Gosh, Tom, d'ya think so?
This from one of my favorite New York Times columnists, Thomas Friedman. Mr. Friedman writes on today's op-ed page that Israel is doomed because of the President's statement last week that the Palestinians need a new leader.
Oh, the reasons cited by Mr. Friedman are not new: The conflict itself, Arab demographics, and the "explosion" (most apt word, Tom) of Arab media spreading their vile lies and hatred of all things modern and Western, especially Jews and Christians. But Mr. Friedman does not go into this aspect (although, in fairness, he has been both objective and focused on this problem in the past).
But Mr. Friedman shows his true, Democratic (with a capital "D" for Daschle) colors with this concluding line:
"Mr. Bush blinked because he didn't want to alienate Jewish voters. Sad. Because George Bush may be on Israel's side, but history, technology and demographics are all against it".
Wrong and wrong-headed. Wrong, because George Bush is on Israel's side because that is the right thing to do. Jewish voters may or may not line up (they were as much as 36% for Reagan; about half of that for Bush in the 2000 election). Wrong, because technology is clearly on the Israeli side. You name the field, and the Israelis have led the Middle East and most of the world in a wide variety of disciplines, not least among them those with military applications. (It's unclear what the reference might be to, other than media technology and, possibly, nuclear weapons technology, both mentioned indirectly in the column.)
He may be right about the demographics, and this is worrisome, but is hardly a unique Palestinian problem. The best answer to demographics is to keep Arabs from immigrating and becoming citizens of Israel (hard cheese on the fictional Palestinian "right of return"), and force the Arabs to normalize relations so that it won't really matter.
Finally, wrong-headed because the answer to the conflict is clearly not more of the failed "peace process". It's much more accurate to call Oslo and attempts to resuscitate Oslo as a "war process", since it all but guarantees more violence as the Arabs see that terrorism gets them more than the bargaining table. The only way for Israel to end this conflict on terms other than another Holocaust is to smash the Palestinian Authority to smithereens; kill or exile Arafat and his lieutenants (yes, kill...think he really has any friends?); and then let Jordan take over as "interim" overseer of the West Bank. Gaza can be ceded to Egypt in the same fashion.
In short, the "moderate" Arab states would get their wish -- the Middle East, at least the Palestinian portion, would look a lot as it did prior to June 4, 1967, with the singular exception that this time Egypt and Jordan would be at peace with Israel.
Oh, the reasons cited by Mr. Friedman are not new: The conflict itself, Arab demographics, and the "explosion" (most apt word, Tom) of Arab media spreading their vile lies and hatred of all things modern and Western, especially Jews and Christians. But Mr. Friedman does not go into this aspect (although, in fairness, he has been both objective and focused on this problem in the past).
But Mr. Friedman shows his true, Democratic (with a capital "D" for Daschle) colors with this concluding line:
"Mr. Bush blinked because he didn't want to alienate Jewish voters. Sad. Because George Bush may be on Israel's side, but history, technology and demographics are all against it".
Wrong and wrong-headed. Wrong, because George Bush is on Israel's side because that is the right thing to do. Jewish voters may or may not line up (they were as much as 36% for Reagan; about half of that for Bush in the 2000 election). Wrong, because technology is clearly on the Israeli side. You name the field, and the Israelis have led the Middle East and most of the world in a wide variety of disciplines, not least among them those with military applications. (It's unclear what the reference might be to, other than media technology and, possibly, nuclear weapons technology, both mentioned indirectly in the column.)
He may be right about the demographics, and this is worrisome, but is hardly a unique Palestinian problem. The best answer to demographics is to keep Arabs from immigrating and becoming citizens of Israel (hard cheese on the fictional Palestinian "right of return"), and force the Arabs to normalize relations so that it won't really matter.
Finally, wrong-headed because the answer to the conflict is clearly not more of the failed "peace process". It's much more accurate to call Oslo and attempts to resuscitate Oslo as a "war process", since it all but guarantees more violence as the Arabs see that terrorism gets them more than the bargaining table. The only way for Israel to end this conflict on terms other than another Holocaust is to smash the Palestinian Authority to smithereens; kill or exile Arafat and his lieutenants (yes, kill...think he really has any friends?); and then let Jordan take over as "interim" overseer of the West Bank. Gaza can be ceded to Egypt in the same fashion.
In short, the "moderate" Arab states would get their wish -- the Middle East, at least the Palestinian portion, would look a lot as it did prior to June 4, 1967, with the singular exception that this time Egypt and Jordan would be at peace with Israel.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home