Friday, September 12, 2003

Hamas Soldiers

Hey, if Pejman, the National Review, and the LA Times refer to "Hamas Soldiers," why can't Howard Dean?

On a related note, Freepers (heart) Jews.

UPDATE: Look, I understand that the reason that people think they can make noise about this stuff is the issue of whether suicide bombing buses is the same as targetting the Hamas terrorists. And, sure, "soldiers" is sure a much nicer word than "terrorists," but I don't think that when the meaning in context is crystal clear it's legitimate to cry foul because "soldier" is an automatic code word.

As Elton Beard makes clear, Dean's meaning was in fact crystal clear - that since Hamas is engaging in military activities, they're fair game to be targeted similarly. Since Dean was supporting Israel's right to, you know, blow this crap out of them unequivocally it's odd how this can be spun against him. Well, not odd, but dishonest.

If you want to claim that as a president one has to be very careful with one's language, I agree. But, the current occupant has done things like put our "one nation" policy on China and Taiwan in question with his little flubs, and he's been in office for awhile. It's a rather minor criticism, and to spin it into anti-Semitism or a signal of a possible seismic shift in our relationship with Israel is laughable. oh, and dishonest.