The Second Half of the Sentence

Submitted by Robert Kaufman (United States), Jan 14, 2008 at 14:29

Bush has been excoriated for the first 7 years of his presidency for his inattention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as it is now called. I'm old enough to remember when it was the Arab-Israeli conflict, and don't see any reason for it to change except to blur the outlines of the regional hatred of Israel by virtually of its neighbors. We are now told that if this small adjustment is made, the area will relax into mutual cooperation and friendship.

Under the guidance of Condoleeza Rice, he has now bought the package, and will walk the same path that let Clinton into the disastrous failure of his high-intensity diplomatic offensive. Call it a case of "Jerusalem Syndrome." "This conflict has been brewing for centuries, and I am going to solve it." Visions of Nobel Peace prizes dance in their heads, and the security of Israel is put on the back burner.

Both President Bush and Secretary Rice need to be reminded of the second half of the president's statement of June 24. He supports the creation of a Palestinian state, "as long as that state does not represent a threat to Israel." Now that it is clear from the Palestinian elections, the volley of rockets from Gaza and the statements from both political parties that such a state represents an existential threat to Israel, the second half of the sentence has been dropped.

Additional casualties include the call for the end of incitement in Palestinian media and schools, and the requirement that independent militias be disarmed and disbanded. There is a pattern here, and it can be traced back to Res. 181 in 1947. Israel agrees to do A, as long as the Arabs do B. The Arabs don't do B, and announce they have no intention of doing B, yet the world rules that Israel's agreement to do A is still binding.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".