Reason for More Cheers - Anyone?

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Oct 9, 2009 at 13:50

Opening the news, we come now to the next installment of political manuevering, where we read/hear that the American Administration may add the Nobel Prize to its list of accolades; that in spite of the lack of any appreciable progress to the Middle East issue of where will true peace be found, dabbling rhetoric will suffice instead, especially if it tingles the sensibilities of those who believe diminishing and/or eliminating Israel from the national scene is the only way the achieve world peace. That apparently reinforces the Nordic mindset of what peace in the Middle East should embrace (ala Oslo).

So more than one cheer is elicited for the American Administration, which in the 'proper' circles of diplomacy one must conclude there is new validation for more than one cheer for the American Executive, mimicking others such as those exultations of adoration received in Egypt and other places (remember Qaddafi?). Leave us not be remiss in adding the smirking approval of the Russian Executive for the 'peaceful' resolution of the differences over which the two world powers struggled concerning missile defenses in Europe.

But a nagging question remains: who of any of those who have concerns about what is happening truly feel that the world is really safer, in any venue, in any place where the populations are under continual assault, just because a 'peace prize' has been tendered for political reasons? Ask that question in Sderot, Kabul, Mosul, Baghdad, or any other place where tears are found instead of cheers, where life is measured by a value system that dehumanizes populations before exterminating them. Where are we to find reasons for applause for that?

Now, a more logical assumption should be drawn from the lackluster diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, that just as the Carter Administration and the Clinton Administration were unable to forge a lasting 'peace' agreement in the Middle East, so too, the current American Administration may find its efforts frustrated as well. Why, one might ask? Simple to speculate, but one might pose this: the partners necessary to accomplish the task cannot agree, ever; and there is the mistaken assumption that an American political ideology is going to provide western incentives for a 'peace' agreement in the environment of an oriental mindset.

Seriously, in spite of the urge to cheer, who really thinks there is going to be a 'peaceful' resolution to the Middle East situation under those conditions?

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".