Rick Perry: the president’s Middle-East policy is naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous. It’s not like that distinguishes it from any of his other policies. And Marty Peretz says that Obama’s Middle East is in tatters.
Who could have guessed such a thing could happen when you put an ill-educated leftist academic with no real-world experience into the Oval Office?
[Update a few minutes later]
The Peretz piece really is a must-read:
I wish there would be a Palestinian state, not because there is actually a real Palestinian people. I’m not persuaded of that. And, of course, I don’t think that there is a Nigerian people which is why, when younger, I was an active supporter of Biafra, the would-be Ibo state, squashed by an indifferent world in behalf of the territorial integrity of, yes, Nigeria which is breaking apart before our eyes, in part because of the machinations of Muslim extremism. The world will some day have to come to grips with the fact that most governments are not really representative of their peoples. The whole notion of a country’s UN membership being a certificate of legitimacy is morally corrupt. UN membership is an admission ticket to the expensive blandishments of New York.
So I want a Palestine because I want Israelis not to have to burden themselves with an internal population that has neither the coherence of a nation nor a tradition of democratic norms. President Obama is enamored of the current Palestinian narrative, as false as it is self-pitying. This is a simple narrative and an over-simple projection into the future. It assumes that a 1949 map of the cease-fire lines—yes, of course, with appropriate but tiny land exchanges—will assure the peace. I do not think it assures anything except that Israel would be deflected from the art and science of building an ever freer society, a chore—if you’ll forgive me—it has shown some talents in doing. I do not know Obama’s head. Maybe nobody does. But his fervent and fervid clamoring for a simple Israeli route to an independent Palestine misled no people so much as the Palestinians. When he retreated from his formulae, which the PA assumed he could impose on Israel, they were already on an independence high. His somber entreaties could not bring them back to any semblance of reality.
This conundrum of a non-negotiated state for the Palestinians appeals to the ardent déclarateurs. It ignores the fact that free and responsible politics has never been a habit in the Arab world. Read me right: never. There is nothing in Palestinian history to have made the Arabs of Palestine an exception to this stubborn commonplace now being played out again in virtually every country in the region. A commitment is never a commitment. A border is never a border. A peace is never long-lasting. Turkey has now added its serious mischief to the scenario. Erdogan himself will now unravel Cairo’s peace with Jerusalem, as Erdogan has already locked the PA into phantom international politics.
And the president probably doesn’t even comprehend the implications.
Bill Whittle put up a good video and Palestine and Peace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O7ByJb7QQ9U
But what Rick Perry said doesn’t count. After all, he accepted donations from a corporation that makes money by saving lives.
You’ve got to work on your snark Ken. We expect better here.
there is a palestinian state its called jordon .
The comments on Peretz’ piece are a hoot. Leftists dripping with hatred for an erstwhile role model with whom they disagree is a real spectacle.
They are somewhat more literate than the trolls on this site…and much more hateful.
there is a palestinian state its called jordon .
You couldn’t have solved anything in Pristina by telling the Albanian Kosovars hat “there is an Albanian state, it is called Albania”.
You couldn’t t have solved anything in Banja Luka by telling the Bosnian Serbs that “there is a Serbian state, it is called Serbia”.
You couldn’t have solved anything in Belfast during “the Troubles” by telling Sinn Fein “There is an Irish State, it is called Ireland.”
Regardless of the merits of their war, people won’t accept arguments like “there are people much like you with a state of their own nearby, so…”
—
And then, of course, there is step 2 of your plan, which involves destabilizing Jordan. Have you thought this through at all?
There is no such thing as “Palestinians.” They’re just Arabs. “Palestinians” are an invention by the Arab world as a tool to destroy Israel.
The West Bank was part of Jordan. Jordan (or at least, its current moderate leadership) most emphatically doesn’t want it back. Israel doesn’t want most of it either, because of who lives there.
So what’s your plan Rand? I never hear you address the demographic issue.
I don’t have a plan. There are some problems that have no good solutions. But we shouldn’t delude ourselves about them.
Given that you don’t have a plan, I don’t see how the distinctions you are making make any actual difference. I don’t understand what you want Obama to do differentl y( other than make one kind of speech instead of another).
Here’s a plan:
One of these is the carrot:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/12/opinion/mapping-mideast-peace.html
and the IDF is the stick.
Bob-1 Says:
“The West Bank was part of Jordan.”
Jordan was created to be the land of the Palestinians. Israel was intended to be for the Jews. The West Bank became part of Jordan when Jordan invaded.
It certainly is a complicated subject. How would the arabs respond to Jews demanding the right of return to arab countries? And why would the Jews want to move back and face extermination again?
“The West Bank became part of Jordan when Jordan invaded.”
Ok, but lets not make it sound like Jordan took the West Bank from Israel, because that’s not what happened.
“Israel was intended to be for the Jews. ”
But by “Israel”, do you mean the West Bank?
It depends what you mean by “Israel”. And it depends who was doing the “intending.” If you mean “Biblical Israel” and “God”, I have no reply. If you mean “1948 Israel” and “the UN, the USA, and the founding fathers of the newly created State of Israel”, then no, the West Bank was not intended for the Jews, and Israel’s founding fathers were accepting of that.
But why does it matter? At this point, the focus should be on figuring out a workable solution.
It’s hard to come up with a workable solution when one side’s preferred solution is rivers of blood and the extermination of the other side.
The current solution (armed standoff–barely checked hostilities punctuated by periods of unchecked hostilities) is only going to work for a short period of time. The last time I checked the demographics Israel only has a couple of decades before it is minority jewish–that’s going to be an interesting situation if it is allowed to go on that long. I think it’s unlikely the Arabs are going to wait that long–I expect a couple of cities to be nuked before then.
Demographic trends show that Jews will be in the minority soon only if you include the West Bank (and Gaza).
a workable solution
Let those that want war live (or die) with the result. Israel will determine Israels future. America is not likely to elect another two face anytime soon.