Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Friday, March 20, 2009
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Palestinians Are The Ones Whose Aggression Is Not Proportionate
The New York Times covers the "Israeli aggression" in Gaza last week.
I'm amazed at how this story is being framed. At it's core, the Euro-left-wing-anti-semitic argument is that Israel has no right to defend itself against the oppressed Palestinian "militants" (which is a nice word like "rebels," that says "underdog" in a way that "terrorists" does not). Well, perhaps they can defend themselves; just not too well. And most importantly, the tiny Jewish nation must "defend itself proportionally." Check out this critical quote from the Prime Minister of Turkey:
“It is not possible for us to approve of the recent inhumane practice in Gaza...civilians are being killed with a disproportionate use of force.”
You'd think this was a criticism of the Palestinians. After all, they're the ones firing rockets from sovereign Gaza into the civilian town of Sderot. They're the ones breaking a cease-fire agreement with Israel. And they're the ones intentionally launching Qassam missiles at civilian populations.
If Israel were to respond proportionally, they would intentionally target women and children during peak hours of the day. But we know this is not what the Euro-left is arguing. When they say proportional, they mean, "little-to-no" response. But this is not how the real world works. A weak response to terrorism only invites more terrorism. It emboldens the militant Arabs. For instance, one might think that pulling out of Gaza would create a certain feeling of good will. But it didn't; it created a vacuum. Into this vacuum stepped Islamic Jihad with ever larger caches of weapons who were ever more determined to take ALL of Israel.
In the East Village (land of the skinny jean), weakness might be chic, but in the Middle East it's only bad policy.
I'm amazed at how this story is being framed. At it's core, the Euro-left-wing-anti-semitic argument is that Israel has no right to defend itself against the oppressed Palestinian "militants" (which is a nice word like "rebels," that says "underdog" in a way that "terrorists" does not). Well, perhaps they can defend themselves; just not too well. And most importantly, the tiny Jewish nation must "defend itself proportionally." Check out this critical quote from the Prime Minister of Turkey:
“It is not possible for us to approve of the recent inhumane practice in Gaza...civilians are being killed with a disproportionate use of force.”
You'd think this was a criticism of the Palestinians. After all, they're the ones firing rockets from sovereign Gaza into the civilian town of Sderot. They're the ones breaking a cease-fire agreement with Israel. And they're the ones intentionally launching Qassam missiles at civilian populations.
If Israel were to respond proportionally, they would intentionally target women and children during peak hours of the day. But we know this is not what the Euro-left is arguing. When they say proportional, they mean, "little-to-no" response. But this is not how the real world works. A weak response to terrorism only invites more terrorism. It emboldens the militant Arabs. For instance, one might think that pulling out of Gaza would create a certain feeling of good will. But it didn't; it created a vacuum. Into this vacuum stepped Islamic Jihad with ever larger caches of weapons who were ever more determined to take ALL of Israel.
In the East Village (land of the skinny jean), weakness might be chic, but in the Middle East it's only bad policy.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, November 26, 2007
Who Can Make Middle East Peace?
George Bush graces the cover of this week’s Economist with the headline, “Mr. Palestine: The only man who could make it happen.”
This is part of a news cycle that’s about to begin around the upcoming Middle East peace summit. The conference begins tonight in Washington, D.C. and then moves to Annapolis, Maryland. Top American, Israeli and Arab officials including President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and representatives from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries will attend.
My concern about the Economist’s coverline is that it is based on flawed logic. The world loves to blame the Bush administration’s lack of engagement on the Middle Eastern conflict as the major barrier to peace. Roger Cohen of the NY Times, said, “While the Bush administration looked away, Israelis and Palestinians lost sight of each other.” But an understanding of the conflict’s history leads me to believe that no American – specifically, no American President – could mediate peace as did Teddy Roosevelt during the Russo-Japanese War.
American lack of engagement is not responsible for the historical “No” that the Arab world has delivered each time peace was in the balance. In 1937 the Peel Commission report offered a two-state solution. The Jews said yes, the Palestinians said no. In 1947 there was another offer of a contiguous Palestinian state and a non-contiguous Jewish state. Again, the Jews said yes and the Palestinians said no. And in the fall of 2000, with Bill Clinton toiling for peace at Camp David, Israel offered 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, a capital in Jerusalem, control of East Jerusalem, control of the Temple Mount, 30 billion dollars in a compensation package, and symbolic return of several thousand refugees. Again, the Palestinians said no and launched wave after wave of suicide attacks. Clinton, perhaps the most engaged president we’ve ever seen on this issue, wrote that after Arafat decided to walk away from the summit and suspend negotiations, the PLO leader paid him the following compliment for his efforts: "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."
The Economist states that, “Mr. Bush has it in his power to turn Annapolis into a significant step towards peace. All he has to do is pluck up the courage and make the right speech.” The problem here is that the right speech is not going to stop Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Arab world from believing that Israel does not have the right to exist. This is a fundamental chasm that no amount of negotiation can gap.
Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat said recently that the Palestinians would never formally recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
"Israel can define itself however it sees fit; and if it wishes to call itself a Jewish state, so be it," he said in an interview with the satellite station Al-Arabiya. "But the Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity."
When this type of sentiment comes from the “moderate” side of the negotiating table, one wonders how peace will ever be possible. In my mind, it can only be possible when the Palestinians and the Arab world decide to make it happen. They must choose: Is this a land dispute or a challenge to Israel’s existence? If the issue is the existence of Israel, no amount of negotiating, bullying, or interim trust-building measures are going to solve the problem.
Of course, in the hope that it is truly a geographic disagreement, Israel and the U.S. need to be willing to negotiate. But let’s understand the issues before setting the Bush Administration up for inevitable failure. In December of 2006, Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed in the NY Times called Mideast Rules to Live By. The list is an insightful and world-weary take on the Middle East maelstrom and offers the following as its final rule:
Rule 15: Whether it is Arab-Israeli peace or democracy in Iraq, you can’t want it more than they do.
This is part of a news cycle that’s about to begin around the upcoming Middle East peace summit. The conference begins tonight in Washington, D.C. and then moves to Annapolis, Maryland. Top American, Israeli and Arab officials including President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and representatives from Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries will attend.
My concern about the Economist’s coverline is that it is based on flawed logic. The world loves to blame the Bush administration’s lack of engagement on the Middle Eastern conflict as the major barrier to peace. Roger Cohen of the NY Times, said, “While the Bush administration looked away, Israelis and Palestinians lost sight of each other.” But an understanding of the conflict’s history leads me to believe that no American – specifically, no American President – could mediate peace as did Teddy Roosevelt during the Russo-Japanese War.
American lack of engagement is not responsible for the historical “No” that the Arab world has delivered each time peace was in the balance. In 1937 the Peel Commission report offered a two-state solution. The Jews said yes, the Palestinians said no. In 1947 there was another offer of a contiguous Palestinian state and a non-contiguous Jewish state. Again, the Jews said yes and the Palestinians said no. And in the fall of 2000, with Bill Clinton toiling for peace at Camp David, Israel offered 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, a capital in Jerusalem, control of East Jerusalem, control of the Temple Mount, 30 billion dollars in a compensation package, and symbolic return of several thousand refugees. Again, the Palestinians said no and launched wave after wave of suicide attacks. Clinton, perhaps the most engaged president we’ve ever seen on this issue, wrote that after Arafat decided to walk away from the summit and suspend negotiations, the PLO leader paid him the following compliment for his efforts: "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."
The Economist states that, “Mr. Bush has it in his power to turn Annapolis into a significant step towards peace. All he has to do is pluck up the courage and make the right speech.” The problem here is that the right speech is not going to stop Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Arab world from believing that Israel does not have the right to exist. This is a fundamental chasm that no amount of negotiation can gap.
Palestinian peace negotiator Saeb Erekat said recently that the Palestinians would never formally recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
"Israel can define itself however it sees fit; and if it wishes to call itself a Jewish state, so be it," he said in an interview with the satellite station Al-Arabiya. "But the Palestinians will never acknowledge Israel's Jewish identity."
When this type of sentiment comes from the “moderate” side of the negotiating table, one wonders how peace will ever be possible. In my mind, it can only be possible when the Palestinians and the Arab world decide to make it happen. They must choose: Is this a land dispute or a challenge to Israel’s existence? If the issue is the existence of Israel, no amount of negotiating, bullying, or interim trust-building measures are going to solve the problem.
Of course, in the hope that it is truly a geographic disagreement, Israel and the U.S. need to be willing to negotiate. But let’s understand the issues before setting the Bush Administration up for inevitable failure. In December of 2006, Thomas Friedman wrote an op-ed in the NY Times called Mideast Rules to Live By. The list is an insightful and world-weary take on the Middle East maelstrom and offers the following as its final rule:
Rule 15: Whether it is Arab-Israeli peace or democracy in Iraq, you can’t want it more than they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)