Friday, 03 May 2013


Ken Berwitz

Morning Joe is a show I find myself less and less attracted to despite it's very appealing "bull session" format, because it has become so reliably left of center (like everything else at MSNBC).  However, earlier this morning, I did watch for a few minutes. 

During those few minutes, co-host Mika Brzezinski and one of the panelists were marvelling at how the murdering maggot (my term, not theirs) dzhokhar tsarnaev came across as just a regular guy, and there were no "red flags" about his behavior.

I just shook my head in disgust.

At what point do these geniuses - and they are far from alone - come to the single most obvious conclusion, which is right in front of them:  that tsarnaev, at the age of 19, either through innate "talent" or coaching, was a con artist who deceived people about who and what he was?

What does it take to wake these people up to the fact that this wasn't a really nice guy with a missing chip of some kind, but a sick, pathetic excuse for a human being who duped the people around him (the ones who weren't in it with him, that is), just as he still is duping doe-eyed, naive media people like Brzezinski, her pal on this morning's show, and so many others?

We now know that tsarnaev's lying, disgusting mother talked jihad with her older son tamerlan.  Has it occurred to these folks that dzhokhar would have gotten the same pep talk that tamerlan did? 

One other thing.  The Morning Joe crew also briefly discussed the apparent fact that the murdering maggot brothers assembled their  bombs in tamerlan's "house".  In fact, that "house" was a tiny little apartment, where it would have been impossible for tamerlan's wife, katherine russell tsarnaev not to have known what they were doing....unless you believe it was typical for her husband to have pressure cookers, ball bearings and a large supply of nails in the house for their three year old child to play with.

Anyone who thinks this is just some sweet, innocent uninvolved victim with no knowledge of her husband's activities is either brain dead or lobotomized.  But the Morning Joe crew not only did not make that connection, they referred to her as Mrs. Russell - as if the tsarnaev part didn't even exist.

Still wondering why I watch Morning Joe less and less?


Ken Berwitz

Did you hear?  The Arab nations have put forth a great peace plan that Israel could not possibly find problematic, that they should be jumping into with both feet.  And the New York Times is delighted to editorialize about this fabulous new development in this morning's paper. 

Unfortunately, there are still a few stick-in-the-mud types, like me for example, who don't find the Arab peace plan especially scintillating.  And I'd like to tell you why.

Here is the Times' editorial in rust, with my comments in blue:

In any discussion of a negotiated peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, a crucial question involves what the Arab states would do. True enough.  On Tuesday, the Arab League reaffirmed its 2002 peace initiative and suggested that the proposal could be modified to bring it more in line with American and Israeli ideas. If this is what the Arab states would do you can stop right there, because the 2002 "initiative" required Israel to give a virtually unconditional "right of return" to every Palestinian Arab who claimed his/her family ever lived in Israel to come back in as a citizen - millions and millions of them - thus immediately turning Israel into an Arab state.  But the Times, somehow, forgot to mention this tiny little trouble spot, didn't it?

The welcome announcement could be very significant. Arab leaders deserve credit for reviving the initiative, as does Secretary of State John Kerry for trying to reinvigorate some kind of Israeli-Palestinian dialogue. Yep, this is just wonderful.  Mr. Kerry, calling the move a "very big step forward," said it meant Arab leaders were offering a security arrangement for the region. The Arab League initiative, approved by all Arab states but rejected by Israel 11 years ago, endorses a two-state solution while promising peace and normalization in exchange for Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem and a "just solution" to the Palestinian refugees issue. Whoops, the Times editorial board forgot - again - to mention that little thingie about the "right of return".  Pure oversight of course.  But it did not forget to single out Israel as the only state which rejected this plan.  Therefore, readers unaware of its specifics are led to the conclusion that the sole roadblock to a peaceful settlement is Israel.  Lovely.

After a meeting on Monday with Mr. Kerry and Vice President Joseph Biden Jr., Qatar's foreign minister said the league had eased its demand that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders. Instead, the minister accepted the possibility of adjusting those borders with a comparable and mutually agreed "minor swap of land." Israelis and Palestinians were close to a deal along these lines in 2008. If that were all there were to it - and there were no hamas charter specifying that Palestinian Arabs will not agree to any peace deal, only to taking over all of Israel and killing every Jew there (that, folks, is not hyperbole, it is exactly what the hamas charter says) - this would be accurate.  Except that hamas charter does exist, and fatah, the other Palestinian faction, signed a "unity agreement" with hamas, thus also accepting it.  No mention of any of this from the Times.

If there is ever to be a peace deal, Israelis will have to be persuaded that the Arab states, not just the Palestinians, accept their right to exist. And Palestinians will need to feel that the Arab states are behind them.  Maybe someone on the Times' editorial board can explain to us how can Israel be "persuaded" when Palestinian Arabs remain committed, in writing, to annihilating the country and killing every Jew?  And even if they did say "ok, we'll forget about the charter", after 6 decades of terrorism and war, is Israel supposed to just blindly accept a 180 degrees turnaround as if there were no doubt about its sincerity?  Somehow I doubt I'll get answers to those questions any time soon.

This is the first hopeful sign in a long time. Hopeful to who?  The Times editorial board?  But it soon ran into trouble from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel who reacted coolly on Wednesday and questioned the fundamental idea of exchanging land for peace. "The root of the conflict isnt territorial," he told Israeli diplomats. "The Palestinians' failure to accept the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people is the root of the conflict."   Oooohhh, see it's not those friendly, peace loving, go-along-to-get-along Palestinian Arabs.  It's that nasty Netanyahu.  How dare him point out the facts.

On Thursday, he said any peace deal would be put to a referendum, which some experts say could be an obstacle. However, Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, Mr. Netanyahu's peace negotiator, welcomed the Arab proposal, as did Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, and other opposition politicians. I don't know what "welcomed" means in this editorial.  It doesn't say.  But given the, er, quality of the rest of what is written here, I wouldn't bet on much.

"Mideast peace" has become a throwaway line. But that goal is unquestionably the right course for the Israelis, Palestinians and an increasingly unstable region. Arab leaders, after standing on the sidelines for too long, have made a contribution by giving the two sides something to talk about. Now it's up to the Israelis and Palestinians, working with the United States, to take it forward.  Take WHAT forward?

The New York Times, despite its (at least ancestrally) Jewish ownership, has never, in my memory, given Israel a fair shake, or anything close to it.  This editorial demonstrates that, whatever else you can say about the Times, it is consistent.  Consistently wrong about the middle east, but consistent. 


Oh, one other thing.  In the past I have posted a link to the hamas charter and excerpts which clearly show what it is all about.  I think this is a good time to do so again. 

So here it is: 

First a link to the hamas charter  which - again - I urge you to read in its entirety...

...and now just a small portion of what the charter says (there's plenty more where that came from).  Remember, what you are about to read is not my interpretation of what is there.  It is cut and pasted, verbatim:

-Surat Al-Imran (III), verses 109-111 Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors. (first paragraph of the charter)

-The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. (beginning of Article 6)

-the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).  (End of Article 7)

-Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur'an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief. (Article 8 in its entirety)

-[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad (Beginning of Article 13)

Maybe the Times editorial board should take a look at what you just read.  Or would that be too much effort for them?

Zeke ..... ...... ..... OK, .... Johnny Kerry has stopped tossing his (well, actually someone else's) medals over the White House fence, and is doing the Peas-Process thingie. ..... ..... .... Suppose he comes up with a "solution agreeable to both sides". .... ..... Well on the Israeli side, Netanyahu and his cabinet would have to approve it. ..... ..... Easy enough (just convince them). ..... .... Now, on the Arab side, WHO approves the treaty ? ....... ..... Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas ? --- his term of office ended 9 January 2009 .... ... there have been no further elections for that post, and the consensus is that Hamas would win such an election. ........ Hamas, master of Gaza, remains as Ken outlined -- intransigently opposed to the existence of Israel. ..... .... The Arab population has been fed a steady diet of hatred towards Israel -- so regardless of leaders' wishes, the 'Arab Street' will demand conquest. ..... ....... (05/03/13)

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!