Skip to main content
And the beat goes on:



TIME.com: Why Hamas Terror Challenges Sharon, Arafat and Bush



Hamas has once again cast its bloody veto over any move to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the question now is how the other players will vote. Sixteen Israelis were killed and more than 50 wounded as a suicide bomber struck at a pool hall in Rishon Letzion, south of Tel Aviv. The first such attack inside Israel in a month was timed perfectly to coincide with Ariel Sharon's Tuesday visit to the White House, where President Bush was pressing for progress toward a political solution of the conflict. Sharon, who heard the news during his meeting with Bush, flew home almost immediately, warning that the work of his West Bank offensive was not yet finished. Other Israeli spokesmen blamed the attack on Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority, while the PA, for its part, condemned the bombing -- for which Hamas has claimed responsibility -- and promised that they would "not be light-handed in punishing [the perpetrators] who have caused great harm to our cause."
Oh, snort! The attack was also "perfectly timed" in the sense that it occurred within a day of Arafat being allowed to wander about free again. Strange coincidence? Meaningful? Who knows. I ask again, if Arafat is in charge, then he's either doing a lousy job, or he's responsible for these attacks. If he's not in charge, why bother to talk to him? He has proven himself less than relevant--at best!



At worst, he continues to establish himself as a sly, dangerous, murderous terrorist, a despot in waiting for a Palestinian state to rule over, and from which to stage further attacks against Israel, which would then be "invading" a foreign country if it were to stage any retaliations. Oh, the UN would have a field day.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.