March 25, 2008
There is a piece by Eric Trager at Commentaries about the tepid value of Dick Cheney`s visit to Israel. I concur, and seriously doubt the value of the ``peace process``.
Mr. Trager sums up with this:
Of course, as I’ve long argued, success in the Annapolis ``process`` remains highly improbable, beset by weak leaders, a lack of commitment to resolving the conflict’s substantive issues, and the disinterest of key regional players. Yet the Bush administration has invested heavily in promoting it, including through recent visits by the President and Vice-President, as well as rounds of shuttle diplomacy undertaken by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. With barely nine months remaining in office, the administration will have to address both sides’ strategic concerns more directly, and thereby bridge the widening gap between them, if it hopes to receive any bang for this substantial diplomatic buck. Indeed, when the parties openly talk around each other in the presence of the Vice-President, the entire American peace enterprise, with its repetitive calls on leaders to make ``tough decisions`` looks like a complete sham.
An argument erupted on the way to proceed, and I jumped in with the following:
As long as Syria and Iran continue to promote terrorism in the region, Israel will be at risk. The issue of Palestinian terrorism really is moot; without state resources they would be impotent. There will be no peace until the terror-masters are brought to heel, and Israel cannot do that alone. The problem is that the great powers keep intervening. The U.S. should promote a policy which will empower the IDF to fight as needed. We keep holding Israel`s hands behind their backs.
The problem is not in Israel`s stars, but in ourselves. Americans are the sickly pacifists here, I fear. We are allowing Iran to move forward with the development of nuclear weapons. We continue to allow Syria to coddle the Iraqi insurgents. We just aren`t acting like a nation at war...
Until the sponsors of terrorism are dealt with the pot will simmer.
Hope springs eternal in the human breast, and every new peace initiative is trumpeted with much fanfare, but is ultimately a loser, as the Palestinians-and their patrons in Damascus and Tehran (and Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang)-have no desire for peace, but wish to drive Israel into the sea, and the process is merely a strategic endeavor to attain that end. The only hope for peace is the removal of the terror masters, and the restraining of those who help them (Russia, China, North Korea.) That restraint can be accomplished diplomatically and economically. It will not be easy, but haven`t we had enough of poisoned toys, medicines, and pet food coming to America anyway? Aren`t we full yet on Russian oil and gas? There are other markets, and we should develop them. Remember, Port wine was developed not by the Portuguese but by the British, who were at war with France and so developed another wine supplier for themselves. We can do it if we would only try. With economic leverege we can restrain the Great Powers, and with direct pressure-including allowing Israel to carry the war to it`s conclusion-we can clean out the rats nest.
Will there still be terrorism? Of course; terrorism is like an infestation of roaches in a huge apartment complex, controlled but never conquered. The point is, it will become increasingly dangerous to be a terrorist, increasingly futile. This is a matter for American security as much as for Israel. If we are serious about the War on Terror we need to secure Israel, and that will only happen if Syria and Iran are dealt with. We do not currently have the stomach for dealing with them.
On the anniversary of the Iraqi invasion, I was driving through a well-to-do suburb in St. Louis (Clayton) and saw about 50 largely middle-aged protestors waving ``out of Iraq`` and ``Bush=War Criminal`` signs. Now, these were almost entirely white people, well dressed and clean, undoubtedly former hippies who have prospered despite a healthy dislike for their nation. I rolled down the window and shouted at them to grow up, something they did not much appreciate.
What is the moral of the story? Too many Americans live in complete denial of the danger we are facing as a country, and too many are foolish enough to think that soothing words and ``playing nice`` will solve the problem. These are the types who never go into bad neighborhoods but who claim that criminals are merely misunderstood. They hold the same view of terrorists; we are the cause of their hatred, and if we were just nicer to them we could all be friends. They are fools, to put it bluntly. Unfortunately, a great many Americans ARE such fools, completely naive to the realities outside of their comfortable lives.
Yes, there are people who would kill us solely because we aren`t them. The radical Moslems are just such people; they want to reassert themselves, raise Islam into a world religion in complete dominance. This isn`t about justice-it`s about power, and a clash between civilizations, and an old score to settle. Unfortunately, those well-dressed protestors are clueless to that reality.
With friends like these, is it any wonder Israel is constantly in mortal peril?
All the more reason why Bush should have got a declaration of war from Congress after 9/11---against Iraq, Syria, Iran and the shadowy al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah. It would have been over and done with by now. Instead we live in some weird dreamscape where there is no real war or terror threat. While we sit and bicker there are turbaned men in caves and in houses of parliament who plot the slaughter of our children, or our very civilization.
Posted by: Mike Austin at March 27, 2008 05:11 AM (Y2m+m)
I couldn`t agree more, Mike! Our Constitution has a war provision, and the failure to use it gave the Left a club.
It is a crazy world!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at March 27, 2008 04:45 PM (e6n2C)
34 queries taking 0.0059 seconds, 140 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.