Then maybe we could just possibly have a government that serves the American people, instead of itself.

Why, exactly, do we send money to the Middle East? It’s not exactly getting us respect, or cooperation. Cut them off and kick them out.

The lack of Western cash will be a hardship for the Swiss Banks. The Intifada type confrontation is bankrolled By Iran and Saudi Arabia with Syria and Egypt taking their cut as middle men.

I especially love the line in the Hamas charter that tells of the day when all trees, except,of course, the Jewish tree, will call out to all Muslims to kill the jew that is hiding behind it. Of course we are not going to give insane people money unless they renounce this homicidal attitude.

Can you imagine if the people of Israel voted in a party that called, in explicit terms, for the killing of all Palestinians. No one in the West would complain that any attempt to cut all foreign aid to such a racist worldview is somehow some sort of slap to the idea of Democracy. You can vote for any party that you like. But if you vote for someone who is calling for the mass extermination of a people because of their religon there are going to be reprecussions. If David Duke was voted in as the President of Bulgaria on a platform of “let’s finish the job that Hitler started” do you think there might be calls to cut off U.S. aid? God, I hope so. I dare anyone to go to Memri, read the entire charter, and then say we should send these lunatics money if they won’t at least renounce these murderous proclamations.

That’s how NYT tells a lie without actually stating it. It just counts on people to misread. In this case it counted on people assuming that the source would be US diplomats for a story about what the US State Department is up to and then failing to notice that it wasn’t.

You see, if they don’t get the cash, the “third” intifada will start. “In a sense”. Here is the beginning of the hard-Left line to absolve Palestinian intentionality behind future violence. This article will be quoted in the future as “proof” supporting reflexive anti-American interpretations of Palestinian actions. Not unlike those who “explain” the intfada as resulting from Sharon’s trip to the Mount, absolving any intention, purpose or interest on the part of Arafat in fanning the revolt. We’re watching history in the making.

Could be John Wayne.

The NYT outdoes even itself this morning in the anonymous sources department

LOL! I read that headline, too, and the first thought that came to mind was: Who said? The article referred to unnamed Israeli “officials” and “Western diplomats”

“Western” diplomats? In my book, that is a NYT euphemism for persons of interest in “France”.

The couldn’t even get a Foggy Bottom leaker this time. The time for cookie-pushing appears to be over.

Writers for NYT are said to be reporters.