The 'smart diplomacy' double standard

David Hirsayni:

The United States does not negotiate with terrorists -- but we insist that Israel do so without preconditions.

We will not get entangled in the distasteful internal politics of Iran -- but we define Israel's borders.

We will remove missile defense systems in Europe so we do not needlessly provoke our good friends in Russia -- but we have no compunction nudging Israel to hand over territory with nothing in return.

This week, President Barack Obama spoke to the United Nations General Assembly and insisted that Israel and the Palestinians negotiate "without preconditions" (well, excluding the effective precondition that Israeli settlements are "illegitimate," according to the administration -- so no preconditions means feel free to rocket Israel while you talk).

This tact, Obama hopes, will lead to "two states living side by side in peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people."

Hate to break the news to you, but there already exists a Jewish state of Israel with true security for all Israelis. This security is attained through a perpetual war against terrorism and Arab aggression.

And the most recent time Israel withdrew from disputed lands without preconditions to allow the potential of the Palestinian people to shine through was in Gaza. The Arabs, hungering for the light of freedom, used the gift to elect Hamas -- now an Iranian proxy and always a terror organization -- to rain rockets down on the civilians who voted to allow the first democratic Arab entity in history.

...

And when he uses the word "occupation," he is negotiating for the Palestinians. None of the lands up for discussion are "occupied" territory. The president, a highly educated man, knows well that there never has been an ultimate agreement on borders, nor has there ever, in history, been a Palestinian state to occupy.

There is an ethical question that the president might want to answer, as well. Why would the United States support an arrangement that scrubs the West Bank of all its Jews? Why is it so unconscionable to imagine that Jews could live among Muslims in the same way millions of Arabs live within Israel proper? Not many international agreements feature ethnic cleansing clauses. (Isn't this, after all, about peace?)

Of course, we all know why: Jews would be slaughtered, bombed from their homes and rocketed from their schools. This indisputable fact reveals the fundamental reality of these negotiations.

...

"Smart diplomacy" brushes all these legitimate concerns aside and blames Israeli settlements for the problems caused by the Palestinians. Even with the administration's embrace the Palestinians still refuse a deal. The fact is they have no interest in an agreement that leaves Israel in place. Since they have nothing of value to offer Israel they come up with unrealistic demands to avoid negotiations. They just are not serious about negotiating a deal and we should not pretend a deal can be achived while the Palestinians and the Arabs have this attitude.

Comments

  1. Flat White5:55 AM

    It's interesting to note that the world wants segragation between jews and palestinians, demanding seperate states, but when this idea was concieved by Hendrik Verwoerd in South Africa, the mere thought of seperate development was immediately labelled as racist and evil, and even facist.

    It amazes me how many double standards there are in this world.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more