Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Two Dogs Reads the News

I have left this blog out of the political theatre long enough. It used to be that the only topics that I even blogged about were political in nature. Then I got bored.

Anyhoo, with Bean gearing up to move across the pond to bust out on some bad folks, NOT MUSLIMS mind you, I decided to try to reinvolve myself. The first and only read of the day comes from Google News. I have to ease myself back into the fray. I ain't one of those jumpers, you know. And you know the drill, my comments in italics.

Palestinians need new options for peace

by:John Bersia (He is obviously stupid, by the way)

At least three scenarios peer through the internecine (Guess? It means mutually destructive.) fog of the Palestinian imbroglio (confused state of mind), which last week edged dangerously close to a civil war: reconciliation, co-existence and conflict. (At the rate this guy is going, he will have used up every damn word from his William F. Buckley Word of the Day Calendar before the third paragraph. Don't you just absolutely hate people like this? Dude, you are writing for the Lawrence Kansas Journal. It's for people from Kansas, who I'm guessing are more worried about bringing in the wheat instead of looking for their dictionary so they can read the damn news.)

First — and least probable — is the possibility that the major forces, Fatah and Hamas, will make nice. After all, Hamas burst onto the scene, cloaked in Islamic extremism, two decades ago not to work with Fatah but to challenge it. (That damn Hamas is so mean, but "Fatah" literally translates to "Conquest", but don't take that to mean that Fatah is extremist. These comments warrant a teeny bit more discussion. You see, Fatah has become the party of the supposed good guys of the Palestinian movement. This is the very same group of guys that killed the Israeli Olympic team and highjacked planes way, way back in the 1970's a mere ten years before Hamas was even spawned straight from Satan's colon in 1987. These are two of the most dangerous terrorist organizations on the planet. They love killing, that is what terrorists do, Punkin.)

When I visited the Gaza Strip and the West Bank during the first intifada in 1989, Hamas’ popularity was already evident. (I bet you are going to make some ridiculous statement about how organized they were, not point to the fact that even in the Mafia neighborhoods people spoke no evil about the Mafia, lest they get D-E-A-D.) Credit good organization, including the orchestrated community service of the group’s nonmilitary wing, which is crucial to its strategy of winning hearts and minds. (See, I told you.) In contrast, Fatah — controlled at the time by its most prominent founder and former Palestinian President Yasser Arafat — suffered from fragmentation, squabbling and corruption. (Not to diminish Hamas in any fashion, lest they come try to blow me up, but Arafat is the guy who damn near invented terrorism. Even though he received a Nobel Peace Prize, he was a bad guy. Remember, Jimmah Carter got the Peace Prize too. So, they damn near give one to anyone that exhibits any form of stupidity.)

It appeared that nothing could slow Hamas’ rise — that is, until a key period of peacemaking provided a surprise opportunity for Palestinian statehood in 1993. (There is already a Palestinian State, I call it Syria. Let them poor folks go home, dammit.) With a five-year timetable to move in that direction, the leadership of Arafat and Fatah assumed new legitimacy, and Hamas’ influence receded. (Could it be that Europe chose their favorite terrorist organization to head the Palestinians? Could it be that Arafat bought Bill Clinton some hookers or something? Could it be that the only folks that think that Arafat was a good guy are the same folks that chose the lesser of two evils? And is it funny that even though Hamas' influence waned supposedly, terrorist activity rose exponentially? Come on! Your point?)

I truly thought that a Palestinian state was imminent. And I remain convinced to this day that it would have happened, if not for the 1995 assassination of former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. His death substantially deprived an emerging regional peace plan of its momentum. (You know usually when you are talking about someone that was brutally murdered by Muslims, you don't refer to their "death." You would say, "His M-U-R-D-E-R substantially deprived an emerging regional peace plan of its momentum." And if you actually thought that there was an emerging peace, you have a tendency to forget who the Hell we are talking about. IT'S THE DAMN MUSLIMS, DUDE. They kill people for pleasure.)

There are those who persuasively argue that Arafat himself further undermined Palestinian chances of securing a homeland some years later, during the closing days of the Clinton administration, when he rejected the best settlement proposal since the United Nations’ partition plan of 1947. (Do you think that would be because his entire policy platform was built upon the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people? They frigging teach their six year old kids to kill Jews, man. Are you stupid?)

Unfortunately, Hamas was the main beneficiary. Its popularity surged in the increasingly uncertain political environment, eventually leading to the group’s winning a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament last year. That victory — which brought no willingness on Hamas’ part to live up to the obligations of the Palestinian Authority toward Israel — merely exacerbated tensions. (Uh, are you simply not listening? They are Muslims. Their entire religion is based on the murder of anyone who is NOT Muslim. And furthermore, the Palestinian Parliament is nothing. They have no country since they were kicked out of every other Middle East country. Israel is the only country that will even let them live there. And the Palestinians that actually assimilate into the Israeli mainstream are completely opposed to being forced to move to a Palestinian state. They don't want to be poor again like the folks that have lived in refugee camps for fifty frigging years since being expelled from Syria for what? Oh, yea, being terrorists and killing innocents there.)

Now, Hamas has further complicated matters by seizing control of the Gaza Strip, leaving the West Bank to President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah. (I'm guessing that Israel is about to stomp their ass though. You know, it is their country.)

This brings us to a second scenario, the possibility of co-existence between the Palestinian territorial parts. To me, this option would lead nowhere. Unnatural divisions are difficult enough for states. Besides, what would co-existence accomplish? (Uh, normal human behavior? Naw, we can't expect Muslims to do that can we? What are we thinking?)

It is absurd to think that the two entities could be viable or seriously advance Palestinian interests. Such circumstances would effectively end the dream of a Palestinian state. (Uh, normal human behavior? Naw, we can't expect Muslims to do that can we? What are we thinking? Sorry for the repeat, but WTF?)

More likely, the current situation will lead to greater acrimony and a hardening of positions, pushing events toward a third scenario: an all-out confrontation. Those who advocate allowing civil conflicts to burn themselves out would probably welcome that development. My concern is that it would merely contribute to regional instability, and there is no guarantee that Fatah would win. (My opinion is that who cares? You get two terrorist groups, put them in one place, supply them with a bunch of guns and other ordnance and let them fight it out. That way we don't have to sacrifice one American life for a bunch of evil, stupid people.)

Still, Abbas might be tempted to consider a military solution, given the boost he has received from swearing in a new Cabinet in the West Bank devoid of Hamas militants. Already, the European Union has promised to restore millions of dollars in aid that had been withheld. The United States and others have talked of similar steps. Hamas’ own Cabinet in the Gaza Strip, unless it tempers its belligerence, cannot hope for similar treatment. (BELLIGERENCE? You call simply murdering all people that don't wear the same color bandana that you do, BELLIGERENCE? Are you a madman? And to think that someone that heads up the Palestinian gang might turn toward a military solution seems to me to be the exact thing that they have ALWAYS done in the past. That's what they do, I repeat, ALWAYS.)

In light of these prospects — the first unrealistic, the second pointless and the third recklessly dangerous — what to do? (This is obviously a rhetorical question because I just know that Johnny is going to suggest something like a team building exercise for these lovey-dovey folks. Ooo, I know, let's build them a ropes course! Those always work to make people love each other!)

For starters, a comprehensive peace conference such as the Madrid gathering of 1991. That process launched one of the most productive peacemaking periods in Middle East history. A robust peace effort today just might produce some answers to vexing regional issues, including the Palestinian problem. (Why not just bake them some special brownies? Or teach them to macrame? Sh*t, let's just join hands and start singing those old peace-nick songs that made everyone just luuuuuuve each other.)

— John C. Bersia, an editorial writer for the Orlando Sentinel, is the special assistant to the president for global perspectives at the University of Central Florida. (And has figgered out how to bend all the way over backwards and plant his head firmly up his ass.)

Now, the Two Dogs solution to the Palestinian problem: Israel should kick them out of their country. Let the other Muslim countries take in their own. And if they don't? So what? I am a firm believer in the philosophy that if you are a menace to society, then society should cull you out.