All the teeth-gnashing you hear is coming from the foreign
policy grandees who have worked ceaselessly to produce peace between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. They have done their best to be honest brokers,
not taking one side or the other, trying to give equal face to both contenting
parties.
As Dr. Phil likes to say: How is that working out?
With a stroke of his pen President Trump has exposed the
fatuity of it all. There never was a real peace process. The Palestinians never
wanted to live in peace. They wanted to destroy Israel and to kill as many Jews
as possible. Legitimating them as participants in a peace process keeps bigotry
alive and allows the Palestinians to represent their cause as yet another
chapter in the worldwide revolution against capitalist hegemony.
I would like to point out that if you think that the Marxist
cause is still alive, you have a sorely deficient view of history.
As Mahmoud Abbas learned from the Crown Prince of Saudi
Arabia, the war is over and the Palestinian cause, initiated by the Grand Mufti
of Jerusalem, a close ally of Adolph Hitler, is finished. The only thing that
remains is to negotiate the terms of surrender.
Anyway, for today a couple of interesting and thoughtful
articles. In the New York Times, the left leaning Roger Cohen finds solace in
the fact that Donald Trump did not perpetuate the peace process nonsense.
He wrote:
It was,
at least, not more of the same peace-process blather.
Yet, Cohen did not see the peace process as a way for the
Palestinians to fight a war that they could not fight any other way. He saw it
as a means for Israel to expand its hegemony.
In his words:
If
anything the “process” has been ideal camouflage for the steady growth in the
number of Israeli settlers (now more than 600,000), favored by Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing government. It has given steady Israeli
expansionism the international benediction of mythical reversibility. I am not
convinced Trump gave a lot away.
One might notice that the Palestinians have been at war with
Israel for every day of its existence. And one might note that Israel did
evacuate Gaza and give it over the Hamas. How did that one work out, Roger? True enough, as Cohen noted, the Palestinian people live under occupation and feel humiliated by Israel. If they had been willing to call off their war and stop the terrorism they would find themselves living with less humiliation. If not, then perhaps, as I have often suggested, the only way forward is with more humiliation.
As for those who are wringing their crying towels over the
fiercely ferocious power of righteous Palestinians, Cohen remarks that
Palestinian policy has manifested powerlessness:
Well,
Trump has provoked the unswerving ire of the Palestinians (who now refuse to
meet with Vice President Mike Pence during his upcoming visit) and destroyed
any chance of peace. But there is nothing unswerving about Palestinian policy.
It is big on rhetoric, feeble in action, reflecting powerlessness.
Frankly, it is time that the United States took sides with
Israel, as Saudi Arabia apparently has. True enough, it will take time for the
Palestinians to throw a few face-saving riots. But, eventually, they will
probably come around… what choice do they have?
Trump
said his statement did not prejudge “the specific boundaries of the Israeli
sovereignty in Jerusalem,” but its most damaging aspect was to give strong
implicit backing to Israel’s claims, with no mention of Palestine’s. It also
put American lives in danger and humiliated a people, the Palestinians, whose
lives under a 50-year-old occupation are a daily exercise in humiliation. It
flouted United Nations Security Council resolutions, so undermining
international law.
As for the situation in Saudi Arabia, key to the current
machinations in the Middle East, we turn to Myron Magnet in the City Journal.
Happily, Magnet sees the situation in much the same terms
that I have. This explains why I have given the matter so much attention
on this blog:
How
extraordinary to see a world-historical revolution unfolding before one’s eyes
and not know how it will turn out: that’s what’s happening right now in Saudi
Arabia.
At one level it’s an economic story, with Saudi Arabia
trying to drag its people into the modern world, to give them opportunities, to
advance their economic prospects and to wean themselves from dependence on oil
revenue:
Economic
modernization and diversification, the prince saw, were essential, and they
required social liberalization as the first order of business, beginning with
allowing women to drive cars, the royal road to women’s liberation. Already,
Saudi women are casting off the hijab and seizing modern social pleasures. The
important point is that half the kingdom’s potential workforce will become free
to produce, with hugely positive consequences for the economy.
As we all know the Saudi royal family has been funding
terrorism around the world. Considering that the family has thousands of
members, we do not know which ones are sneaking money to al Qaeda or ISIS and
which ones are financing schools that teach radical Islam. We can guess that
some of those responsible are now under house arrest in the
Ritz Carlton in Riyadh.
Magnet explains:
Crucially,
the royal family will find it harder to fund the radical Wahhabi Islam that
OPEC has let grow like mushrooms. It’s hard to imagine that this
well-established, well-fed worldwide network of terrorist-supporting fanatics,
in their opulent mosques and madrassas—and especially in the more Spartan ones
in Pakistan—will go quietly; little wonder that the prince has surrounded
himself with a repressive security apparatus reminiscent of the Shah of Iran’s.
He appears to be a quiet but inexorable foe of Muslim extremism, and consequently
it is uncertain that he will emerge from his heroic and visionary remaking of
the Saudi order with his head intact on his shoulders.
The situation is fluid. We do not know how it will work out.
We all hope for the best, but we recognize that the course of history never did
run smooth:
Recall
that the Protestant Reformation ignited three decades of ferocious religious
warfare in Europe, laced with massacre, torture, and forced exile. Let’s hope
that the Islamic version is short and mild, but conclusive enough to
deglamorize the dream of terrorism not only in the Middle East but also in the
minds of those Western Muslims whose cultural alienation has sparked so much
vile carnage. They, like so many others, have nothing to lose but their
ideological chains.
[Addendum: See also Jonah Goldberg's column today in National Review.]
[Addendum 2: See also Bret Stephens in the New York Times. h/t AO]
[Addendum: See also Jonah Goldberg's column today in National Review.]
[Addendum 2: See also Bret Stephens in the New York Times. h/t AO]
Who was it said that the Palestinians never missed a chance to miss a chance? The PLO and Hamas and all the others want their youth and youthful to kill Israelis (and get killed by Israelis) while the kleptocracy scoops up all the loose money coming in and gets rich. As I see it.
ReplyDeleteOh, yes. Those "foreign policy grandees" are pretty much doing the same thing (except wanting the youth and youthful to kill and get killed, if I am not overly optimistic.) They have money coming in, and wish it to continue.
ReplyDeleteCynical? Moi? How could I not be.
It might advance the "peace process" if the Paleos would stop paying terrorists (and their families, assuming the "martyrs" are with the 72 Versions) to murder Israelis eating pizza, crossing the street, riding the bus, nursing babies, and sleeping in their beds while Jewish.
ReplyDeleteStuart, You're right about the world going through something as drastic as the Reformation and it's aftermath or even perhaps the collapse of the Classical World. Of the US I often think of the English Revolution, Cromwell, and the Roundheads and it's aftermath.
ReplyDeleteWhere is AO with his antisemitic take on Israeli security issues?
ReplyDeleteI see Bret Stephens is on board too. It sounds like the answer for peace is a new Palestinian government of the people that will accept peace under Israel's terms. Some people call that surrender, but after generations of failure, surrender doesn't seem like the worst choice available. Let's be hopeful.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/opinion/jerusalem-denial-complex.html
---
What Jerusalem is is the capital of Israel, both as the ancestral Jewish homeland and the modern nation-state.
So why maintain the fiction that Jerusalem isn’t the capital?
The original argument, from 1947, was that Jerusalem ought to be under international jurisdiction, in recognition of its religious importance. But Jews were not allowed to visit the Western Wall during the 19 years when East Jerusalem was under Jordanian occupation. Yasir Arafat denied that Solomon’s Temple was even in Jerusalem, reflecting an increasingly common Palestinian denial of history.
...
Recognition also tells the Palestinians that they can no longer hold other parties hostage to their demands. East Jerusalem could have been the capital of a sovereign Palestinian state 17 years ago, if Arafat had simply accepted the terms at Camp David.
...
For the international community, that means helping Palestinians take steps to dismantle their current klepto-theocracy, rather than fueling a culture of perpetual grievance against Israel. Mahmoud Abbas is now approaching the 13th anniversary of his elected four-year term.
---