Becuase Everything Else Sucks

The Daily Show - Fareed Zakaria

By Manila Ryce
Published Thursday, June 21st, 2007, 6:25 am
Filed under: Videos: Political, World: Asia, War, Terrorism, Videos, World Issues, US Politics

Jon Stewart had Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek International, on the show to share his perspective. Stewart admits that he was not a believer in the president’s plan to establish peace in the Middle East by destroying Iraq instead of addressing the legitimate concerns of the Palestinians. However, with all the wonderful things happening now throughout the region, he stands corrected. Fareed doesn’t think that Plan A was to divide and conquer, but to actually build a functioning democracy after invading. Since the war was initiated by and for corporations, who care only about the bottom line, I respectfully disagree that anyone had such noble intentions. Your thoughts?



download file

The double standard between Iran’s involvement and Saudi Arabia’s involvement is brought up, as well as the Palestinian conflict. Stewart thinks that the US may be holding the Palestinian government to unreasonable standards on security. Zakaria then correctly states that whether we like it or not, Hamas was democratically elected. Rather than recognize them as the legitimate government, we decided to carry out a Fatah coup and further destabilize the occupied territories.



download file

Related Posts

2 Responses to “The Daily Show - Fareed Zakaria”

  1. The analysis of the Gaza situation was spot on. It seems like every half-honest and intelligent person believes that we should have given Hamas a chance to succeed once they won a democratic election. But I feel like this POV isn’t penetrating into mainstream consciousness. C’mon Fareed, we need a Newsweek cover on this. (I just checked and Gaza IS this week’s cover).

    The Newsweek article is fine, but it downplays the devastating effects of our refusal to recognize Hamas. The author says that our hope in cutting off funding to Gaza after Hamas won “was not that ordinary Palestinians would suffer, but that they would realize such a government was not in their best interests.” It should read that “our hope was that Palestinians WOULD suffer SO THAT they would realize such a government was not in their best interests.” To frame the suffering as an unintended side-effect is totally disingenuous. I also wish it had said bluntly what Fareed said in this interview:

    “We said to [the Palestinians], ‘You’ve got to show that you’re good guys, you’re democrats. . . . You’ve got to hold elections.’ So they hold elections, Hamas wins, and then [we] say, ‘Wait a minute, we’re not going to deal with you. We’re going to de-fund you, we’re going to make your life impossible, and we won’t let you govern.’ So Hamas says, ‘Fine, you told us to use ballots, now we’ll use bullets. We’ll go back to violence.’ And we say, ‘Wait a minute, no fair.’”

    evmonk
    06/21/07 at 11:35 am

  2. You really have to take into account, the fact that one of the reasons for not funding a Hamas led government
    is the real risk that some of the money would be spent on suicide bombs in Israel. As for Fareed saying:
    Fine, you told us to use ballots, now we’ll use bullets. We’ll go back to violence. on behalf on Hamas, that sound
    sort of like extorsion doesn’t it?

    Lars
    06/25/07 at 2:26 pm

Leave a Reply

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>