The New Republic

ever see the movie "my son the fanatic"? Look, a taxi ride ain't birth control.

- karmapolitics

October 10, 2006 at 6:40pm

for ridiculing your earlier post on this subject. I read the piece you linked to -- we really do need to resist this nonsense.

- purcellneil

October 10, 2006 at 11:54pm

Here's an editorial from today's Washington Post "Intransigent Hamas It's easy to call for a Middle East peace. But what if Palestinian leaders don't want it? Wednesday, October 11, 2006; A18 STIRRING BUT thoughtless appeals for a Middle East peace settlement continue to ring out around the world. Just last week a new one appeared, signed by 135 "global leaders," that called for "a new international conference, ideally held as soon as possible." Most of the sponsoring statesmen live far from the region -- in Europe, Latin America, Africa, Australia. Their statement asserted that "the injection of new political will" from "the international community" was what is needed to break the impasse between Israel and the Palestinians. In fact, the problem is a lot more specific, and a lot tougher. That's why it was helpful that the foreign minister of Egypt decided to publicly speak his mind on the subject the other day. Ahmed Aboul Gheit -- who has spent the past several months immersed in a failing effort to restore the broken connections between the Palestinian Authority and its international donors, as well as Israel -- placed the blame exactly where it belongs: on the Palestinian political leadership. "The Palestinian situation is marred by sharp divisions and battling; it is a misery and shameful for any Arab and any Palestinian," the minister told the government newspaper al-Ahram. The Egyptian frustration is understandable. Negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel, and Western aid to the Palestinian government, can't go forward because the governing Hamas movement refuses to recognize Israel or previous Israeli-Palestinian accords. It also won't renounce the use of violence against Israeli soldiers or civilians, or release the soldier its militants abducted from inside Israel in June. Egyptian negotiators have won Israeli agreement to release up to 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the hostage, but Hamas won't go along. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, from the competing Fatah movement, has tried repeatedly to win Hamas's agreement on a new unity government that would indirectly recognize Israel, a half-step that might lure back some desperately needed European aid. No deal. This week the government of Qatar intervened, sending its foreign minister shuttling around Gaza with a six-point plan under which Hamas and Fatah would unite on the platform of a two-state solution. Once again Hamas said no. In case there was any doubt, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh spelled out Hamas's position at a rally last weekend: "I tell you with all honesty, we will not recognize Israel, we will not recognize Israel, we will not recognize Israel." Mr. Abbas responded by threatening, as he has before, to dissolve the Palestinian government or order a referendum. But he lacks the legal authority either to remove Hamas from power or to schedule a vote of any kind. It's easy enough for global leaders to issue flowery appeals for action on the Middle East or to imply that progress would be possible if only the United States used its leverage with Israel. The stubborn reality is that there can be no movement toward peace until a Palestinian leadership appears that is ready to accept a two-state solution. That's why there need to be fewer manifestos and more frank messages such as the one delivered by Mr. Aboul Gheit: "Those leaders and the Palestinian people will find out that they are losing a chance."" Finally, someone in the rarified atmosphere of elite media editorials gets it. I would say, however, that the Post didn't follow the thought process through to its logical conclusion. Hamas wouldn't be so intransigent if the Palestinian people wanted peace. The fact is, many of them don't, and those that do are afraid to say so. And why is that? Because they perceive that the long-term strategy of the militants is working. Whenever the maniacs launch attacks on Israel, the fighting leads to demands by the international community for Israel to participate in the "peace process". This process is in fact a perverse sham that makes endless demands on Israel to concede territory, in return for security guarantees (for example, the disarmament of Hezbollah) that the international community has no intention of enforcing. So Israel withdraws from some piece of land, the terrorists move in, celebrate a "glorious victory", re-arm, and start the cycle all over. This vicious cycle is made possible by the fact that the world lacks the political will to take the steps necessary to destroy the terrorist armies. As long as this malignant process continues, as long as the militants are perceived as winning, Palestinians who want peace have no political footing to transform their society from within. And the process will continue until the international community gets serious about demanding real and enforceable concessions (recognition of Israel, disarmament of the maniacs) from the Palestinians and other Muslim nations. I'm not holding my breath.

- Claudiusmarcellus

October 11, 2006 at 12:06pm

I was taken to the Hackensack Hospital (NJ) emergency room and while waiting for an x-ray on a very long line of gurneys threw off the blanket I was given as I had a high fever. A Muslim technician came by and began to repeatedly to shout at me to cover myself as I was uncovered from the knees down. I am a 56 year old woman. I told the "gentleman" that the sole purpose of the hospital and of the staff was about my convenience and needs and not his. I subsequently wrote a letter to the PR department of the hospital about this unpleasant incident and it was apparently handled by the powers to be. The "gentleman", I told them, could choose a profession in which he would not be exposed (no pun intended) to female flesh or live in a society where female flesh is not exposed. He certainly cannot shout at female patients who are ill because he finds their flesh offensive. Political correctness gone terribly awry, it seems to me. When in Rome, do as the Romans or else move on.

- jonczin

October 11, 2006 at 7:12pm

- peretz

October 12, 2006 at 10:14pm