THE SPINE OCTOBER 6, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Do you remember Robert Malley? Yes, that (Jewish) fella who makes a living counseling Israel to accede to every Palestinian demand. The one who first was an Obama adviser and then wasn’t...and then maybe was again. Well, he turned out to not to be. Instead, he is, according to today’s New York Times, Middle East and North African program director of the International Crisis Group, a very pompous self-characterization.
The Times piece is by Mark Landler which means it is accurate. And accurate on a weighty topic: “U.S. Faces Risks and Advantages in Bid to Save Talks.”
Apparently everyone now regrets that the president and his siren, Hillary Clinton, made not building in the settlements the key to our entire Middle East policy. The basic objection to this is the crucial issue (or one of the really crucial issues) of where the territorial lines will be drawn. If Israeli settlers build here and not there will have no effect on the prospective borders. None.
I know that David Axelrod got hysterical about private Israelis doing teeny-weeny bits of construction in East Jerusalem, and that the secretary of state made another one of her efforts to replace Joe Biden on the 2012 ticket. But savvy folk were running away from the issue. After all, if the Israelis didn’t suspend construction, how could the Palestinians proceed with the negotiations. The Palestinians were trapped...well, by Obama’s hubris.
Here’s Malley’s wisdom on the matter: “The original sin was putting so much emphasis, an issue we couldn’t resolve...We’ve spent the whole year trying to undo the damage of that step.”
Look: the president is not smart on foreign policy, not smart at all. Why doesn’t he just stick to domestic matters on which his wisdom may, at least, be debatable.
48 comments
When I read that quote from Malley, I thought the earth had just relocated the North Pole :) The question now is how long it will take for the rest of the Obami, and the left, to stop obsessing over apartments in the north Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo that was built after 1967 for Jewish citizens on a rocky hillside previously used for the grazing of Palestinian goats. I await the smallest hint that the Obami no longer think of Israel as Imperialist Aggressor, coinciding with the acknowledgment that Islamic Imperialism is the real threat to global stability. Yeah, like they can ever actually admit a real mistake in judgment.
- K2K
October 6, 2010 at 5:13pm
Sorry Mr. Peretz; by now no one believes that your obsession with attacking Obama on Middle East policy at every possible opportunity makes any sense at all. The problem is not the US. American presidents have tried almost every possible variation of polite diplomacy to make peace between Israel and its neighbors, and it has worked only when both parties actually wanted to make peace, and the intransigent elements on both sides were not in a position to sabotage it. Even assuming good will on the part of the leaders, neither now has the power to control their extremists. It's not symmetrical - settlements are not rockets or suicide bombings - but the effect is the same. Those in Israel who insist on continuing to build are sabotaging the peace talks almost effectively as Hamas. Now, nothing may result even were they to stop; those on the Palestinian side who want to continue hostilities are more numerous and more ruthless, but the problem here is certainly not Obama.
- K_Wilson
October 6, 2010 at 5:31pm
K_Wilson "Sorry Mr. Peretz; by now no one believes that your obsession with attacking Obama on Middle East policy at every possible opportunity makes any sense at all." You seem to believe it, Wilson. If you didn't you would ignore his posts.
- jdyer
October 6, 2010 at 5:54pm
"Apparently everyone now regrets that the president and his siren, Hillary Clinton... " Mr. Peretz, you keep apportioning responsibility to both Obama and Clinton. I don't think it is fair to Hilary. She is just a loyal soldier in Obama's army. I genuinely believe he decides on these matters and instructs her what to do and say. Please don't try to dilute Obama's responsibility by having it share with his Secretary of State. It's his fault. He does not get it. Not yet, anyway.
- noga1
October 6, 2010 at 7:15pm
"“The original sin was putting so much emphasis, an issue we couldn’t resolve...We’ve spent the whole year trying to undo the damage of that step.” The original sin was frightening the Israeli people with the threat that Jerusalem, the heart of their peoplehood, was up for grabs under Obama's tutelage. He denied former understandings with the Bush administration. There would have been precious little concern had he focused on settlement freeze within the West Bank. And even now, when he is wiser, he wants a total settlement freeze including in Jerusalem. And what good are his pledges after he had so carelessly squandered away his predecessor's pledges? He demonstrated that pledges are fragile things in his hands.
- noga1
October 6, 2010 at 7:31pm
In the past I've kidded Marty about posts that imply Hillary Clinton, his obsession of hate, runs US foreign policy and not President Obama. I shouldn't have -- apparently he really believes it. "His siren"?! The barstool psychologist in me would say this reflects some latent misogyny to boot (you don't see too many women praised in The Spine -- but I do remember him praising some South American presidential candidate who dissed - SURPRISE! - Hillary Clinton...)
- Lymon1
October 7, 2010 at 9:35am
My goodness, I seem to have run into the Marty Peretz fan club (grin). Commenting on internet silliness doesn't mean one thinks it's very important. There's a curious phenomenon here: let's accept for the sake of argument that the entire problem is the Palestinians' intransigence. (I disagree; it's a large part of the problem, not all of it, but let's put that aside.) Every US president from before I could vote has tried to find a solution, it mostly hasn't worked. So who do you blame for the latest failure? Obama, of course, isn't it obvious? (heavy sarcasm) Am I missing something here? Do you guys really think, as Mr. Peretz appears to, that if Obama had done things differently that relations between Israel and its neighbors would now be much better? The man's a president, not a magician. This is not a problem the US can solve without the cooperation of all sides in the conflict. Mr Obama, even if he were a combination of Metternich and the Dalai Lama, can't make the Palestinians do what they don't want to do.
- K_Wilson
October 7, 2010 at 10:04am
"Mr Obama, even if he were a combination of Metternich and the Dalai Lama, can't make the Palestinians do what they don't want to do." You are missing the point. Obama is not expected nor is it possible, to find magical solutions but he is expected to, at the very least, not make bad things worse. And he has done exactly that. Due to his own skewed view of what Arabs really want. He thought that appeasing the Arabs by being tough and verbally bullying towards Israel will make them relent a bit. The very opposite happened as most of us who understand a thing or two about the conflict predicted would happen. So now whatever little progress had been made by Olmert was reversed by Obama's insistence that a settlement freeze would extend to Jewish neigborhoods in Jerusalem.
- noga1
October 7, 2010 at 10:23am
"no one believes" is a silly statement to make in general, whether in ones blog, or in the comments section of someone else's blog. I leave it to others to determine which is worse. As to Hillary Clinton, she's been a Peretz bugaboo for a long time. Readers may recall that Peretz was originally very in favor of Obama, as long as he was running against Clinton in the primary. In fact, his good will toward Obama disappeared, not around the time of Obama's "intervention" in middle east, but his appointment of Clinton as SecState.
- miceelf
October 7, 2010 at 10:41am
And how is Mr. Obama responsible for the Israeli refusal to extend the freeze? Sorry, it won't wash. If Israel wishes to pursue a pointless policy against their own interest, that's their decision, and blaming Obama makes no sense. Oooh, "verbally bullying". My heart bleeds. Actual bullying would be something like cutting aid. And "appeasing" is not an accurate description of modestly conciliatory language.
- K_Wilson
October 7, 2010 at 10:51am
"And how is Mr. Obama responsible for the Israeli refusal to extend the freeze? " Again you are missing the point of where exactly Obama went wrong. If you can't be bothered with the details and denouement coming to to present situation why bother to opine at all?
- noga1
October 7, 2010 at 11:51am
No, you are missing my point entirely. Israel resumed building for internal political reasons, knowing that it would probably end this round of negotiations. The Palestinians then left, also for internal political reasons. And Mr. Peretz blames Obama for making a big deal of the settlements, as if the idea wouldn't ever have occurred to the Palestinians if he hadn't. It's truly bizarre. If blame has to be apportioned, the majority has to go to the Palestinians for being violent and irredeemably pigheaded, some to the Israelis for pursuing a stupid settlement policy against their own interest, and perhaps a little to Obama for being a mere mortal.
- K_Wilson
October 7, 2010 at 12:20pm
When the Netanyahu announced the freeze (which was not to include J'lem) some 10 months ago, he stated explicitly that it was a one-time "CBM" not to be renewed. The Obamanaughts knew that even before he announced it. Nonetheless Hillary praised it and noted, quite correctly, that it was unprecedented. The Pals frittered away 8 months or so doing nothing. For a good part of the freeze, the Obamanaughts did what they could to make life difficult for Netanyahu and humiliate him (and then the Divine Mr. O wonders to a fawning sycophantic Israeli news anchor (carefully selected by the White House for the exclusive interview) why is he so unpopular here and frankly not trusted). Two good pieces worth reading on this conundrum: The first is a "PostPartisan" piece by Jackson Diehl (here) who nicely dissects the problem. Diehl, not exactly a Likudnik (p'tooi, p'tooi) or AIPACnik or (Gd forbid) Jewish, has been very realistic about Abu Mazen and the Pals ever since his eye opening interview with the Pal prez. Unlike most MSM types, Diehl has enough intellectual honesty to avoid the useful idiocy that pervades much of the progressobabbelian types who pontificate on the Israel Palestinian conflict. The Diehl piece also includes a link to a short (~6 minutes) video interview Diehl did with the Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren which is worth viewing) The second piece is an OpEd by Ari Shavit, the moderate lefty (ex-far lefty and charter member of the Oslo fan club) but intellectually honest, columnist for the Israeli Hebrew (and English) daily Ha'aretz. I don't always agree with Shavit but I do respect him. Shavit (here) explains why Bibi can't simply renew the freeze (3 reasons) but also why he should renew the freeze (3 reasons, all begin with the initials BO), but then suggests a formula -- that Obama should explicitly and publicly adopt the Bush - Sharon understandings that the Obamanaughts reneged on, with Hillary's memorable verdict that the agreement was "not enforceable". Today's Yedi'ot Aharonot reports that Netanyahu has proposed just this solution to the Obamanoids. The question is, can the Divine Mr. O. come down from Olympus and accept that maybe just maybe something that the Bushwhackers did in there management of the I-P conflict just might be a useful, realistic compromise???? Stay tuned.... Hershel Ginsburg Efrata / Jerusalem
- ginzy
October 7, 2010 at 12:42pm
"Oooh, "verbally bullying". My heart bleeds. Actual bullying would be something like cutting aid. And "appeasing" is not an accurate description of modestly conciliatory language." It's pretty obvious that your heart cannot be made to bleed for Israel. And you still don't get it, or anything. The complaints against Obama is not his mortality but rather his hubris. Some mortals want to fly very near to the gods and when they fall hard they blame other mortals for pointing out to them that they are merely mortals and cannot hope to rule the day by godly decree. Actually Obama is riding a learning curve which cannot be said for his many followers.
- noga1
October 7, 2010 at 12:45pm
Ginzy: if there is one thing Obama can NOT do, it is to do ANYTHING that Bush43 did, and Obama is NOT going to do anything in the next 26 days to ruffle the feathers of the leftwing base. Obama made the settlement freeze a pre-condition for direct talks in order to appease his anti-war American voter base who are fixated on the settlements. K_Wilson is one of those devoted Obama true-believers. Palestinians engaged in direct talks with Israel for 17 years before Obama handed them the settlement freeze as a gift the Palestinians did not ask for. When Robert Malley admits this, one would think the point is clear. Perhaps Ahmadinejad will do Obama a favor, and have Hezbollah stage a military coup in Lebanon next week, which might get some of the English-speaking media to write about something other than Israeli building sites :) Having read the primacy of political tending of the base when it came to climate change, I have no reason to doubt that political tending of the base when it comes to Israel has a higher primacy in this WH. After all, Obama supporters to this very day are using his official campaign website, now theoretically owned by the DNC, to push the "all settlements are illegal" meme. Glad to see Ryan Lizza really has recovered from being smacked by the Obama campaign in July 2008 for his profile of Obama as slick Chicago politician. This is the article that Peretz cites in the previous post. "As the World Burns: How the Senate and the White House missed their best chance to deal with climate change." http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all
- K2K
October 7, 2010 at 12:52pm
I happen to agree with elements of most arguments here, and ginzy's piece has (if one can get through the silly school-playground namecalling) some very informative links. But one point I made before I'd like to reiterate here: the United States has not, under any administration including this one, gone around beating the bushes for new and problematic I/P issues to spend time on. Neither Obama nor any other American president has done anything but utilize normal communication with parties to a conflict to elicit what might be useful moves toward a positive end. The freeze on settlement-building or related construction emerged as a Palestinian sticking-point quite some time ago, and all we did was fasten on it as a potential Israeli gesture of good will, a bridging mechanism to serious negotiation. The fact that the Pals deliberately let the thing drift for 10 months (or indeed that Netanyahu's coalition partner chose VP Biden's visit to announce some new construction) should not be on the U.S. tab.
- ironyroad
October 7, 2010 at 3:31pm
May I point out that Israel gains nothing by resuming building in the settlements. Netanyahu may gain politically, the Israeli far right gains by making it harder to give up land as part of a peace agreement, and a few houses get built. Israel as a whole loses. They are free to pursue a counterproductive policy if they wish, but blaming Obama for its effects is silly.
- K_Wilson
October 7, 2010 at 3:42pm
"(or indeed that Netanyahu's coalition partner chose VP Biden's visit to announce some new construction) " ironyroad, when it comes to Obama, you are not beyond embellishing an event to better suit the bent of your mind. Nor will you concede that Obama's handling of that audacity of the Jerusalem zoning committee was deliberately and ridiculously out of proportion, resulting in making the Pals even more intransigent and reversing whatever little progress had been made for years before that stupid incident.
- noga1
October 7, 2010 at 3:43pm
K wilson still doesn't get it.
- noga1
October 7, 2010 at 3:44pm
malahat, we didn't make it an issue of any kind. It's a Palestinian and Israeli issue. You keep not seeing my point. Once again, if the Pals make that issue important, and communicate that to us, it's not unlikely that we would see a freeze as a potential bridging mechanism on Israel's part to enable talks to proceed. As we did. If the Pals then screw it up (whether or not by design) by not using the window offered, that's not the U.S.'s fault. Remember, ultimately we aren't negotiating here. The Israelis and the Palestinians are. Our job is to help create the structure for productive talks and hopefully concrete results. Anyone who wants to submit a witty riff on "concrete," please feel free.
- ironyroad
October 7, 2010 at 4:54pm
It simply beggars logic that the U.S. would autonomously take an issue, in which we have no specific interest, and make it a deal-breaker. The only reason -- the ONLY reason -- the freeze became important is because the Palestinians communicated to the U.S. that this was a crucial component of the process for them (according to wiki, as per Abbas's statement on 23 August 2009). I remain suspicious of this debate as trying to create an unchallenged assumption that the Obama administration has some interest in proactively creating new Palestinian negotiating conditions -- I regard that as nonsense.
- ironyroad
October 7, 2010 at 6:35pm
It's a fair point. Settlements have exploded in the last 20 years, from 100K odd to 500K odd from 83ish to 2010. That's 5 Presidents, including Obama and God knows how many peace agreements, peace landmarks, peace epochs, peace breakthrough's, peace accords...
- IggyPop
October 7, 2010 at 6:37pm
"I would never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence." malahat -- that's so glib and snooty it could almost be from me!
- ironyroad
October 7, 2010 at 7:49pm
IggyPop “It's a fair point. Settlements have exploded in the last 20 years, from 100K odd to 500K odd from 83ish to 2010. That's 5 Presidents, including Obama and God knows how many peace agreements, peace landmarks, peace epochs, peace breakthrough's, peace accords...” You are fantasizing, Iggy. I also don’t like the settlement policy but it’s not because it’s “an obstacle to peace.” If the settlements weren’t there the Arabs would be complaining about the “refugees” or about Jerusalem or any other number of issues. The truth is if they had wanted a breakthrough they could have had it many times over through the years. Hamas, for example doesn’t want peace )they want Israel to disappear) any more than did the PLO of yore. And it remains to be seen if the PA governments wants peace.
- jdyer
October 7, 2010 at 8:32pm
K_Wilson “My goodness, I seem to have run into the Marty Peretz fan club…” Wilson is part of the “I hate Peretz more than you” club.
- jdyer
October 7, 2010 at 8:34pm
Before the US tackles the Arab Israeli conflict it’s important to get it right in Afghanistan. So far neither Bush nor Obama have been able to deal honestly with Pakistan. That country is not on our side and it’s ludicrous to call them “allies.” “Pakistan Urges On Taliban” By JULIAN E. BARNES, MATTHEW ROSENBERG And HABIB KHAN TOTAKHIL http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704689804575536241251361592.html?mod=ITP_pageone_0#printMode
- jdyer
October 7, 2010 at 8:39pm
"May I point out that Israel gains nothing by resuming building in the settlements. Netanyahu may gain politically, the Israeli far right gains by making it harder to give up land as part of a peace agreement, and a few houses get built. Israel as a whole loses." I happen to agree with the above. But not because of the so called "peace process" Israel loses for economic, political and above all demographic reasons.
- jdyer
October 7, 2010 at 8:41pm
"That country is not on our side and it’s ludicrous to call them 'allies'." Heartfelt agreement, JD! I've been saying that for years. But it's still difficult to see how we can extract ourselves, or predict how nasty the downsides could be.
- ironyroad
October 7, 2010 at 9:54pm
ironyroad ""That country is not on our side and it’s ludicrous to call them 'allies'." Heartfelt agreement, JD! I've been saying that for years. But it's still difficult to see how we can extract ourselves, or predict how nasty the downsides could be." Let's begin by admitting the fact, and then we can figure out what to do. I have a hunch that the Saudis are behind our Pakistan “alliance.” The downside would be the alienation of the Sunni world; the upside would be an alliance with India and a more realistic foreign policy.
- jdyer
October 7, 2010 at 11:10pm
I think the scariest downside is the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. A major shift in our policy would trigger the potential development that the military -- probably still one of the more functional institutions in Pakistan -- either begins to disintegrate (and possibly losing control over the weapons) or takes power as an open military dictatorship (but a nasty one with regional leverage and Islamist connections).
- ironyroad
October 8, 2010 at 12:43am
I am not as worried about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal since it's a known quantity and the US and India could take care of it if necessary. Making nice to people who hate us is more of a worry to me since it distorts reality and makes us vulnerable to blackmail.
- jdyer
October 8, 2010 at 9:10am
" . . . the “I hate Peretz more than you” club." Don't be silly. Disagreement is not hate. On a couple of subjects (Israel and the Palestinians, the alleged perfidy of Muslims, Hillary Clinton, Obama's Middle East policy) Mr Peretz seems to allow his emotions to cloud his otherwise reasonable judgement. This column is a perfect example; the idea that settlements are only a major issue right now because Obama turned them into one is ludicrous. Settlements have been a major issue since the first brick was laid. "Making nice to people who hate us" costs us nothing and may actually do some good, as long as we don't trust them too far. Gratuitous bluster rarely produces good results, as the last administration demonstrated.
- K_Wilson
October 8, 2010 at 9:42am
"Don't be silly. Disagreement is not hate." Neither is agreement with certain issues a sign of belonging to a "fan club."
- jdyer
October 8, 2010 at 9:54am
K_Wilson ""Making nice to people who hate us" costs us nothing and may actually do some good, as long as we don't trust them too far." Making nice to people who hate us, especially if they are not aware of that hatred, has been costing us precious lives in in Afghanistan and Pakistan and may cost us more than that in the long run. It also distorts reality forcing us to explain away a religiously motivated hatred or blaming ourselves or others for it. I would say making nice to people who hate and buying their bullshit is very expensive. In any case, I see little difference between policies towards Pakistan between the Bush and Obama administrations on this issue.
- jdyer
October 8, 2010 at 10:00am
"Fan club" was a (very) small joke, hence the (grin). I would be very surprised if either this or the previous administration retain any illusions about the reliability of Pakistan as an "ally". We don't have a lot of options there, and maintaining the illusion of friendship in public may be useful. Being relatively polite - diplomatic, one might say - and using conciliatory rhetoric is not the same as "buying their bullshit". "Buying their bullshit" would be trusting them too far. We're saying the same thing, really.
- K_Wilson
October 8, 2010 at 10:17am
K_Wilson "I would be very surprised if either this or the previous administration retain any illusions about the reliability of Pakistan as an "ally". We don't have a lot of options there..." We have many more options than one.
- jdyer
October 8, 2010 at 11:23am
The problem is that "trusting them too far" and "being forced to act as if we trust them too far" begin to merge into one phenomenon. The last week consisted of the Pakistani government blocking movement of our fuel convoys at the border, convoys which where then attacked with considerable destruction to our trucks and tankers. The difference between that series of events and the Taliban actively organizing to have our convoys blocked and then attacking them is IMO extremely thin.
- ironyroad
October 8, 2010 at 11:27am
Jackson--how stable would things in Pakistan be if we didn't give them aid? Don't they get like the second or third most aid? Are we paying them off because there's a chance things could get worse there if we weren't buying them off? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.
- MOLLYSIMON
October 8, 2010 at 11:34am
I've only just noticed that there's a new article over in Entanglements by Steve Metz, saying more or less the same thing.
- ironyroad
October 8, 2010 at 11:34am
Molly - it is a fair point, but we are giving aid to a regime that is manifestly and aggressively not on "our side", cannot be trusted to be on our side, is subject to control by shadowy figures in its intelligence service whose allegiances are known to no one, and whose political masters glibly talk about "strategic depth of 17 million" in a nuclear exchange with India. Pakistan is at best an organised kleptocracy and all we are doing is propping up a nasty bunch of lunatics in visible posts who are being controlled by an even nastier bunch of lunatics in the background. There is nothing redeeming in Pakistan's social structure; it has no resources of importance; it is relevant - more relevant than Bangladesh - only because of its capacity to do mischief and its stellar history of having done so. I actually don't have any solutions to offer, but the United States should have extricated itself from Pakistan and allied itself with India on the day Pakistan recognised the Taliban.
- icarusr
October 8, 2010 at 11:47am
"Pakistan is at best an organised kleptocracy and all we are doing is propping up a nasty bunch of lunatics in visible posts who are being controlled by an even nastier bunch of lunatics in the background." This says it all, Molly.
- jdyer
October 8, 2010 at 3:33pm
"In truth, then, America really has only one option left in its diplomatic toolbox: Cutting off U.S. assistance. So long as the United States refuses to walk away, Pakistan holds the trump card. True, halting aid could have cascading effects. Democracy may falter. Islamabad might abandon even its paltry efforts to rein in extremists. And there would at least be the possibility of the nightmare scenario: the collapse of the state and nuclear weapons up for grabs. But the United States ought to take the risk." I agree with the main thrust of Steven Metz's article: " Cut Off Aid to Pakistan" http://www.tnr.com/blog/foreign-policy/78240/cut-aid-pakistan-afghanistan%20#comments
- jdyer
October 8, 2010 at 3:44pm
Thanks for bringing it to my attention, Irony.
- jdyer
October 8, 2010 at 3:45pm
Note to Mr Keinon in the JP, when you invoke opinions of the ex-con Eliot "The Butcher" Abrams, you lose all credibility.
- OscarPeck
October 8, 2010 at 9:41pm
No problem, JD. I do respect the criticism (including from Robert Powell on that thread) that it's wishful thinking w/o any knowledge about how things are on the ground. However, the evidence is mounting that the Washington establishment dishonesty about Pakistan and its role is actually costing American lives and doing concrete damage to our efforts in Afghanistan.
- ironyroad
October 8, 2010 at 11:31pm
"Why Do Radical Muslims Want to Kill Europeans?" by Khaled Abu Toameh October 8, 2010 "How true is it that Al-Qaeda's terror attacks around the world are directly linked to the Israeli-Arab conflict? Some Middle East and terror "experts" have long maintained that the West's support for Israel was one of the main motivations behind the attacks of Al-Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist groups. These "experts" have naively and foolishly endorsed Al-Qaeda Chief Osama bin Laden's argument that the terror attacks against the US and Western targets are the result of the Israeli-Arab conflict. In the past, bin Laden justified his organization's attacks on Americans by citing continued US support for Israel as the main reason. But now that it has been revealed that Al-Qaeda is also planning a new wave of terror attacks in Europe, it would be interesting to hear what excuse bin Laden would have this time. If the Americans deserve to be murdered because of Washington's "bias" in favor of Israel, why are countries such as France, Britain and Germany -- which have, generally speaking, been very supportive of the Palestinians -- now on the black list of radical Islamic groups? The Europeans are being targeted for the same reason the Americans are: for being "infidels" and enemies of Islam and for the Western values they represent. They are being targeted because of their failure to transform into Islamic countries. Those who think that solving the Israeli-Arab conflict will undermine Al-Qaeda and its allies do not know what they are talking about. Bin Laden, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hizbullah Secretary-General Hasan Nasrallah are actually waging a war against Arabs and Muslims who are involved, directly and indirectly, in the Middle East peace process. Al-Qaeda was established in 1989 in Afghanistan, and not in the West Bank and Gaza Strip or any Arab country. Al-Qaeda was one of the by-products of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and not the creation of the Jewish state in mandatory Palestine in 1948. Al-Qaeda was established with one goal in mind: to defeat the all the non-believers, including the US and its Arab, Muslim and Western allies. Bin Laden and his friends want to kill Europeans not because of settlement construction in the West Bank ,or the blockade on the Gaza Strip; they want to kill Europeans because Europeans are not Muslims and have different values. The Europeans need to understand that their support for Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular will not help them avoid "punishment" by radical Muslims. The policy of appeasing Muslim terror groups also will not help. On the contrary, each concession by the US and its allies to Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hizbullah will be interpreted as a sign of weakness that will subsequently lead to more violence. The only connection between the Muslim terrorists and the Middle East conflict is their dream of destroying Israel. They want to destroy Israel not because they love the Palestinians, but because they regard Jews as "infidels." They want to destroy Israel because they believe that all of Palestine is Muslim-owned land that belongs only to Muslims. Those who think that solving the Israeli-Arab conflict will undermine Al-Qaeda and its allies do not know what they are talking about. Bin Laden, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hizbullah Secretary-General Hasan Nasrallah are actually waging a war against Arabs and Muslims who are involved, directly and indirectly, in the Middle East peace process. Renewed peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have only increased the terror groups' appetite to carry out their schemes. The only way to deal with the terror threat is by stepping up the war against Al-Qaeda, Taliban and other radical Islamic groups." http://www.hudson-ny.org/1595/radical-muslims-want-to-kill-europeans
- K2K
October 9, 2010 at 1:08am
Keinon has a lot more credibility than Oscar "the pest" Peck, Abrams or no Abrams.
- jdyer
October 9, 2010 at 11:06am
Certainly no one would question the author of this disjointed series of non sequiturs as not being an export on pomposity. You can overlook the obvious if you want to, but the illegal Jewish settlements are not "teeny-weeny" but rathter make the map of the West Bank and East Jerusalem look like a piece of Swiss cheese, and they (along with the new loyalty oath) are going to bring down the latest attempt at settlement talks, which seems to be just fine with Mr. Peretz. It may not be so fine with the people who have to put their lives on the line every day to defend Israel's intransigence. As an article in the Financial Times put it on 10/11, the "Israeli mindset that the US will always support its existing policies" must be broken, and Israel must recognize the need to cooperate in the rest of the world's attempt to find a solution. Otherwise, "then $3bn a year will be better spent on Americans at home than [on] bankrolling a nation that ignores US foreign policy interests abroad." (Written by a former legal adviser to Abbas, who is now a fellow at the Kennedy School, who has it right regardless of what anyone may think of either of these allegiances.)
- mlottman
October 12, 2010 at 4:40pm