When diplomacy fails…go with the Shakedown
As of this writing, the United Nations is giving serious consideration to a Statehood petition submitted by Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas. This move by Mr. Abbas is in direct contradiction to the publicly stated wishes of President Obama, which leads me to speculate that Mr. Abbas is either incredibly reckless, or he is confident the required rebuke from the United States would never materialize. Only time will tell. The most telling feature of Mr. Abbas’ strategy for “recognition of Palestine as a State,” is his fervent refusal to similarly recognize Israel’s right to exist. Mr. Abbas further demands a do-over—requiring Israel to return all territories captured in the various military conflicts with its Arab neighbors—as a precondition for returning to the negotiation table. By issuing his proposal in so public a forum (viz UN General Assembly), Mr. Abbas has sent a clear message to the International Community, in general, and to the United States, in particular: butt out. This affront does not bode well for Mr. Obama; it is further evidence of his consistent inability to manage the most basic issues of diplomacy. It also demonstrates why the Palestinians would forever be viewed as second-class citizens of the larger Arab Community.
To understand fully, the depth of the Palestinians’ gripe with Israel, it is important to take into account the recent history of the Palestinian people, especially their relationship with Arab states in the region. The Palestinians could immediately be absorbed into any number of Arab states, if a homeland was genuinely what they [and their benefactors] desire. I suspect, however, that the Palestinians’ problem is Israel–as long as there are Jews in the Middle East, Arabs generally, and Palestinians in particular would have a problem. This is indeed true of the rest of the vast majority of Arab and Islamic countries, many of whom have violent anti-Israel rhetoric embedded in their constitutional charters and in their hearts. While many nations within the League of Arab States provide financial support to the Palestinians, their donations do not match their rhetoric. The funds they do provide, however, are just enough to keep the Palestinians supplied with munitions to wage war against Israel; thus keeping the minds of the Palestinians, off the greater tragedy: abandonment by their Arab fellows. The stark dichotomy between the rhetoric of the Arab Community of nations, with respect to Israel’s alleged mistreatment of the Palestinians, leaves little doubt about its insincerity. Public statements of support for the Palestinians means nothing if these nations refuse to actively provide material support. Surely, the Palestinians must, by now, realize that the lip service from within the larger Arab Community lacks the concrete action necessary to alleviate their plight.
For the sake of clarity, the land Palestinians, and their benefactors claim as their homeland has always been the Jewish homeland. As luck would have it, following a Jewish revolt against Roman oppression and maltreatment in 135 A.D., Emperor Hadrian devised, what he thought was the best strategy for teaching the Jews a lesson: he renamed the entire region, then known as Judea, after the Philistines, arch enemies of the Jews. Ironically, the Philistines were of European heritage.
A concoction of the International Media and their accomplices in academia, the Palestinians’ Arab heritage is linked solely to their geography and their acceptance of Islam. Based on the fact that the larger Arab community has [always] kept the Palestinians at arm’s length, there might even be a case for the retention of much of their European genetic heritage. The giant Goliath, in the biblical story of David and Goliath, was a Philistine. As you would recall, Goliath and his contemporaries taunted the Jews until he met his maker at the hands of the lad David—the teenage son of Jesse—who would go on the later become King of the Jews. With this perspective, it is easy to see the history of Europe’s mistreatment of the Jews. Also evident, is the time course of the conflict between the two sides. It is foolhardy arrogance to believe that as a result of our intellect, or the fading memory of history, we somehow know what it takes to forge peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Like the Palestinians of late, the Philistines’ hatred of the Jews appears to be based solely on the fact that they are Jews.
Would it not be more prudent to explore ways to nurture acceptance (not tolerance) of one another? With acceptance comes the acknowledgement of each other’s right to pursue satisfaction of the instinctive human desire for, among other things, shelter and safety. The notion of tolerance is batted about by social engineers who use it as a tool for bringing warring sides together. Humans tolerate what they do not like, only until we find ourselves in a position to make a radical change. With acceptance; however, we acknowledge the inevitability of the condition in question. We see this phenomenon at work right here in the US, there the Civil Rights Act [legally] imposed tolerance of Blacks. The result was that some acquiesced and fell in line, others tolerated Blacks, and the remainder disguised their true feelings. As stated previously, tolerance is of limited duration, which typically culminates in an explosive outburst of resentment. These outbursts are usually violent and extremely destructive to the larger society.
The idea of acceptance implies inevitability, which is best compared with the role of women in American society. When, in the 1960s, American women sought acceptance as equals in the workforce, men ultimately acquiesced. Had men been asked, simply to tolerate women in the workplace, an eventual rebellion would result, and I think you know who the loser would be. Human nature has demonstrated mankind’s ability to engage in problem-solving. The mere toleration of an undesired condition leaves the door open for varied interpretations of what is required to alleviate the offending condition.
Use of the word Palestine has become a code phrase for masking the users’ anti-Israel beliefs. I would go as far as saying that when spewed by the educational elite and certain segments of the news media, it is a clear indication of their belief that Israel does not have a legitimate right to the land, and most importantly no right to exist as a sovereign country. Nowhere is this more evident that in the case of Jimmy Carter, who, since leaving office has thrown about the term Palestine with a casual arrogance that belies his anti-Israel sentiments.
In spite of the passage of time since Mr. Carter’s exit from office, one fact of his political ideology remains unchanged: he continues to be distrustful of Israel, with a stubborn unwillingness to acquiesce to the reality of Israel’s right to exist. Mr. Carter has gone to great lengths to convince the world of Israel’s misdeeds and maltreatment of the Palestinians, yet he fails to disclose atrocities against Israel, whether from the Palestinians or their cohorts in the region. In the words of Mark W. Muesse, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Rhodes College: “the critics would not tell you that Israel is the most ethnically diverse country in the world.” Instead, you would be fed a steady diet of anti-Israel rhetoric designed to inflame your instinctive urge to take the side of the downtrodden.
In reality, Mr. Carter’s anti-Israel sentiments are in lock step with those of his party. His views are no different from those of Mr. Obama, who continues to call for a “free Palestine.” When Mr. Obama took office, he swiftly signaled that as far as Israel is concerned, it is not business as usual. In my spring 2010 three part series, High Crimes on the High Seas, I discussed Mr. Obama’s mistreatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the signal his actions sent to Israel’s enemies—from Turkey to Somalia.
Unlike Mr. Carter, who hides his anti-Israel sentiments between the covers of his books, and would only spew his similar views to the foreign press, Mr. Obama is more brazen with his feelings towards Israel. I found it mildly rewarding, however, to watch the recent public conciliation of Mr. Obama’s anti-Israel views. No doubt, Mr. Obama’s handlers have refreshed him on the importance of the Jewish vote, as election season nears.
In the long view, we are a society constrained by media bias that transcend the boundaries of morality and spirituality. It is important, therefore, that all men and women of character rise above the instinctive urge to succumb to irrational decision-making. The Middle East situation will never be resolved by the efforts of bullies who seek only to right the wrongs their jaded views permit them to see. A bomb is a deadly weapon whether it is made in the most state-of-the-art facility in Iran, or a barn in Gaza. Whether it is capable of killing thousands, or mere dozens, atrocities must be answered in like measure, irrespective of the relative strength or perceived victimhood of the perpetrator.
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” As God’s admonition to Noah clearly states, Israel has, at least, the rujight to self-defense. Acceptance of this most basic precept of survival would cause Israel's enemies to admit to unprovoked aggression on the part of the Palestinians.
While this view counters the traditional notion of a unilateral conflict in which Israel is forever the aggressor, acceptance is the critical next step toward finding a solution. Neither diplomatic grand-standing, nor media-directed manipulation of the truth will bring about the long sort after peace.
.
