I have never been much of a soccer fan. I did get into it (a little), when the USA women's team made their run to the Cup, a few years back. But overall, I haven't been much of a fan, because I didn't understand the game like those that love it (namely, the rest of the world). Despite the fact that I have both visited and lived in Europe, I just could not find any enjoyment or entertainment, in it.
This year's World Cup tournament has been a bit different, though. I have made an effort to see what all this fuss is about. And I must say, that I have enjoyed it
Neal Boortz calls it "absolutely boring". I have heard him say it a few times on his radio show. Like him, I thought that running up and down a field kicking a ball back and forth, was ridiculous. Trouble sleeping? Watch soccer. That is, if tennis isn't on somewhere.
But, watching the game with a little more attention and an analytical eye, I have been able to see some of the nuances of the game; and with that has come a newfound appreciation of the sport that I have never been able to effectively appreciate, before. I am beginning to see a little, about what the game is all about and it's beginning to make a little sense, along the way. Learning the rules from people that know it, watch it, and actively follow it, has made it a bit easier to follow.
But with all of this new discovery, I still do not know enough to talk about strategy, matchups, and the likes. So, I won't. But one thing I have noticed about it all, is something that is not too much different from the sports I like, basketball and American football. It's something that I am sure that has been said in every soccer pub in the world, at some point in time (or another), just like it has been in every sports pub in America.
Defense wins championships.
You can have offense and it will sell tickets, it will excite fans, and it will be fun to watch. But it's defense that gets a team to this level. If you have an excellent defense, you can have an off night on offense and still pick up the win.
France and Italy evidently, have two of the best defenses in the world. Because they have out-defended their opponents to get to this championship game, France 1-0 over Portugal and Italy 2-0 over Germany. Italy and Germany were tied 0-0 at the end of regulation, so it was well over 90 minutes before a goal was scored. In fact, I have seen a lot of low-scoring games, in this competition.
Anyway, congrats to both France and Italy for being the teams that got on a run and played the best they could, to reach this pinnacle. It's not easy when the pundits were picking others to win it. But they perservered and played the games anyway, one game at a time.
The world loves their soccer, but Europe drinks it like Americans drink the NFL. They are the kings of the soccer world. One way or another, a European team will be the next World Champion. May the team that wants it more and works the hardest for it, be the victor. May the best team win.
(Oh, and by the way, I do love defense, in the NFL. Give me a 10-7 game over a 55-48 one, anytime.)
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
A New Blog Added To The PYY Blogroll
L'Amerloque is a blog written by an American expatriate that has lived in France for many years. He has a subtle and disciplined approach to his observations and his writings. And whether you agree with him or not, you will enjoy his reasoned arguments mainly, because of the style in which he presents them. He is not an angry man, but a kind and gentle spirit. And it shows in his work.
So therefore, I officially welcome l'Amerloque to a pretty exclusive club, the PYY blogroll.
And to my readers, give him a read, when you get the chance. He doesn't write as much as other blogmeisters. But when he does, he makes it count.
So therefore, I officially welcome l'Amerloque to a pretty exclusive club, the PYY blogroll.
And to my readers, give him a read, when you get the chance. He doesn't write as much as other blogmeisters. But when he does, he makes it count.
The Democratic Party's Elusive Quest For Ideas
Here is a very poignant piece written by two prominent Democrats and published by a new Democratic journal, The Democratic Strategist. One has worked on John Kerry's campaign, the other for Al Gore. So, to all angry Democrats that love nothing more than to microspoically dissecting avery last little thing, discrediting the sources, and discrediting expressions that are critical of the party you love and cherish; you cannot use the excuse that these writers are GOP hacks that have no claim to substance, because they are not.
Swing Ideas, not Swing Voters by Kenneth S. Baer and Andrei Cherny is what I see as an accurate examination of the state of the Democratic Party, in its current state. They see what a lot of us independents see, they see what I see.
It doesn't blame Bush for war crimes, it doesn't blame him for corruption, nor does it blame him for any of the ills of the world. It does not urge people to hate George Bush. You say you don't hate George Bush personally, you just hate his policies, right? Well, you will be most surprised to know that they do not even try to convince you to hate his policies. Why?
Because they are making the sound argument that I have made, many of my commenters have made, and a great deal of the American people have made, for some time now. They are advocating for ideas, they are advocating for change, and most of all, they are making the case FOR something, not AGAINST it.
George Bush had a hard time in the polls, leading up to the election of 2004. There were many that were not pleased at how things were being run, some for a certain set of reasons and others for other reasons. Has it ever occurred to the Democrats that campaigning against Bush, did them no favors? Did it occur to the Dems that people generally didn't like the tone of the Dems campaign? Or did they not cinsider that Americans really did want a better way, but were afraid to take a chance on John Kerry and the people that ran his campaign? They didn't have any cohesiveness, they didn't have any message, all they seemed to have was a dislike for George Bush and hammered him for any (and everything) they could find, to sway the people their way.
And what was that way?
Anything.
Anything that was anti-Bush was the strategy.
Rather than winning the hearts and minds of the mainstream middle-class American, they tried to get back into power, by seriously miscalculating that Americans would reject the President and his policies. Rather than giving alternative plans to deal with the problems we faced (and still do), they ripped the Administration at every opportunity, but yet failed to offer something better, something positive. We got negativity and accusations. Americans did not want to that kind of campaign, they wanted to hear who had the best solutions.
Unfortunately, the Dems had none to communicate. And as the authors of this point allude to, today is no different.
I really do not see a lot of difference in the Democrats, since 2004. In fact, the 2006 election is once again turning into another referendum on Bush. Has anyone heard some long-term, deeply-planted ideas to build a philospophy or an ideology on?
I haven't. It's not because I haven't been listening, either. I hear Dems make their weak cases, a lot.
But I do hear more and more anti-Bush vitriole than I do about what their hopes, dreams, and visions are for the future of this country. I hear more about Halliburton, than I do about how the Dems would solve the Social Security crisis that they clamored about some years ago, but now, have many members among them say, it's not broken. I hear more about how Saddam was no threat to the U.S. and how Bush (and his cronies) concocted this war in Texas (before the election), than I do about real constructive ideas about how to win the peace there and give the Iraqis a decent chance at liberty and freedom that they have never enjoyed before.
What the Dems desperately need to do is, do what these two men suggest and come up with some deep values that resonate with mainsteam America. They need direction beyond 2006, and even 2008. They need to re-define who they are and what they stand for. They need to not listen to the angry left-wing, so much, and formulate some plans that are fair and equitable to as many as possible, In short, they need to stop allowing the left to be the mouthpiece of the party. They need to be Democrats, not loud socialists that cast blame.
Because if they want to be the ones in charge, ever again, they will need an idea or two in which to formulate a message that conveys hope, vision, and success. Not what they have been denonstrating since 2000, but a new direction for the party and for America.
So Dems, this is what I see. I do not see FDR, HST, or JFK. I do not see a strong future for the Democratic party on the national scene, unless they get with the program and do it real soon.
HT for the article: RCP
Swing Ideas, not Swing Voters by Kenneth S. Baer and Andrei Cherny is what I see as an accurate examination of the state of the Democratic Party, in its current state. They see what a lot of us independents see, they see what I see.
It doesn't blame Bush for war crimes, it doesn't blame him for corruption, nor does it blame him for any of the ills of the world. It does not urge people to hate George Bush. You say you don't hate George Bush personally, you just hate his policies, right? Well, you will be most surprised to know that they do not even try to convince you to hate his policies. Why?
Because they are making the sound argument that I have made, many of my commenters have made, and a great deal of the American people have made, for some time now. They are advocating for ideas, they are advocating for change, and most of all, they are making the case FOR something, not AGAINST it.
George Bush had a hard time in the polls, leading up to the election of 2004. There were many that were not pleased at how things were being run, some for a certain set of reasons and others for other reasons. Has it ever occurred to the Democrats that campaigning against Bush, did them no favors? Did it occur to the Dems that people generally didn't like the tone of the Dems campaign? Or did they not cinsider that Americans really did want a better way, but were afraid to take a chance on John Kerry and the people that ran his campaign? They didn't have any cohesiveness, they didn't have any message, all they seemed to have was a dislike for George Bush and hammered him for any (and everything) they could find, to sway the people their way.
And what was that way?
Anything.
Anything that was anti-Bush was the strategy.
Rather than winning the hearts and minds of the mainstream middle-class American, they tried to get back into power, by seriously miscalculating that Americans would reject the President and his policies. Rather than giving alternative plans to deal with the problems we faced (and still do), they ripped the Administration at every opportunity, but yet failed to offer something better, something positive. We got negativity and accusations. Americans did not want to that kind of campaign, they wanted to hear who had the best solutions.
Unfortunately, the Dems had none to communicate. And as the authors of this point allude to, today is no different.
I really do not see a lot of difference in the Democrats, since 2004. In fact, the 2006 election is once again turning into another referendum on Bush. Has anyone heard some long-term, deeply-planted ideas to build a philospophy or an ideology on?
I haven't. It's not because I haven't been listening, either. I hear Dems make their weak cases, a lot.
But I do hear more and more anti-Bush vitriole than I do about what their hopes, dreams, and visions are for the future of this country. I hear more about Halliburton, than I do about how the Dems would solve the Social Security crisis that they clamored about some years ago, but now, have many members among them say, it's not broken. I hear more about how Saddam was no threat to the U.S. and how Bush (and his cronies) concocted this war in Texas (before the election), than I do about real constructive ideas about how to win the peace there and give the Iraqis a decent chance at liberty and freedom that they have never enjoyed before.
What the Dems desperately need to do is, do what these two men suggest and come up with some deep values that resonate with mainsteam America. They need direction beyond 2006, and even 2008. They need to re-define who they are and what they stand for. They need to not listen to the angry left-wing, so much, and formulate some plans that are fair and equitable to as many as possible, In short, they need to stop allowing the left to be the mouthpiece of the party. They need to be Democrats, not loud socialists that cast blame.
Because if they want to be the ones in charge, ever again, they will need an idea or two in which to formulate a message that conveys hope, vision, and success. Not what they have been denonstrating since 2000, but a new direction for the party and for America.
So Dems, this is what I see. I do not see FDR, HST, or JFK. I do not see a strong future for the Democratic party on the national scene, unless they get with the program and do it real soon.
HT for the article: RCP
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
An Independence Day Reflection
On this Independence Day, most people think of parades, cookouts, summer activities, and yes, fireworks. That's the tradition that has evolved over the years; and like Christmas, Easter, Halloween, and Valentine's Day, it has become a Madison Avenue dream. No, you don't buy cards, presents, or candy like the others; but you do spend money at carnivals, festivals, outdoor concerts, and some people even make hitting the retail store sales, an annual family activity.
But I am afraid that all too many, really do not take a few minutes, when alone, and seriously reflect on what this day really means. I wonder just how many people really know just how much sacrifice it took from the men and women of the late-colonial period, to gain this freedom that all of us take for granted?
I am no killjoy and I am no stick in the mud, either. I have enjoyed some brilliant and spectacular fireworks displays, in my time. But honestly, I do not care about them as much as I used to. Why? Because fireworks and Independence Day are intertwined so deeply that, like Christmas, the deeper meaning gets lost in the celebrations, sometimes.
Be that as it may, I wish everybody a safe and happy 4th of July and I truly hope all of you have fun, in whatever your day's activities may entail. But at some point when you get a moment, pause and take a minute (or two) to reflect on what the day really means. Think about how lucky we are to be Americans, many nations are free, but I happen to think that ours, is special. And most of all, think about how freedom is not free. Someone paid a dear price for us to have this freedom.
They are all gone, now. But what they left us, endures.
Happy Independence Day!!
But I am afraid that all too many, really do not take a few minutes, when alone, and seriously reflect on what this day really means. I wonder just how many people really know just how much sacrifice it took from the men and women of the late-colonial period, to gain this freedom that all of us take for granted?
I am no killjoy and I am no stick in the mud, either. I have enjoyed some brilliant and spectacular fireworks displays, in my time. But honestly, I do not care about them as much as I used to. Why? Because fireworks and Independence Day are intertwined so deeply that, like Christmas, the deeper meaning gets lost in the celebrations, sometimes.
Be that as it may, I wish everybody a safe and happy 4th of July and I truly hope all of you have fun, in whatever your day's activities may entail. But at some point when you get a moment, pause and take a minute (or two) to reflect on what the day really means. Think about how lucky we are to be Americans, many nations are free, but I happen to think that ours, is special. And most of all, think about how freedom is not free. Someone paid a dear price for us to have this freedom.
They are all gone, now. But what they left us, endures.
Happy Independence Day!!
PYY Commentary Roundup
Time being short as it is today, I am posting some links to some some articles that will either interest you, or irritate you. Where you fall will depend upon your view of the world, how you define yourself politically and ideologically, and who you choose to believe.
Jed Babbin talks about some things to be considered, in the debate of whether or not the MSM has severely impeded the non-military weapons used to fight terrorism, in this article.
Lawrence Kudlow thinks that oil prices will soon drop. Read about it here.
Charles Krauthammer seems to believe that the Palestinians have an agenda that doesn't include the existence of an Israeli state. He points out that Gaza was freed by Israel, yet today, Gaza still is waging war.
Andrei Nesterov is worried about the rising tide of what sounds like a new wave of ultra-nationalism in Russia. You can catch his recent essay here.
Carter Dougherty writes about Europe's continued rise from an economic slump, here.
Shay Riley has been wondering where the black moderates are, read her essay here to see if she has found them.
You have no doubt already read my Independence Day post, here a few from other bloggers, that I read with some regularity (when time permits):
Mike's America-4th of July: Honoring America
Always On Watch-Independence Day, 2006
Liberty and Culture-July 4th
Social Sense-July Fourth
Fore Left-Happy 4th and Godspeed STS-121
That ought to keep you busy for awhile.
Jed Babbin talks about some things to be considered, in the debate of whether or not the MSM has severely impeded the non-military weapons used to fight terrorism, in this article.
Lawrence Kudlow thinks that oil prices will soon drop. Read about it here.
Charles Krauthammer seems to believe that the Palestinians have an agenda that doesn't include the existence of an Israeli state. He points out that Gaza was freed by Israel, yet today, Gaza still is waging war.
Andrei Nesterov is worried about the rising tide of what sounds like a new wave of ultra-nationalism in Russia. You can catch his recent essay here.
Carter Dougherty writes about Europe's continued rise from an economic slump, here.
Shay Riley has been wondering where the black moderates are, read her essay here to see if she has found them.
You have no doubt already read my Independence Day post, here a few from other bloggers, that I read with some regularity (when time permits):
Mike's America-4th of July: Honoring America
Always On Watch-Independence Day, 2006
Liberty and Culture-July 4th
Social Sense-July Fourth
Fore Left-Happy 4th and Godspeed STS-121
That ought to keep you busy for awhile.
Monday, July 03, 2006
The Fourth Branch Of Government?
Note - this piece was inspired after reading AC's (Fore Left) recent post, Odd Coordinates, who had linked to this Michelle Malkin piece. I began this as a comment on AC's blog, but as it got longer, I realized it deserved a post of its own.
Since I began following politics (which was age 10) the media have played an increasingly larger role in the political process, during the course of time. But, with that larger role comes influence, and with that influence comes power.
What we see today is a news media that has become both a watch dog and a whistle-blower, and in some cases an out of control entity that has little oversight, except within itself. Using the constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech principle, many have become highly irresponsible, as they see the outcomes their irresponsible actions (and in some cases inactions) produce. They not only enjoy the new-found power, they have become drunk with it.
It started with the Vietnam War. Now I am not going to debate the various merits (or lack thereof) in that conflict. But just take a look back sometime and see how a media played a integral role, in that campaign.
While resting on the laurels of that particular victory, they soon found a "gimme" with the Watergate affair. That's when the MSM became emboldened to go after a sitting president and made a major contribution to his removal. (I know he resigned, but he resigned under pressure. Therefore, he was indirectly removed.)
That is when the era of the Dan Rather (chew your face until you bleed) style of reporting was born. That was the beginning of an aggressive approach philosophy; one that relentlessly pursues a story in order to get the negatives or the so-called "dirty laundry" stories, either to sell or to ruin (or sometimes both).
It didn't stop there, either. The media soon got restless again, and again, another scandal fell into their laps, the Iran-Contra Affair. They got a lot of mileage out of that one, for sure. But, they didn't succeed in ruining a presidency, like they had with Nixon. Some of their momentum was (in effect) reduced, if only for a season.
They followed that up with the Whitewater investigation and when that fell through (due to a series of unfortunate events that directly favored President Clinton), they turned towards a new direction. Instead of respecting the President's private lives, they then became glorified tabloids in their coverage of "Monicagate".
And just when you thought it could get no worse, you find that there are more dastardly intentions, than selling a few papers and ruining a few politicians' life. Now the stakes have risen, again. Publishing general locations of government officials' homes is one thing, but printing more precise data that can lead to the exact locations of such homes, is not safe and it borders on violating the owners' rights to privacy, not to mention safety.
One has to ask themselves, where are the boundaries going to be in the future? Where will the public's right to know end? And where will the limits of the principles (of responsible journalism) begin?
Will they lose more integrity and force hands to put slight contraints on some media actions, in the future, creating another "freedom of speech" stir? If they do, freedoms will be forever lost, no matter how slight they may be. Or, will the media wake up and realize that with great power comes great responsibility? If they do, they can avert an entire battle that need not be fought.
Or does the media want to be the fourth branch of government? Just how far will this all go and what do they really hope/want to accomplish, here?
Since I began following politics (which was age 10) the media have played an increasingly larger role in the political process, during the course of time. But, with that larger role comes influence, and with that influence comes power.
What we see today is a news media that has become both a watch dog and a whistle-blower, and in some cases an out of control entity that has little oversight, except within itself. Using the constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech principle, many have become highly irresponsible, as they see the outcomes their irresponsible actions (and in some cases inactions) produce. They not only enjoy the new-found power, they have become drunk with it.
It started with the Vietnam War. Now I am not going to debate the various merits (or lack thereof) in that conflict. But just take a look back sometime and see how a media played a integral role, in that campaign.
While resting on the laurels of that particular victory, they soon found a "gimme" with the Watergate affair. That's when the MSM became emboldened to go after a sitting president and made a major contribution to his removal. (I know he resigned, but he resigned under pressure. Therefore, he was indirectly removed.)
That is when the era of the Dan Rather (chew your face until you bleed) style of reporting was born. That was the beginning of an aggressive approach philosophy; one that relentlessly pursues a story in order to get the negatives or the so-called "dirty laundry" stories, either to sell or to ruin (or sometimes both).
It didn't stop there, either. The media soon got restless again, and again, another scandal fell into their laps, the Iran-Contra Affair. They got a lot of mileage out of that one, for sure. But, they didn't succeed in ruining a presidency, like they had with Nixon. Some of their momentum was (in effect) reduced, if only for a season.
They followed that up with the Whitewater investigation and when that fell through (due to a series of unfortunate events that directly favored President Clinton), they turned towards a new direction. Instead of respecting the President's private lives, they then became glorified tabloids in their coverage of "Monicagate".
And just when you thought it could get no worse, you find that there are more dastardly intentions, than selling a few papers and ruining a few politicians' life. Now the stakes have risen, again. Publishing general locations of government officials' homes is one thing, but printing more precise data that can lead to the exact locations of such homes, is not safe and it borders on violating the owners' rights to privacy, not to mention safety.
One has to ask themselves, where are the boundaries going to be in the future? Where will the public's right to know end? And where will the limits of the principles (of responsible journalism) begin?
Will they lose more integrity and force hands to put slight contraints on some media actions, in the future, creating another "freedom of speech" stir? If they do, freedoms will be forever lost, no matter how slight they may be. Or, will the media wake up and realize that with great power comes great responsibility? If they do, they can avert an entire battle that need not be fought.
Or does the media want to be the fourth branch of government? Just how far will this all go and what do they really hope/want to accomplish, here?
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Israel Grants Reprieve To Allow Food and Fuel Resupply In Gaza
From the IHT comes this article.
Me? I hear resolve and determination. I do not hear a lot of indecision here; it seems quite plain and very simple. There is no waffling, no flip-flopping, and no wishy-washiness of any kind.
What's the message? Give back the soldier. And, give him back now.
A recent commenter here named Mustang (Social Sense) made this recent statement:
For ten months, they allowed the rockets to be lobbed in, without resorting to this kind of action. Ten months of patience, ten months of restraint. How many other countries that have the military power, equal to or better than the Israelis, would actually put up with what they have to put up with, without getting a little upset? Russia? China? Europe? America? How long would they bear with a condition such as this, how long would we?
Now we have this article reporting, they are stopping this action long enough to allow some resupplying of vital necessities. They have given a brief reprieve. So, it only makes reasonably decent sense to use this as an opportunity to release the hostage unharmed and do it immediately before the next round begins. Two things this accomplishes:
To Hamas and the citizens of Gaza:
Is the destruction of your homes, schools, and other infrastructure worth one Israeli soldier? I ask this because, the Israelis firmly believe the same soldier is worth expending far greater resources than have already been used. All of this is well worth it to them.
Israel opened the border to Gaza on Sunday to a limited supply of fuel and food, while Prime Minister Ehud Olmert repeated that his military would turn to ever stronger actions to gain the release of a 19-year-old Israeli soldier captured last week.
At a cabinet meeting Sunday, Olmert said he had instructed the government and military "to do everything in order to bring Gilad back home," referring to the captured solider, Corporal Gilad Shalit.
"And when I say everything, I mean everything," the prime minister said, according to the official transcript of the meeting.
Me? I hear resolve and determination. I do not hear a lot of indecision here; it seems quite plain and very simple. There is no waffling, no flip-flopping, and no wishy-washiness of any kind.
What's the message? Give back the soldier. And, give him back now.
A recent commenter here named Mustang (Social Sense) made this recent statement:
Remember that the Israelis withdrew from Gaza ten months ago. Without any conditions. And how did the Wahabbists respond? They responded by firing more than 750 missiles into Israeli territory. What would we have the Israelis do? We must expect the Israelis to act in their own best interests. We must also expect the Wahabbists to act against their own best interests – as they have done for so long now.
For ten months, they allowed the rockets to be lobbed in, without resorting to this kind of action. Ten months of patience, ten months of restraint. How many other countries that have the military power, equal to or better than the Israelis, would actually put up with what they have to put up with, without getting a little upset? Russia? China? Europe? America? How long would they bear with a condition such as this, how long would we?
Now we have this article reporting, they are stopping this action long enough to allow some resupplying of vital necessities. They have given a brief reprieve. So, it only makes reasonably decent sense to use this as an opportunity to release the hostage unharmed and do it immediately before the next round begins. Two things this accomplishes:
- It demonstrates that the Israelis do not wish to be viewed as uncaring towards the people that really do want peace. I believe there are at least some people (maybe more) that are sick of war, sick of living in a war zone. But, they are afraid. They are scared because of the brutal consequences of being against the thugs.
- It allows Hamas one more chance to cough up Cpl. Shalit. It's quite plain that this is all the Israelis want and will stop at nothing to get. Knowing the Israelis as they do, you would think that most would see it as wise, to utilize this opportunity to rectify the situation, speedily and without further losses. Then the assault can stop, the elected Hamas officials can be let go, and things can turn back to normal (if you can call it that).
To Hamas and the citizens of Gaza:
Is the destruction of your homes, schools, and other infrastructure worth one Israeli soldier? I ask this because, the Israelis firmly believe the same soldier is worth expending far greater resources than have already been used. All of this is well worth it to them.
The Four Fronts In Iraq
Note-Time constraints have made a new post impossible for today, I hope to have another original post up soon. So as is customary I will post a link to an article that I find interesting. You then will do one of four things. You will read it and comment that you like it, you will read it and castigate me for liking it, you will read it and not tell me one way or the other, or you will not read it at all. The choice is yours, but at very least, I'd read it.
The latest essay from Victor Davis Hanson breaks down the U.S.-Iraq Conflict into four distinct parts. In my view, the author explains his reasonings for doing so, very well, which makes this a must read if you want to understand the present state of affairs in that country.
Discuss.
The latest essay from Victor Davis Hanson breaks down the U.S.-Iraq Conflict into four distinct parts. In my view, the author explains his reasonings for doing so, very well, which makes this a must read if you want to understand the present state of affairs in that country.
Discuss.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Have a Happy And Safe Holiday Weekend
I want to take this time to wish my readers a happy and safe Independence Day weekend. Please stay safe on the roads and above all, do not drink and drive.
I will be in and out (mostly out) the next two days. But I will be around.
Again, have fun, rest, relax, and take care.
I will be in and out (mostly out) the next two days. But I will be around.
Again, have fun, rest, relax, and take care.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Hamas Sets Conditions For Israeli Soldier's Release
From the AP comes this report:
Well, there a host of things that can be said about this. But, the thing I want to highlight is this, Israelis do not play around, like the rest of the world does.
The rest of the world walks on eggshells becaue Arab oil has a stranglehold on the industrial powers of the world. But as we can see Israel gets results. Keeping in mind that nothing has been worked out yet, it is interesting to note that there is now talk that Hamas is more than willing to negotiate.
But Israel has chosen to balk, at least publicly they have. They are not wanting to tip their hands, because they are in control at the moment. They have 64 Hamas officials in custody. They are the keys to getting the man out of captivity, they are in the driver's seat.
Basically what Mr. Regev is saying is, give him up, we will give back your 64 creeps, and will not invade Gaza. Now we have word of the possibility of a settlement, which will feature Cpl. Shalit's release. It's amazing how dealing with thugs disproportionately, yields better results than just talking about it. Other nations failed to persuade the terrorists to give up the corporal, they could have allowed those nations to broker a deal. But they didn't. They played their hand and lost big, on this one.
The world could learn a lot from the Israelis.
Israeli warplanes struck the Palestinian Interior Ministry early Friday, setting it ablaze as Arab leaders tried to forge a deal that would halt the Israeli offensive and free a 19-year-old soldier held by gunmen allied with the ruling Islamic Hamas.
Well, there a host of things that can be said about this. But, the thing I want to highlight is this, Israelis do not play around, like the rest of the world does.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said militants agreed to a conditional release of the kidnapped soldier but that Israel had yet to accept their terms, which he did not specify.
The rest of the world walks on eggshells becaue Arab oil has a stranglehold on the industrial powers of the world. But as we can see Israel gets results. Keeping in mind that nothing has been worked out yet, it is interesting to note that there is now talk that Hamas is more than willing to negotiate.
"The soldier will only be released unconditionally and there will be no negotiations with a gang of terrorists and criminals," Meir told The Associated Press. "There is nothing to talk with them about."
But Israel has chosen to balk, at least publicly they have. They are not wanting to tip their hands, because they are in control at the moment. They have 64 Hamas officials in custody. They are the keys to getting the man out of captivity, they are in the driver's seat.
"If the Palestinians act now to release Cpl. Shalit and hand him back to us ... we would immediately initiate a dramatic reduction in tension," Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said. "He is the primary issue, he is the primary reason for the crisis."Note, that after the 64 are taken into custody, we now have one more bargaining chip left.
After previous diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Jordan, France and other nations failed, Israel sent thousands of soldiers into vacant areas of southern Gaza on Wednesday.
But on Thursday, Israel decided to delay a further offensive into northern Gaza at Egypt's request, an Israeli official said on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the diplomacy.
Basically what Mr. Regev is saying is, give him up, we will give back your 64 creeps, and will not invade Gaza. Now we have word of the possibility of a settlement, which will feature Cpl. Shalit's release. It's amazing how dealing with thugs disproportionately, yields better results than just talking about it. Other nations failed to persuade the terrorists to give up the corporal, they could have allowed those nations to broker a deal. But they didn't. They played their hand and lost big, on this one.
The world could learn a lot from the Israelis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)