All Episodes
Previous Next
June 18, 2007 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:29
June 18, 2007, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24 7 podcast.
I just know everybody's reaction every time they introduce me.
It's Milwaukee, is he going to be good enough for this?
And all Rush isn't in.
And then the next one is, oh no, it's Monday.
He might not be here all week.
Should I pass along the bad news?
I'm looking right now at Rush Limbaugh.com and he's making reference to a Northeast Gulf trip.
And it says all week.
It says all week.
So I'm guessing that the website is correct, and Russia isn't going to be here all week.
Now I hope that this doesn't kill the ratings for the program, and I hope people aren't too disappointed, but I understand the bar is always raised for the guest host.
For Roger and the rest of us who come in and do this, we always have a higher bar.
The announcement comes on, guest host, or people are flipping around, they expect to hear Russia's voice and they hear some strange voice, and they say to themselves, okay, I'll give it a chance.
But it better be good.
And that chance is short.
It's not like all of you out there, okay, I'll sit back and I'll give the guest host the same three hour benefit of the doubt that I'm going to give Rush.
No, we get like 50 seconds to be interesting, and if not, the button is punched and you're listening to music or something else.
I understand that.
And I think most guest hosts understand that.
It is never easy being a guest anything.
Those of you who like classical music, you go see your local symphony.
Tonight's guest conductor, you never really like that.
Unless it's some guy from a bigger city than you live in.
Nobody wants to see the guest anything.
It is a higher standard that is expected of the guest host, and you simply have to be better.
Remember when Johnny Carson always used to have those fill-ins?
You're always disappoint.
Joey Bishop did it forever, and he was never once funny.
The only guest host that was ever funny was uh Don Rickles was funny when he sat in for Johnny Carson.
So the guest host that come on, you give the monologue three or four minutes, and you turn off the TV if it wasn't funny and grumble about all the days off that Johnny Carson would take.
So here I am, knowing that I've got to prove myself right away, and I'm taking a look at the notes that I made for the show, topics that I plan to discuss, and the very first topic that I have here is Gaza.
This isn't smart planning.
We're not talking Paris Hilton when you want to discuss the Gaza Strip.
Palestine, Israeli politics.
Oh, that again.
Well, at least you've got a hot topic, Billing.
That's only been an issue for the last forty-five years.
So now I'm really climbing uphill.
We've got a topic that on its face seems very dry, and I'm a guest host, but I'm going to give it my best shot because there's some important things here.
For those of you who haven't followed it closely, the Palestinians had elections.
They've had two sets of elections.
The Palestine Authority was given control of the country.
They held elections, and one party Fatah won the first round of elections.
They held another round of elections a few months ago, and Hamas, the terror organization, won a lot of seats in the government.
Actual terror organization went on the ballot and won.
In a normal nation, a group that is an avowed terrorist group, wouldn't get elected.
I mean, if the Ku Klux Klan was a party in the United States, they wouldn't win any seats in Congress.
Yet in Palestine, Hamas won these seats.
And it's been a disaster.
Fatah, the ruling party, which is also a bunch of terrorists, they simply aren't terrorists anymore.
Fatah is the offshoot of the old Yasser Arafat organization.
The PLO became the Palestine Authority when the Palestinians were allowed to run Palestine.
Fatah is now, in the scheme of things, perceived as being moderate.
They're simply less terrorist than the others.
They're perceived as being moderate, and they have not been able to get along with Hamas because Hamas simply can't be satisfied.
So over the last several days, Hamas rose up in one of the Palestinian territories, the Gaza Strip.
And they've apparently won.
They seem to have taken control of Gaza.
Fatah, which is the ruling party represented by the president of Palestine, Abbas, is trying to fight back and assert that if this is still part of Palestine and the government still belongs to the ruling Fatah party.
That's their claim, at least, but the guys with the guns and the guys in control of the street right now are from Hamas.
There is concern that this is going to spread to the entire state of Palestine.
The handringers in the United States are worried about what does this mean for the peace process?
I mean, Tom Friedman at the New York Times has to be having a stroke over all of this.
What?
Palestinian self-governance isn't working out.
They're now at war with one another.
Well, yes, they are now at war with one another.
I think there are a couple of points to be made about this.
Just remind you of anything over there.
What's happening in Palestine right now seems to me to be almost exactly the same thing that's happening in Iraq.
In Iraq, you have Islamic sectarianism, factionalism in Iraq, one group of Muslims at war with another group of Muslims, the Shiites who are now in charge, taking revenge against the Sunnis for all the atrocities that were committed against them when the Sunnis, that was Saddam, were in charge.
Al Qaeda comes in, primarily Sunni.
They're simply trying to light a match under the entire thing.
Al Qaeda wants to kill Sunnis, it wants to kill Shiites, it wants to kill Americans.
It simply wants the whole thing destabilized because Al Qaeda wants it to fall apart.
So the great challenge that we face in Iraq, that General Petraeus and our soldiers are facing right now is to separate everybody and try to maintain some sense of peace.
But everybody fighting in Iraq are Iraqis themselves, other than the Al Qaeda imports.
They're fighting against one another, and they're fighting over centuries old divisions over the various sects of Islam that they are part of.
In Palestine now, it's the same thing.
They're fighting against one another.
Those two states, the country of Iraq and the state of Palestine, which isn't really a nation because it's still under partial Israeli control.
Those two states are the only two that I can think of in the Islamic world in which they're governed as a result of free elections.
I'm not arguing that elections aren't going to work in the Islamic world, even though that's the basic premise behind the whole neoconservative approach to the Middle East.
We need to allow self-determination, we need to offer a way other than simply living under dictatorship or kingdoms or espousing terrorism, there's got to be a third way, and that third way is self-determination through elections.
But in both cases, after elections, there's fighting, there's violence, there's borderline civil war.
Now part of this is easily understood.
The concept of elections is radical in the Middle East.
It's absolutely radical.
Israel's been the only nation that has held them.
It's a radical concept, and to expect that, okay, for the first time in our history we will elect our leaders, that that's going to be accepted and embraced, that's probably an unrealistic expectation.
You're talking here about people who have never been faced with the ability to decide who's going to win and who's going to lose.
And the idea that the losers or the ones in the minority are simply going to accept losing peacefully is probably a reach.
We've been a democracy ever since 1789, and look at how hard our Democrats are finding to accept defeat.
They're still bitter.
They're still angry.
No, they're not burning up Alabama the way Hamas is burning up Gaza, but you are seeing a situation in which democracy isn't yet working.
And the great challenge is going to be to see whether or not it is ever going to work.
But understand that if it doesn't work, it's nobody's fault in the case of Iraq and in the case of Palestine.
It's nobody's fault but the people who Live in that nation.
They've been given every opportunity.
Every demand of the Palestinians has been satisfied.
Every single one.
They've demanded their own homeland.
They've been given it.
They've been they've demanded self-determination.
They've been given it.
They've been demanding autonomous authority in Palestine.
They have that.
Israel and the United States, through our role as a broker, have given the Palestinians everything that they asked for.
Absolutely everything.
And now they're killing each other.
Now they kill each other.
Part of this isn't surprising.
And some of you are going to be bothered by this, but it's what I think, and I can defend it.
You talk about cultures of violence.
The official Palestinian lifestyle has been violence.
There has been such acceptance of terror against Israel for so long, almost to a man and woman, Palestinians justified committing acts of terror against Israel on the grounds that Israel was an occupier, Israel had no right to be there, this was our land, etc.
etc.
etc.
And violence was the accepted way of dealing with those grievances.
So is it any surprise that violence is now the way that they're dealing with one another?
It isn't a surprise.
Furthermore, violence has always worked for the Palestinians.
Every time the Palestinians rose up against Israel, the world community would demand, well, you've got to understand these are legitimate demands, rolled over and gave them whatever they wanted.
Well, this is reinforced that violence works.
So now you have Hamas rising up against Fatah, essentially doing the exact same thing the Palestinians did for years against Israel.
Hamas is simply created a new bad guy.
Now let's imagine that Hamas wins this thing.
The government of Fatah falls.
Hamas now runs Palestine.
Israel appeases Hamas the way Israel has always appeased Palestinians.
Hamas is makes another few new demands there given that.
How long before a new meaner, badder version of Hamas comes forward and says that Hamas is a sellout in the same way that Hamas says Fatah is a sellout.
Then they'll rise up against Hamas saying that they're sellouts, they don't represent us, they're still accepting of Israel, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You talk about endless cycles of violence, and whose fault is it?
Whose fault is it?
It's their own.
My name is Mark Gelling, and I'm sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm Mark Gallang sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
The rush number is 1-800-282-2882.
That's 1-800-282-2882.
I'm your guest host talking about the remarkably sexy and seductive topic.
Violence in Gaza, violence in Palestine.
So what would you do about it?
Unfortunately, what I would do about it is undo everything that's already been done.
The whole problem in Israel, the whole problem in Palestine is the belief that you can give terrorists what they want, and that then they will be happy and go away.
The Palestinians, terrorists.
They committed acts of terror against Israel, and this created this tremendous incentive to find a solution so the Israelis could live in peace and the Palestinians would be given what they wanted.
So they rolled over and they gave the Palestinians control of their territories.
They are proving that they cannot govern and peacefully live in their territories.
Now I pick up the New York Times over the weekend, which has been wrong for 35 years on issues pertaining to Israel and for that matter everything else.
And they're saying, well, what the United States needs to do is help out the ruling government, the Fatah government, and the first thing that we can do is urge Israel no more settlements in Palestine.
That's always been their big thing.
After the Palestinians were given control of Palestine, now you can't Have settlements.
Settlement is simply a nice word for subdivision, meaning no Israelis are allowed to live in Palestine.
Okay.
They're killing each other, so Israel needs to make another concession.
Israel has to make another concession because the Palestinians are killing one another.
It's just absurd.
The problem was is that Israel ceded control of Palestine to the Palestinians in the first place.
Now there's no chance Israel's going to take it back.
But I'm telling you that's the only thing that would work.
Let's go to Grand Junction, Colorado, Jim, you're on EIB.
Hi there, Mark.
Um Mid East religious peace will only and can only be achieved by a massive killing of violators.
And by that I mean, for example, whether we're talking about Iraq or Afghanistan or the Caucasus or wherever, after World War II, the Russians and Tito moved in to those areas and into the Caucasus, for example, and absolutely viciously enforce religious peace.
If you shot somebody for a religious reason, your family was retaliated against by the government, the communists, and all of them were killed.
Everything was done.
Your your life family's history was erased.
I know that's not the that that's not the kind of civilization that we are comfortable with over here.
However, however, it's the only civilization that we've seen in the Middle East.
Look at how S you know S Saddam Hussein had stability in Iraq.
He had stability because he was a barbarian who slaughtered people to maintain that sense of stability.
The same was true with regard to Iran under the Shah, who is an ally of us, and it's true of Iran now under the religious mulahs.
That is what happens.
One would like to think that there would be the ability of the some of these Islamic nations to live in peace and reject terror.
Unfortunately, it's a very, very hard thing to do.
Now the one thing that people will argue is is that you've got to give this time that we've got to be patients.
The notion of democracy and self-determination is brand new.
It won't it mark, unfortunately it won't work, and the reason it won't work is because of the simple mentality of these people.
Uh you know, and I don't mean them as being inferior.
It's just that they've worked killing to an art and a lifestyle over thousands of years.
It isn't going to happen.
This is the ultimate uh McCoy's uh type battle, you know, the Hatfields and the McCoys.
This is the ultimate one.
It isn't a good one.
Well, in every but but every nation, every one of these Islamic nations has a different groups, group of Hatfields and McCoys.
Much of this is Sunni versus Shiite, but that's not what's going on in Palestine.
Here it's are you a real terrorist or are you a former terrorist?
The Hamas versus Fatah thing.
Now, given the fact that obviously Palestine and Iraq are different situations.
I'm merely equating that the trouble in both right now, very, very similar.
The situations were were different.
The mistake that Israel made, I believe, was giving Palestine to the Palestinians, but that's been done.
So in lieu of doing the only thing that would work, which is to take it back, since that isn't going to happen.
What Fatah needs to do, the ruling party of Palestine, what it needs to do is try to wipe out Hamas.
Yes.
Not shake their hands and not cut another deal because every deal ever cut in Palestine has merely led to more violence.
Every time you start violence and respond by giving the aggressors something, it guarantees they're going to come back and be more violent again.
Hamas is a terrorist organization, and now they're committing terror against fellow Palestinians.
Fatah needs to knock it down and try to wipe it out.
Israel, the United States, and the rest of the international community needs to allow them to do that without coming in and try to tie their hands.
The fear is that they might not win.
Maybe Hamas is more popular, and the elections might argue this in Palestine than Fatah, meaning you might have a nation in which the terrorists are the ones that the majority of the people want.
All the more reason why the Palestinians shouldn't have been given Palestine in the first place.
Mark again, you uh you and I agree but the uh the uh on this, believe it or not, and and that is it must come in under some kind of massive, massive retaliatory power where the bad guys are just blown away.
And until that happens, you will never ever see peace in any of this.
And for the rest of the world in history, we're going to continue this Muslim Islamic problem until people come in.
They can't they can't come in and be nice guys like the United States is.
They got to come in and just massively rule these people.
Well, we've been told for a long time about the majority of Palestinians being moderate.
This is what the people who are looking for an appeasement between Israel and Palestine kept saying there's all these moderate Palestinians, there are all these moderate Palestinians.
Well, where are they right now?
They just don't seem to exist.
And if it sounds like I'm pessimistic about the entire situation, I really am.
My name is Mark Belling, and I'm the guest host today for Rush Limbaugh.
I'm gonna get back to what I've been talking about here in a minute, but we've got these monitors in the studio, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, and so on.
They're all there, and MSNBC's been showing the same story over and over and over.
Michael Moore's got this new movie come out coming out.
What's it Fatso or something?
Jump Dumbo or weirdo sicko.
Is it autobiographical?
Is that why he chose uh it's something to do with the American health care system and how it stinks, and if only we were communists, we'd have better health care.
There's this story out that copies of the movie have been pirated.
And it's been all over MSNBC and they've been doing it all morning.
They've pirated the movie.
No one's pirated that movie.
No one has stolen that movie so they can again get an advanced view of Michael Moore.
Even the people who go to Michael Moore's movies don't like Michael Moore's movies.
They just go there so they can self-ratify their hatred of everything Republican, every everything corporate.
Who would steal that to see it in advance?
The finale of the Sopranos, yeah, that I can see that.
Being able to walk around and tell everybody, you know.
In the end, it's just going to all go black.
That would be cool to have had that in advance.
Nobody's pirating this.
One copy was swiped, probably by Moore himself, and he's creating this huge thing just to build more publicity for the release of the movie.
Back to the remarkably fascinating topic I've been discussing, which is the violence in Gaza, the violence of Palestine, the inability of Fatah and Hamas to get along with one another.
There's a great editorial over the weekend in uh the Wall Street Journal titled Arafat's Children.
I'm not going to read the whole thing because that would be remarkably dull, but giving you a few paragraphs won't be.
This is real good.
They write scores of Palestinians were killed this week in Gaza in factional fighting between loyalists of President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and those of Prime Minister Ismail Hanaya of Hamas.
As if on cue it took about twenty-four hours before pundits the world over blame the violence on Israel and President Bush.
This is the Israel that dismantled its settlements in Gaza in August of 05, a unilateral concession for which it asked and got nothing in return.
And it is the U.S. President who in a landmark speech five years ago this month called on Palestinians to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror.
Had Palestinians done so, they could be living today in a peaceful independent state.
Instead of J in January of 06, they freely handed the reins of government to Hamas in parliamentary elections.
What is happening today is the result of that choice, their choice.
That election didn't simply emerge from a vacuum, however.
It is a consequence of the cult of violence that has typified the Palestinian movement for much of its history, and which has been tolerated and often celebrated by the international community.
If Palestinians now think they can advance their domestic interests by violence, nobody should be surprised.
The way of the gun has been paying dividends for forty years.
Very well said and exactly true.
The editorial concludes, pressure will surely mount on Israel and the U.S. to accept Hamas' ascendancy and begin negotiations with its leaders.
According to this reasoning, the Bush administration cannot demand democracy of the Palestinians and then refuse to recognize the results of a democratic election.
But leave Aside the fact that Mr. Bush did not simply call for an election, is it wise to negotiate with a group that kills its fellow Palestinians almost as freely as it does Israelis?
And what would there be to negotiate about?
The best case scenario, a suspension of hostilities in exchange for a renewed international funding, would simply give Hamas time and money to consolidate its rule and rebuild an arsenal for future terror assaults.
Then too, the last thing the Palestinians need is yet further validation from the wider world that the violence they now inflict so indiscriminately works.
The deeper lesson here is that a society that has spent the last decade celebrating suicide bombing would inevitably become a victim of its own nihilistic impulses.
This is not the result of Mr. Bush's call for democratic responsibility.
It is the bitter fruit of the decades of dictatorship and terrorism as statecraft that Yasser Arafat instilled among Palestinians.
They are exactly right.
They are exactly right.
First of all, the entire world's been the enablers of the Palestinians.
The more barbaric the Palestinians have been, the more they have been rewarded.
So now they're committing the barbarism against their own people.
If they get control of all of Palestine, and I think they will, the baddest guys always seem to win among the Palestinians.
It's going to be even that more of a threat to what's left of Israel.
You're talking about Palestine literally being a terrorist that we have concerns that if the bad guys win in Iraq, that Iraq is going to be a home to Al Qaeda.
Can you imagine if Hamas runs Palestine right there in Israel?
Can one imagine that?
My advice to Israel is to undo all the deals.
Now this will never ever happen.
Can you imagine?
If Israel said, Yeah, you know, we changed our mind, we're going to take Palestine back.
But you see the direction that this is going.
Palestine is going to be run by a group that thinks that Yasser Arafat was too soft.
That is what we are facing.
And you tell me who's to blame for that.
Lincoln, Nebraska, Chuck, Chuck, you're on the Rush Limbaugh program with Mark Belling.
Mark, I gotta tell you that you are my favorite uh replacement for Rush.
Thank you, but the other guys aren't going to like hearing that.
I know it's okay.
Uh it's incredibly I mean, it's incredible that the uh Democrats and Chuck Hagel, I should have seen Chuck Hagel and the rest of the Democrats.
That would be your senator from Nebraska.
Exactly.
Well, soon not to be we've got somebody lined up uh to beat him in the primaries.
But anyway, uh it's incredibly I mean, it's incredible how Chuck Hagel and the rest of the Democrats are silent on um this issue because all along they've said, like in Iraq, you can't get involved in someone else's uh civil war.
Now, my recommendation would be at this next uh presidential debate for the Democrats uh ask um ask that question, what would you do, you know, to solve this uh this issue, uh this issue of the civil war in uh Palestine?
Well, I don't think that they'd have an answer other than, well, there needs to be a negotiated settlement.
That's their answer, of course, for everything.
There needs to be a negotiated settlement.
I think you're right.
The apologists for Palestinian terrorists and those who are soft on terror have very little to offer here.
But also, some of the hardliners who went soft, naively believing that the Palestinians were capable of self-governance, I think that they are also to blame here.
These events are a repudiation of thirty years of developments in Israel and in the international community in which there was a belief that a terrorist group, which is all the PLO ever was, a terrorist group, could be given the authority to run a government.
The PLO morphed into the Palestinian Authority, Arafat was the first quasi leader of it, then a boss came in and followed him, and he was immediately deemed to be a sellout and never accepted.
The problem here is that we've accepted this whole notion that there is such a thing as Palestinians, and that there is that is something beyond just a political terror movement, which is all that I ever think that it has been, and all they apparently want to be.
They clearly were not motivated solely by self-determination and get all the Israelis out of Palestine because they're mostly all out and they still and they have self-determination, yet they're slaughtering one another right now.
So you tell me what their hang-up is.
Their hang up is that they just like to commit acts of violence, that they are terrorists by nature, and as the Wall Street Journal points out, this is largely because every time terror has been engaged in by Palestinians in the past, it has been rewarded.
And Hamas believes it's going to get something out of what it did in Gaza.
And they're probably right.
Fatah will probably give them something.
Israel will probably give them something.
The United States will probably send somebody over to try to facilitate something, and the cycle will continue in another nine months when they want something else, and it's going to continue until they take over the entire land, and then the real violence will be committed against Israel.
This is so easy to follow and so predictable, and ought to be a lesson to all of us in deciding how we're going to deal with Al Qaeda, how we're going to deal with Iraq, and how we're going to deal with every other Islamic terror threat.
The more you concede to them, the more you appease them, the bigger a problem they will be.
And they are never ever going to be satisfied.
Hamas is now at the point in which it's killing its fellow Palestinians.
My name is Mark Gelling, and I'm in for Rush Limbaugh.
You're listening to the Rush Limbaugh program on EIB, Russia's on vacation, a gulfing vacation this week.
My name is Mark Belling to Chillicothe, Ohio.
Kathleen, it's your turn on Russia's program.
Hi, Mark.
Thanks for taking my call.
But um I I think it's really all of our responsibility as Americans to really dig deeper into the issue and do our own research and and reading of as much about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as possible.
And so I can't say enough about Jimmy Carter's recent book, uh Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.
But what I want to ask you.
You found you found important you found important information in that book.
Absolutely.
I wonder one thing I found was that when James Baker, I couldn't figure out why the Israeli lobby was always so angry with Baker, and it is because he stood up at an APAC conference in the early 90s and and demanded, well, request Kathleen slowed on a second.
Uh are you telling me are you suggesting the topic we've been the topic we've been discussing here is the Palestinian situation?
You're somehow blaming what's happening in Gaza on James Baker.
Not at all.
I'm gonna bring it back around to the 67 UN resolution 242, the 67th.
Forty years ago.
Yeah.
67 borders.
You asked what is their hang up.
Their hang up is that Israel needs to abide by the UN Resolution 242 and 338 and needs to pull back to the 67 border, and I can't say enough about Jimmy Garden.
Now let's imag let's imagine they did that.
Let's imagine they did that forgetting the fact that Israel was attacked in 1967.
Let's just imagine that they did that.
Would the Palestinians then be peaceable and happy and that would be the end of all violence?
And they plant daisies and live happily ever after.
Do you believe that?
I believe it's come on, Kathleen.
I I listened to your entire spiel.
Would they be do you believe that is that if Israel did that, the Palestinians would be happy and live in peace?
I think I think they guess I do.
Well, then why is it that every time they've made a demand and it's been acquiesced to that it merely results in more violence?
And why this time around is Hamas killing fellow Palestinians?
Why are they doing that?
What is Jimmy Carter's book say about that?
I think we have I think we have uh inflamed, and I think that has been what have we done?
We've inflamed them.
I think Israel and the U.S. have an agenda with inflaming the circumstances that Israel by via the law.
The 67 border again.
I'm merely asking about why they're mad this week.
Why are they committing that violence now?
Now you're carrying out about the Israeli wall.
Well, I understand why the wall is up.
If you saw this kind of Violence occurring just outside your borders, you'd want a wall too.
But they weren't they were in the Gaza, they weren't killing Israelis, were they?
They were killing Palestinians.
Now, why were they killing fellow Palestinians?
I don't understand quite honestly the um underlying violence in regard to Hamas and Satah.
But I can't I know you don't understand it.
Nor does Jimmy Carter, nor do all of the other people who've tried to blame everything on Israel in the United States all these years.
So since you don't understand it, I'll explain it to you.
Hamas is a terror organization, the same way that Al Qaeda is a terror organization.
Terror organizations are selfish, bloodthirsty people bent on getting exactly what they want, and they do so by killing civilians, and they have been ratified by most of the rest of the world, including your hero Jimmy Carter, who pats them on the back and acts as though their grievances are legitimate, which is exactly why they're going to be violent the next time and the next time and the next time.
If Israel ceased to exist, if all the Israelis simply left and went somewhere else, those terrorists would find something else to be angry with and some other people to kill.
It's what they do and it's the way that they live.
And I know that you say that you don't understand it.
Some of us have figured it out.
It is evil.
That's what's going on here.
Now there may be, there may be some Palestinians who want to live in peace and are satisfied with the current arrangement.
They may exist, but unfortunately, the Palestinian way has always been to embrace violence with people like you and Jimmy Carter always turning around and saying someone else made them behave that way.
You can't keep going back and finding scapegoats for this kind of behavior.
May I respond?
Sure.
So this type of inflammatory rhetoric that is going on right now, we know, and I encourage the public who's listening to read Carter's book and to also inform themselves.
Don't read from the right, left and center.
Don't just listen to Rosh Limbaugh.
Just don't listen to NPR.
Read from the right, left, and center, and get a wider perspective of the issue because if we continue to maintain you want to mention the publisher of Carter's book as long as I gave you a 35-second plug for the uh Jimmy Carter book.
Thank you for the call, Kathleen.
Now she cites Jimmy Carter, and I'm more than any conservative talk show host is more than willing to have on a caller who's going to quote Jimmy Carter.
I mean, frankly, this is like T ball.
She's not making it very difficult.
You're talking about a guy who mismanaged the Middle East terribly while he was there and set in process this entire this entire movement toward appeasement of the Palestinians.
You're also talking about a guy who has been proven wrong in every single thing he's ever pronounced with regard to foreign policy.
The more important point, other than simply ridiculing Carter, the more important point is to understand what has happened.
Every time in the world that we have said, okay, you terrorists, you have a legitimate cause.
We will try to work with you.
We will give you something.
Other than in Northern Ireland, where it appears as though there may be a long-term peace that will hold.
Other than that, you can't cite a situation where the terrorists have then gone away and accepted what they've been given.
Instead, they simply demand more and more and more.
And the only way they know how to demand it is to kill.
And they are being exposed right now by virtue of the fact that they are willing to kill their own people.
And it's very hard to pin that on Israel.
And as for the last call of this inflammatory language, what's inflammatory right now?
Slaughtering of civilians in Palestine by the supposed leaders of the Palestinians.
I'm Mark Belling in for Rush.
I'm Mark Belling sitting in for Rush Limbaugh.
Only time for a short segment, and we can't work in another caller.
But we did have a caller who off the air told the staff that the point that she wanted to make is maybe this will result in a number of Palestinians looking inward and questioning everything that's been going on and questioning The rhetoric and questioning terrorism.
Well, indeed, a number of hundreds of people are fleeing Gaza.
And you know where they're running?
They want to get into Israel.
They're fleeing Gaza and they want to get into Israel.
Maybe the response from the Israelis should be: nope, no settlements, no Palestinians allowed.
If Israelis aren't allowed to live in Palestine, maybe Israel should say, you can't live here.
Maybe then there will be an understanding of exactly what they've called for themselves.
▲
Export Selection