You really need to check out this Powerline post, and watch the videos they linked here (don’t be impatient, the ad is short) and here.
Entertaining. And educational.
Apr 23 2010
What peace process?
Poll: 91% against Obama imposing deal
A huge majority of Israelis would oppose an attempt by US President Barack Obama to impose a final-status agreement with the Palestinians, a poll sponsored by the Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA) organization found this week.
Leading American newspapers reported last week that Obama was considering trying to impose a settlement if efforts to begin indirect proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinians proved unsuccessful. The option was discussed in a meeting with current and former advisers to the White House.
Asked whether they would support Obama imposing a plan dividing Jerusalem and removing the Jordan Valley from Israeli control, 91 percent of Israelis who expressed an opinion said no and 9% said yes, according to the poll of 503 Israelis, which was taken by Ma’agar Mohot on Sunday and Monday and had a 4.5% margin of error.
Eighty-one percent said it was improper for Obama to try to force such a plan on the two sides, while 19% of those who expressed an opinion said it was proper.
The poll asked whether it would create enduring peace or enduring conflict should Jerusalem be divided, with Jewish neighborhoods remaining part of Israel and Arab neighborhoods becoming part of a Palestinian state. Eighty-four percent said conflict and 16% said peace.
The numbers were similar for the Jordan Valley, where 90% opposed relinquishing Israeli control and 10% were in favor.
Meanwhile, a poll of Palestinians conducted on April 8-10 by the Center of Opinion Polls and Survey Studies at An-Najah University in Nablus asked Palestinians whether they would accept the creation of a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders with a land exchange as a final solution for the Palestinian problem, and whether they would support or reject making Jerusalem a capital for two states.
The numbers on the two-state solution were 66.7% against, 28.3% in favor, and 5% who did not know or did not express an opinion. On the Jerusalem issue, 77.4 said they opposed such a plan, 20.8% were in favor, and 1.8% had no opinion or chose not to express it.
Read that last bit again. The Palestinians will not accept a “peace plan” on even the least possible advantageous terms for Israel.
There cannot be peace without a peace partner. Hamas and Fatah have done a sufficiently good job in indoctrinating the last three generations of Palestinians to hate Israel that now there is no chance for Palestinian public support of a plan that Israel could not agree to anyway.
The only “fast solution” to the problem is going to be a complete victory by one side or the other.
There is a slow solution, one that will take about 40 years, a timeline so long that no Western government can possibly keep its eye on the prize that long, although Muslim governments seem to have no problem conceiving and employing decades long strategies (which is exactly why we are where we are today). That slow solution is fairly simple.
The world’s governments COULD simply cut off all aid to Palestine, if Palestine continues to teach hate in its schools and media, and continues to elect Hamas. The world does not “owe” Palestine anything, anything at all. If Palestine chooses to be run by a terrorist organization, so be it. Then we could wait about 40 years for the current haters to die, and for the next generations to begin to wonder what the fuss was about. And those people might then be peace partners.
Of course, the world’s governments would have to stand together in this, and, of course, Iran, Syria and China, at least, would be likely to do an end-run around any ban imposed by the rest.
And that illustrates the essential issue. Far from the “conflict in the middle east” problem STEMMING from the Israel/Palestine issue, the exact reverse is true. The Israel/Palestine issue EXISTS, still, because several nations see it as in their best interests to keep it from ever being solved. This has been true since the creation of the modern Israel.
But you can’t make peace with people who, more than anything, want you dead.
When even experienced negotiators begin to see this, it’s time to take notice.
Apr 20 2010
Israel to Syria: Don’t tread on me, and don’t let your clients do it either
‘Hizbullah a division of Syrian army’
Israel has warned Syrian President Bashar Assad that any missile attack against Israel by Hizbullah would result in retaliation against Syria, the Sunday Times reported on Sunday.
According to the UK paper, Israel’s missive, sent earlier in April, defined Hizbullah as a “division of the Syrian army,” a military branch of Damascus in Lebanon.
The warning was reportedly delivered to Damascus by a third party.
Meanwhile on Sunday, Al-Hayat reported that Hizbullah minister Nawaf al-Moussawi had said Israel’s accusations against Syria were only a ploy meant to divert attention from its failure to relaunch peace talks with the Palestinians.
Last week, the Kuwait-based Al-Rai reported that Syria had transferred Scud missiles to Hizbullah. According to the report, the missiles were recently transferred to Lebanon, prompting a stern Israeli warning that it would consider attacking both Syrian and Lebanese targets in response.
Scud ballistic missiles have a longer range than the rockets previously used by Hizbullah against Israel, and can carry chemical warheads.
On Thursday, the Kuwaiti paper reported that Hizbullah had confirmed receiving a shipment of Scud missiles from Syria. “It’s only natural for Lebanon to have the means to defend itself against an Israeli attack,” Hizbullah official Hussein Haj Hassan told Al-Manar TV on Friday.
The Syrian leadership has consistently denied the charge.
On Saturday, Reuters quoted US officials as saying that while the “intent” to transfer ballistic missiles to Hizbullah existed, it was doubtful such a transfer had actually taken place.
Obama may be about to find out what happens when Israel senses, correctly, that Obama is abandoning it. When Israel no longer feels a significant pressure from the USA to restrain Israel’s enemies, we should expect Israel to take matters into its own hands.
If Obama is smart, he will make it clear to Syria that the USA will also consider a Hizbullah attack on Israel as a Syrian attack, and take steps accordingly. He doesn’t have to do it publicly. But he should do it diplomatically, even via “back-channels.” And if he’s smart, he’ll find a way to let Israel know that he has done so.
But he may be blinded by his presuppositions.
Apr 14 2010
Giving up our allies, or ganging up on them, too?
Obama is, once again, giving away the store… or at least the markets in Tel Aviv, by trying to make nice with the implacable enemies of supposed allies.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Syria has transferred long-range Scud missiles to Hezbollah. There have been rumors about this for a few days, but now U.S. officials, who at first refused to confirm them, are saying that the transfer has occurred.
The Scuds are believed to have a range of more than 435 miles. This means that Hezbollah can now bomb Jerusalem and Tel Aviv from Lebanon. During the 2006 war, the rockets Hezbollah rained on Israel had a range of 20 to 60 miles.
I hope you’ll read the entire article at the link above, and ponder the situation a bit.
One can only wonder: exactly how much damage can Obama-style foreign policy do in four years?
If the Carter administration is any guide, a truly immense amount.
Obama remains deeply confused about who are our allies and friends, and who are our adversaries. One hopes he doesn’t stay in office long enough to be educated directly by the course of events, though the next administration is going to have a lot of pieces to pick up.
Nov 28 2009
Abbas: Obama isn’t putting enough pressure on Israel
Abbas accuses Obama of doing ‘nothing’ for peace in the Middle East
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday accused US President Barack Obama of doing “nothing” to achieve peace in the Middle East. Speaking to Argentinian newspaper Clarin, Abbas said he hoped that Obama would “take a more important role in the future.”
He went on to say that the Palestinian people were awaiting US pressure on Israel, “so that it respects international law and takes up the Road Map,” stressing that the peace process could not be restarted without a halt to settlement construction.
When asked what he was willing to concede for peace, Abbas told Clarin that the Palestinian people had “already made concessions.”
He opined that the current government, with Binyamin Netanyahu as prime minister and Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister, “is not seeking peace,” though he said that 73 percent of Israelis were in favor of peace.
What Abbas wants, of course, is for Obama to be tougher on his (putatively) only friend in the Middle East, Israel, than he is on actual opponents, like Iran, Syria or Hisbullah.
If we needed any reminder of the fact, this illustrates the basic dynamic of all Middle East peace negotiations. Israel, which has always been the attacked party, must give up land and options that were legitimately earned in acts of national self-defense from Arab aggression, self-defense against incredible odds. In the meantime, Palestine doesn’t have to give up anything, including the intent to see the end of Israel as a Jewish nation.
Prediction: Obama will be no more successful than any of his predecessors at convincing Palestinians that their best interests lie in normalizing relations with Israel, with reporting and fighting against the terrorists in their number, and with going about the business of building a functioning economy, without the ridiculous and unachievable destruction of Israel. Palestinians have exactly the same opportunity now that Israel had 60 years ago, to build something out of nothing in the desert. Further, they have a potential partner, Israel, which would help, if Palestinians could control their hatred of the Jews. I’m not holding my breath.
In the meantime, Obama brings a student council president level of understanding to a negotiation where world class diplomats have tried and failed. I won’t blame him for failing. I will blame him if he manages to cripple Israel while he is busy failing to engineer an unlikely peace.
Nov 07 2008
Obama brings international acclaim, from people who hate the USA
Arabs happy Obama won… and that Bush’s man lost | Middle East | Jerusalem Post
Arab and Muslim reaction to incoming US President Barack Obama’s electoral victory around the globe has been largely optimistic, but some remain skeptical that Obama will bring significant change to the Middle East.
The excitement appears to be as much a celebration of Obama’s victory as of the perceived defeat of President George W. Bush – in the shape of his would-be Republican successor John McCain – whose foreign policies in the region have drawn widespread criticism from the Arab and Muslim world.
“Farewell racism, farewell tyranny, farewell wars and terrorism,” wrote Muhammad el-Said of Egypt Wednesday on the Facebook social networking site page entitled “The Arab campaign to support Obama…a necessity and a moral obligation.”
In rare praise, Syria’s state-run newspaper Al-Thawra said Thursday that it “extends its hand to Obama,” that his win “inspired” people around the world and that the American people should be congratulated for electing him.
One can only wonder how tangible was the “necessary and moral” support for Obama. “The Arab campaign to support Obama” sounds like a possible source for all the “untraceable” donations that came into the Obama campaign via its validation-free online credit-card donation system. Somehow, I suspect some of those donations came from Ali Baba… or one of his friends.
Then there’s this, after the 9/11 attacks:
Let’s try to put this another way, for perspective. What would have been the reaction of the American media and the Democrats if a Republican president-elect was hailed as a new beginning by an obviously racist, apartheid regime, maybe something like South Africa some years back? Would Democrats and the media be talking about how this means the new president will be able to reach out and negotiate effectively with the racist regime?
SURE they would….
