Reuters redefines cease-fire
Posted by Richard on November 27, 2006
Tammy Bruce nominated a Reuters story about a Gaza "cease-fire" as the most idiotic of the day yesterday:
Gaza truce takes hold despite rocket fire
How, on God’s green Earth, can you have a cease fire ‘take hold’ along with rocket fire?? Because, you see, a ‘cease-fire’ for Islamist terrorists and their sympathizers, like the UN and al-Reuters, is when Israel stops defending herself. Oh, and who is it that fired the rockets? That would be Hamas, from their terrorist camp called "the Gaza strip."
GAZA (Reuters) – A ceasefire between Israel and militants [sheesh] in Gaza took hold on Sunday and despite Palestinian rocket attacks in the first hours, Israel promised restraint.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the deal could help revive peacemaking [when are the Israelis going to dump this loser?] that collapsed six years ago before a Palestinian uprising began…
…
Why would terrorists want a cease-fire in the first place? To work on their statement recognizing the right of Israel to exist? To attend anger management classes? To draw up the fatwa declaring themselves the Great Satan? Or perhaps it’s to rest and re-arm. Gee, I wonder which it is…
Sigh. In Israel, Olmert seems to be channeling Yitzhak Rabin. Here in the U.S., Baker appears ready to play Henry Kissinger and propose some variation of "peace with honor" (a.k.a. "defeat") for Iraq. It’s not a happy time for those of us who think Islamofascism is a serious threat to Western Civilization.
I wonder how many rockets and missiles it will take to convince the Israeli left that continuing to "extend the hand of friendship" to the PA is suicidal.
I wonder if our "exit strategy" from Iraq will eventually lead to jerky video footage of desparate Iraqis clinging to the last departing American helicopters.
Leave a Comment