How Much Will a 'Palestinian Peace' Cost?

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Mar 27, 2013 at 15:32

The current American Administrative Chief Executive does nothing but express what differing agendas there might be between the disparate parties in the Middle East and that which is expressed for public consumption may not be what some want to hear. Telling the Arabic/Fundamentalist-Muslim world that Israel should be accepted as the 'Jewish State' is like throwing a shoe at the ideological sensibilities that underlie the fervent acrimony of those who have declared a lifelong endeavor to diminish and replace Israel in the Middle East. Add the echoing sentiments of people like Iranian M. Ahmadinejad or 'Palestinian' Abbas and one gets a particularly idea of just how bad that sounded to the non-Jewish parts of the Middle East.

Add further the comments of Abdel Bari Atwan, the editor of the aptly named for Arabic-speaking al-Quds al-Arabi publication, his sentiments as noted by Dr. Pipes provides just exactly what the rest of the Islamic world is expected to feel as the issue of 'Palestine' is in a crucial period for the Muslim designs on Jerusalem. While there is a predominant suspicion of many in the United States that Candidate Obama favors the Islamic persuasions of the Middle East, those of Islamic persuasion target Mr. Obama as an enemy of the Middle East, a conundrum for the Middle East 'peace process.'

So why does there seem to be such a disparity when it is obvious that two sides are trying to play past middle of a problem to overcome the other side. It is in the not so hidden agenda that has its roots in the religions of the regions, namely battle of the prophets; the Jewish prophets and the Islamic Prophet. It has been so from the expulsion of Ishmael from the presence of Abraham. But Mr. Obama's words do not reflect his religious convictions for a 'peace process;' they are spent for political purposes and reasons that are not yet open to a proper assessment.

The American Administrative Chief Executive's first venture into Middle East politics came in the beginning of his first days in office and we have yet to see any stability from the attempt to assuage the Islamic sensibilities: indeed he seems to have stirred more antipathies than solved the issues. The full effects of the Cairo 2009 speech are yet to play fully out. Syria is in its tumult still as its regime holds out until it will be able to anymore. The American Administration is the background of that one, just as Iran is and the Russians are attempting to say "back off."

The spillover has already breached the Syrian-Israeli frontier and will likely do so a few more time before it breaks out all-together. There seems little that can be done short of a full interdiction that will break the back of the Syrian regime and its replacement is allowed to assume power, possibly kind of like Egypt. How will the Obama Administration react then when Israel is replaced as the target of opportunity at their own borders? As it was recently said, "Israel has the right to defend its borders." What is not so clear by the American declaration is how they will do it alone if America cannot intervene without incurring the wrath of everyone else, like the intransigent 'Palestinians' who will never allow Israel its own peace.

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".