example, former secretary of state James Baker) to prepare the groundwork for renewed negotiations on a final status settlement. ... The participation of Europe and the UN, which cannot exactly be perceived as siding with the Israelis, in diplomatic and security processes, can serve as yet another important sign of change. .
... In his death, Arafat has given Bush a rare opportunity to prove to the Arab world that the vision of democracy for the Middle East is not a code-name for the lust for power, oil, small-minded local politics or just plain laziness."
It is worthwhile to read the whole article if you can stand it.
Meanwhile, Colin Powell has resigned and Condoleeza Rice, according to early reports, is to replace him.
That should throw some cold water on any Leftist hope of replacing the Bush Doctrine with Eldar's version of the "Bush Vision" as the centerpiece of Bush's foreign policy.
posted by Barry Freedman at 1:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home