Posted by
rycK on Friday, May 23, 2008 3:37:21 PM
The New York Times Makes Politics out of ‘Diplomacy’, Again.
Typical blow from the New York Times:
“When he lashes out, as he did in Israel, Mr. Bush makes it harder for reasonable people to pursue diplomacy. And it is hypocritical. His cease-fire in Gaza(still on the terrorism list) and has had limited, largely unsuccessful, contacts with Iran over its support for insurgents in Iraq. Israel is indirectly negotiating a cease-fire in Gaza with Hamas with the help of Egypt.” "[1] [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]
What will the Times say if the cease-fire in Gaza doesn’t work? OH! More diplomacy!!
He didn’t lash out; he called stupid people stupid for their manifold stupidities.
If we review the history of diplomacy, we wonder how the New York Times, the Walter Duranty Memorial Paper , can forget about Jimmy Carter and his ‘diplomacy’ with North Korea and their unswerving allegiance to the United Nations, who has condemned Israel several dozen times in recent history with no rebuke from the New York Times. Do we have to wonder about Madelyn Albright who was duped by Dearest Kim?
The United Nations is dead set against the Sate of Israel and their phony ‘resolutions’ show that.
“United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967 in the aftermath of the Six Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.[1] The resolution was drafted by British ambassador Lord Caradon and was one of five drafts under consideration.” [2]
This is after Israel was invaded and they crushed their enemies. Did the NYT complain about Russia taking control of the Baltic States, Hungary or others on their frontier? No.
“It calls for "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" to be achieved by "the application of both the following principles:" "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" (see semantic dispute) and: "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and respect for the right of every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.” [3]
There are ongoing disputes what this verbiage means.
The phony notion of ‘land for peace’ is a joke and the Arabs cannot be trusted from any so-called sovereign country anywhere in the Middle East. The Islamo-Fascists of the Hezbollah and Hamas are not going to agree to anything but the ultimate destruction of Israel as the current head of Iran promises.
Calls for Bush to ‘negotiate’ with the tyrants and murderers in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria have only two objectives:
[1] Give Obama some leverage to show that he can do something in the M.E., like letting the fascists sack Israel.
[2] Attack Bush even though we all know that the United Nations and the ‘diplomacy’ they mumble about have always failed. Clinton showed us all the
For the New York Times, ‘talking’ is an end into itself and if Israel bombs Iran before November then the Times will, doubtless, blame that on Bush also.
These are all diplomatic failures. North Korea treated the Clintons as the sorry, naïve dupes they really are and have lied about their nuclear programs and missiles on every account since their unearned gifts of US tax monies. Carter failed miserable with Iran and Clinton failed miserably with Arafat. The New York Times seems to fail to show a diplomatic victory when it comes to the Middle East, Africa, Cuba, Iran, North Korea or with tyrants in general.
Despite the known failure, the NYT will try to make some political points out of a hopeless situation. Their mouths are all they have.
rycK
Comments to: ryckki@gmail.com
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242