There's an Arab proverb that goes like this: When an enemy extends his hand to you cut it off. If you can't, kiss it. Who do you think is being classified as the cutting or the kissing treatment today?
In
contrast to the let's-empower-our enemies approach, two of the best
Middle East expert journalists in the world have just written from
different perspectives on the real Middle East and the results are
refreshing. But in other media the odds are fixed at four to one against
sanity.
First, at one think tank, Khaled Abu Toameh has published, “Ramallah vs. the `PeaceProcess.’”
He puts peace process in quotes to show his sarcasm. He tells the story
of two Israeli Arab businessmen who wanted to open a Fox clothing store
in the West Bank (like the one I shop at in Dizengoff Center).
Although
given Palestinian Authority (PA) permission and having already made a
big investment, they found themselves the target of attacks and calls
for firing bombing the store. The assaults were even organized by PA
journalists. So they gave up, costing 150 jobs for West Bank
Palestinians. I could easily tell the same story a half-dozen times.
As
Abu Toameh concludes: “This incident is an indication of the
same`anti-normalization’" movement which [PA leader] Abbas supports will
be the first to turn against him if he strikes a deal with Israel.”
But, of course, for both the reason that this is a powerful radical
movement and the factor that he is one of the leaders of the anti-peace
camp, Abbas won’t make a deal ultimately.
· “Does John Kerry's Peace Process Have a Chance?” asks Aaron David Miller. And in subtle terms he answers: No. He writes:
·
“Neither Abbas nor Netanyahu wants to say no to America's top diplomat and take the blame for the collapse of negotiations. This proved sufficient to get them back to negotiations, but more will be required to keep them there, let alone to reach an accord. Right now, neither has enough incentives, disincentives, and an urgent desire or need to move forward boldly.
“Neither Abbas nor Netanyahu wants to say no to America's top diplomat and take the blame for the collapse of negotiations. This proved sufficient to get them back to negotiations, but more will be required to keep them there, let alone to reach an accord. Right now, neither has enough incentives, disincentives, and an urgent desire or need to move forward boldly.
· “Unfortunately,
right now, the U.S. owns this one more than the parties do. This is not
an ideal situation. It would have been better had real urgency brought
Abbas and Netanyahu together rather than John Kerry.”
In other words, Kerry wants and needs these talks; Netanyahu and Abbas don’t.
I
mean it literally when I say that there are only two sensible people
given regular access to the mass media on the Middle East, one is Miller
the other is Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post. (If I have left someone out please remind me. But remember I said, regularly.)
If you want to know the real attitude consider this recent exchange in Israel’s Knesset:
Jamal
Zahalka of the Arab Communist Party, Balad,: "We, the Arabs, were here
before you (the Jews) and we will be here after you!"
The
prime minister asked permission to approach the podium and said in
answer, "The first part isn't true, and the second part won't be!"
Remember
that he Communist Party is the most moderate of the Arab parties. Fatah
and the PA are more radical and their leaders would not hesitate to
repeat |Zahalka’s statement Second, Zahalka wasn’t afraid to invoke
genocide because he knew he was protected by democracy.
That's
the real situation. The Palestinian leadership's goal of wiping out
Israel has not changed. Only if it ever does will there be any chance of
a two-state solution.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the equation the Washington Post
has no less than four op-eds or editorials in one week on why the
United States should support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
In Robert Kagan, “American aid Makes the U.S. Complicit in the Egyptian Army’s Acts” gives the realpolitikversion.
This is ludicrous. Was the U.S. thus complicit in the doings of every
ally, including Egypt from 1978 to 2011? Should one dump good allies
because of things they do, a debate that goes back to the onset of the
Cold War.
And any way U.S. support for the army would be popular.
Indeed, U.S. policy was “complicit” with the army coup against Mubarak
and was complicit to the Mursi Islamist regime which it helped install,
too!
Then we have the liberal human rights/democracy project view in Michele Dunne: "With Morsi’s ouster, time for a new U.S. policy toward Egypt,"
because a U.S. policy supporting human rights must ensure that the
totalitarian Muslim Brotherhood is part of the government (and no doubt
would encourage stability)
And we have, third, Reuel Marc Gerecht: "In Egypt, the popularity of Islamism shall endure,"
which gives the conservative version for why we need the Brotherhood in
power. Yet after all, just because the enemy can endure is not a reason
to refuse to fight them. On the contrary, it is necessary at minimum to
ensure it doesn't become stronger.
Finally we have an editorial,The Post’s View: Egypt’s military should hear from Obama administration,
which demands that the Obama Administration also pressures the
military. Let's be frank: the Egyptian army did a great service not just
to Egypt's people but also to the U.S. government because it saved its
strategic balance in the Middle East.
Only one op-ed piece, Jackson Diehl: "Egypt’s ‘democrats’ abandon democracy,''
pointed out a rather salient issue. The moderates themselves stopped
supporting the status quo and begged for a coup! They support the
government now! They want the Obama Administration to back the military
regime! Good grief.
No comments:
Post a Comment