What Price for Peace - Freedom?

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Sep 16, 2009 at 12:40

While there is still the antipathy of the indigent Arab population towards the State of Israel possessing a sovereign domain in the Middle East, and the rhetoric of Mssr's Nasrallah, Mashaal, Abbas, Erekat, and others like the recently re-invigorated disposition of enmity from the Lebanese like Mr. Jumblatt, coupled with the decidedly other-worldly squeaky voice of 9-11 notoriety, there is a great deal of wondering if the American Administration can indeed be effectual in accomplishing some semblance of peace for Israel, thereby the Middle East. One may assess a minor advancement for the cause in what Dr. Pipes observes as potential progress, but it is so little if one compares it to the photo op of President Clinton shaking hands with representatives of both Israel and the 'Palestinian' opposition over the supposed peace deal of Clinton's Administration (even if it was still-born), or of the deals that cost Mr. Sadat and Mr. Rabin their lives. What price, freedom?

If reluctance, ambivalence, or just plain skepticism seems subliminal in this observation, let us be plain. Israel is in the throes of a dilemma from which, were it any other country in any similar circumstances, would be representative of the calm just before the storm, and the signs of impending hostilities are rife with ready and willing participants. The America Administration needs to shift from a mentality of thinking it can barter Israel's peace by negotiating from an Arabist's perspective, and see the practical implications of the real intent from inside and outside Israel's borders.

There is the correct observation of Dr. Pipes giving Israel a nod for its seemingly one sided posturing of giving concessions without substantial return of the gesture, a minor view in consideration of what Israel has given up in lives and land, while the enemies of Israel who were the beneficiaries of such concessions sat around the receiving table waiting to see what else they can come away with before raising another tantrum, saying 'not enough, not enough.'

Sending letters to the various Muslim governments deemed by the American Administration as moderate enough to be considered approachable for the purposes of negotiations in some form of Middle Eastern peace was in consonance with the posturing seen by the American Administration's earlier overtures to the Middle East Muslim communities, and with good reason. By adopting the moderate Arab mindset of attempting negotiations from their perspective, the idea that terms with Israel would be from an Arab position rather from one that guarantees Israel's sovereignty was seen as a means to push just exactly what Israel's malefactors desired, marginalizing Israel's national stature. Hence, the push to hedge in Israel regarding the settlements became the token effort to keep Israel continuously off balance.

Now Dr. Pipes does indeed incorporate the reasons in his post why this reader is unwilling to acknowledge this vestige of hollow diplomacy, for it is either a mimic of earlier attempts at placating the 'Palestinian' situation with the homogenous mindset of peace at Israel's cost; or it is at worst, being used by the enemies of Israel during 'hudna' while they finalize their preparations for the next intifada, coming soon to your local bazaar. Check out the wares coming from the booths under the colors of Hamas, Hizbollah, the Brotherhood, et al. They come at a price the world will come to find out it cannot afford. Salaam alecum?

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".