After being in Colorado for a few days for my dad’s checkup, I have a ton of news and blogs to catch up on! I actually couldn’t decide what to blog about between the following headlines from Ynet, so I’m putting them all here.
Sometimes, I wonder if good ole’ Ahmadinejad can really get any more dense. Then he pulls a move like this.
“The arrogant superpowers and the Zionist regime invested all their efforts during the 33-day war, but after 60 years, their pride has been trampled and the countdown to the destruction of this regime has been started by Hizbullah fighters…”
Honestly, how many times does he think he can spout his annihilative babblings without a military reaction from Israel?
I am really not sure what to think of this story as a whole. I have had personal experience with Super Special Screening (and more detail!), so I completely understand feeling humiliated and completely awkward, because the puffer isn’t exactly the most comfort-friendly machine. It is also a known fact that TSA agents can be blunt and rather rude — although in my limited experience with Israelis, that shouldn’t be too shocking! However, because of the background of this Israeli doctor, I can understand why she would find it harder to laugh at this situation than I did.
I guess the only questionable part of the story to me is whether or not they chose her for screening specifically because she was Israeli. It is incredibly frustrating to be standing there as men in turbans go through the line when I am a rather unsuspicious-looking college student (imho), but it doesn’t seem unreasonable that foreigners should often get special screening, regardless of their specific nationality. Furthermore, as an Israeli, shouldn’t she recognize the security measures necessary to prevent terrorism? Boo. Boo to SSS, boo to possible discrimination, and boo to freaking terrorism.
1. Yes, Bush did neglect the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a certain extent. However, I prefer neglect to overzealous capitulation, ala Clinton.
2. I can’t decide if this is linkage (meaning all problems in the Middle East somehow relate back to Israel) or ignorance (believing that Israel would be safer with either Saddam Hussein still in power or America leaving and letting the terrorists take over Iraq).
In an essay addressing the foreign policy he plans to pursue as president, published in the Foreign Affair journal, Obama explained that “the morass in Iraq has made it immeasurably harder to confront and work through the many other problems in the region – and it has made many of those problems considerably more dangerous.
“Changing the dynamic in Iraq will allow us to focus our attention and influence on resolving the festering conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians – a task that the Bush administration neglected for years,” he added.
Either way, both are equally dangerous and unacceptable positions for a presidential candidate - regardless of his party affiliation. I’m not sure the last time Obama talked to Olmert (the current leader of Israel, as unpopular as he may be), but practically all mainstream Israeli leaders are in favor of a continued American presence in Iraq until freedom and democracy have won and terrorism has failed. At least, that’s what Olmert said when he spoke via satellite to the AIPAC Policy Conference I attended.
That’s a pretty common sense position, if you ask me.
Recent Comments