Daniel Pipes--one of the most insightful, judicious, and fair-minded analysts on the Middle East--recently published a column that my friend Kevin Brehmer and I had a discussion about. The discussion also (briefly) included Pipes himself. I found the whole thing interesting enough that I decided to post our correspondence.
This is lengthy, but if you have a genuine interest in what's going on in the Middle East, you'll probably find it worth the time. I'm hoping others will comment as well. Starting with the Pipes column, we then have...
...some worthwhile discussion.
To follow this fully, start by reading the Pipes column, which you can find at his web site by clicking here.
Kevin sent me the article, mentioning his agreement with Pipes. I responded as follows:
---
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002
From: Dean Esmay
To: Kevin Brehmer
Re: Pipes on a new US policy toward Israel & Arabs
I think Pipes is right on all the big issues here.
However, my belief is that the Bush administration is temporizing, because they feel they need Saudi and other Arab support to go after Iraq, and that's more important to us right now.
But that still means Sharon is mostly doing the right things.
Dean
---
Date: Tue, 7 May 2002
From: "Kevin Brehmer"
Subject: Re: Pipes on a new US policy toward Israel & Arabs
To: "Dean Esmay"
I believe you are quite right on your point. In fact, I feel a bit remiss not mentioning it myself.
One big thing neither of us mentioned though is the implacability of the Arabs themselves...They want to talk, talk, talk, now to get what they can. What they cannot get through diplomacy they will be more than happy to get through terrorism later. After we tire of the terrorism the Arabs will be more than happy to go back to the table and talk, talk, talk some more to get the rest.
...Please note how the Arabs seem to offer their side of history as the unbiased one. The entire west bank is "occupied territory." It is actually disputed territory. But since they once "owned" it they must have it given "back" to them as a sine qua non for any future negotiations. If we did force the Israelis to give the west bank back in toto then they would simply demand more land as a prerequisite for any future negotiations. One story illustrates my point quite well.
I viewed on MSNBC last weekend a tape smuggled out of Saudi Arabia by an MSNBC journalist. The Saudi government confiscated all his other taped interviews. The one that escaped is quite revealing, though.
On that tape a young Saudi Arab in native dress when speaking about the west bank of the Jordan River mentioned, "The Israelis are occupying our territory and should give it back."
The only thing I can think this young man meant is that the land was once Moslem Arab land and he wants the Arabs to have it back. If this is so it portends pessimistically about the future of the Levant.
---
Kevin also wrote to Dr. Pipes:
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002
From: "Kevin Brehmer"
Subject: A new US policy toward Israel & Arabs
To: Daniel Pipes
I read your column with great interest. I have problems with your solutions.
One, "Stand unequivocally by Israel to signal the Arabs that their dream of destroying Israel is futile." I understand and agree that Arabs must forfeit the hope of ever destroying Israel. I thought this myself; but, I wonder if they ever will do so.
I veiwed a revealing tape secreted out of Saudi Arabia by an MSNBC journalist. Please note the other tapes were confiscated from this MSNBC journalist by the Saudi government. This is the only one that made it out of the country.
On this tape a young Saudi arab dressed in the customary robe of arabs stating "The west bank is our land and the Israelis should give it up." I found
this quite revealing considering that this young man was arguing his case for the PALESTINIANS, not the Saudis. He was obviously making his case that the
west bank was ARAB, or MUSLIM land, not western or Israeli land.
This makes me wonder first, if the Saudis care one single whit about the Palestinians. Second, this statement makes me also wonder if the Arabs will ever consider "forfeiting" any Arab or Muslim land to anybody else. I think this attitude is more prevalent the closer you get to the two holy cities of Mecca and
Medina.
If and only if this is true, then I doubt the Arabs will ever actually ever give up hope in their revanchist policy on the west bank. Jordan may have forfeited
any claim to the west bank; but that does not mean the other Arab Muslim countries have.
If I am correct in assuming this then I believe it necessarily follows that ALL the Arab diplomacy surronding the west bank is simply subterfuge to
retrieve the west bank diplomatically since they failed doing so militarily over four successive wars.
This goes a long way to explain the current Mideast violence and (I believe) your correct logic in assessing Israel's position. Does this mean there is
no diplomatic solution? Is there only a military one?
* Discourage Arab-Israeli negotiations until the Arabs clearly and consistently show they have fully come to terms with Israel's existence. Is this really
possible? After reading "Empires of the Sand" and part of "The Closed Circle" I now believe the Arabs will not do so since their religious identity is much
stronger than their national identity.
This becomes very problematic since this problem obviously transcends national borders and permeates all societies where Moslems are even a large minority. Indonesia's recent problems illustrate this scary problem.
Anything, any perceived slight sets these radical Moslems off. They even go so far as to murder their own moderate Moslem brothers! Is it possible to ever
placate such unreasonable people? Is it possible to separate the radical sects from the moderate sects of this Moslem faith and negotiate with them? If we
attempt to do so then the radical Moslems will murder them, too.
I am coming around to believe you are right stating we must first have a decisive military against these radicals before we can ever negotiate with them.
Their governments have a long history of fighting losing wars and blaming us for their problems that follow. Forget the fact that the wars they fight
might bankrupt their governments; or that their own governments may have bankrupted themselves.
* Take steps to prevent Arab violence against Israel. Is the only solution to this one a military one?
Respectfully,
Kevin Brehmer
---
Pipes' response, while brief, tells us that he'll probably be saying more in the future:
To: Kevin Brehmer
From: Daniel Pipes
> I am coming around to believe you are right stating
>we must first have a decisive military against these
>radicals before we can ever negotiate with them.
Glad to hear it - and good questions and good points
you sent me! But I fear I must limit myself to public
writing - there are just not enough hours in the day
to reply to your questions in the manner they deserve.
I have noted them and hope to take up these topics in
future columns.
Yours truly, Daniel Pipes
---
Comments from Dean:
I believe, and have for some time, that the proper strategy for the U.S. is to temporize until we can crush Saddam Hussein. I believe that this is in everyone's best interests, most especially Israel's.
It has been observed by Pipes and others that the mindset of much of the Arab world is different from the Western world's. I think one of these ways is that the concept of a "bully" means much less there than here. In Western cultures, the tough guy is often (even reflexively!) considered a bully. But in much of the world, perceptions are that the man who wins the fight is the strong one and deserved to win, and the man who loses is weak and deserved to lose. If that is generally true, it explains why dovish strategies by Labor governments in Israel and by previous American administrations have augured into the ground like a crashing airplane.
A victorious United States in Iraq would shake up much of the Arab world, giving us more prestige than any amount of negotiating. It would also knock out a person who is very dangerous to most of the world, including Israel and America, and leave us in a much stronger negotiating position with the other nations in that region.
There are those of us who think we can do things better in the long run by taking Baghdad first, rather than truculently facing down the entire Arab world over Israel. By the same token, I note that a number of Jews have started to say (to their own surprise) that the current Bush administration is actually more pro-Israel than any administration in history--a view I think is basically justified. Not all agree; for example, Ara Rubyan of the Postmodern Politics site seems to view anything less than outright endorsement of everything Sharon does as a betrayal of the entire war on terrorism. But I think that's an extremist view, and I respectfully dissent.
History will be the judge. But I suspect that a year or so from now, Saddam Hussein will be out of power (or obviously on his way out) and that, as a result, Israel will be in a better position than she has been in some time.
In fact, I suspect that Israel is closer to peace (or whatever passes for it in the Middle East) right now than she has been in decades. This surprises a lot of people when I say it, but I'm quite serious. Let's hope I'm right.
Dean
By the way, in case anyone missed it, we had some equally useful conversations about the history of the Palestinian region earlier. Go to http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000022.html to see one of our best earlier discussions.
First, allow me to clarify: I don't suggest that we dance to Sharon's tune. I DO suggest that Sharon is fighting a battle in the greater war that we are fighting -- the war on terror.
And when we elevate Arafat to the same level as Sharon, as many have done, then we are crippling our ability to win the war.
Allow me to digress by placing my comments in context.
As you know there has been quite a debate amongst the punditocracy about "the Middle Eastern problem." Various scribes have sought to clarify their positions on the issues....
First Richard Cohen of the WP denied he was anti-Semitic. He protested that you can be anti-Zionist and NOT be an anti-Semite.
Then Robert Wright of MSNBC.com denied he was anti-Israel. He protested that you can be anti-Sharon and NOT be anti-Israel.
Along the way, I observed that their protestations were beside the point: This crisis in the Middle East is not about the Jews or about Israel or about Sharon.
Arafat wants you to think it is. CP Abdullah wants you to think it is. Saddam Hussein definitely wants you to think it is.
The fact is that this is about terrorism and whether the Bush Doctrine means anything anymore.
Now Michael Kinsley weighs in with his take on the war on terror:
"The Israeli Prime Minister and his supporters say: President Bush has declared an all-out war on terrorism. The United States has already invaded one country (Afghanistan), toppled and replaced its government, and killed thousands of its citizens, including many civilian noncombatants, in aid of this supposedly transcendent cause. And President Bush not only asserts the right to do the same thing anywhere terrorism may be deemed to lurk, but ostentatiously flips through his appointment book looking for a good day to invade one other country (Iraq) in particular.
"Sharon says: Suicide bombing surely counts as terrorism. And yet the United States insists that Israel not only restrain its response to each new outrage, but actually negotiate with the sponsors of the terror."
Is it wise (or even possible) to negotiate with terrorists before the war is over? If so, why didn't we negotiate with the Taliban and/or Osama bin Laden? Or Saddam Hussein? Or Hitler? Under what circumstances do we decide to circumvent well-established policy against negotiating with terrorists (a policy that pre-dates the Bush Doctrine by several decades)? Do we now acknowledge that terror is divisible? Are there "good" terrorists and "bad" terrorists?
Kinsley continues:
"...terrorism is not an evil that transcends all other considerations. This does not mean, as some would have it, that suicide bombing is justified as a legitimate response of an oppressed people. There may be circumstances where that is true, but the circumstance of the Palestinians (who, among other considerations, have effectively won their fight for statehood in principle and are arguing about the details) is not even close."
Hmmm. "There may be circumstances where [suicide bombing is justified]"...but this ain't it. What a relief! Suicide bombing is not justified.....this time. When is it justified? He doesn't exactly answer that question in a specific way, but he does proceed with a clever taxonomic sub-classification of terror:
"...an illegitimate tactic used in a legitimate cause, as part of a conflict with legitimate and illegitimate tactics and aspirations on both sides, is different from an illegitimate tactic used for purposes that are utterly crazed and malevolent."
Confused? Me too. But he does offer a helpful summary (the "Kinsley Doctrine?"):
"In short, circumstances matter. They may not matter morally, but they matter in terms of what you do about it. This fairly obvious point - which the Bush administration clearly believes, though it cannot say so - undermines the very concept of “terrorism,” which is based on the premise that circumstances do not matter. The axiom is that terrorist tactics are uniquely evil and uniquely threatening to civilization and demand an uncompromising response."
Hmmm. In short, I think he is saying that "even if" you believe our war on terror is justified, surely you must believe that "Sharon's war on Arafat" (as the Times' Tom Friedman puts it) is not.
Why not? Because the cause of Palestinian statehood is a legitimate cause. It is justified in using "illegitimate tactics." This, says Kinsley, stands in stark contrast to using terrorism to achieve purposes that are "utterly crazed and malevolent."
But....dang it! Mr. Kinsley doesn't ask the logical follow-up question: Would the destruction of Israel qualify as a "crazed and malevolent" purpose? Because there are those of us that believe that is the ultimate purpose of the current leadership of the Palestinian people.
So ... if you believe that there are "legitimate terrorists" as opposed to "crazed and malevolent terrorists" then I would say that you are soft on terror.
Although I respect all of Ara's points, I must point out that, well, we did negotiate with the Taliban. We said, "turn over bin Laden, and we won't overthrow your government and pummel you into the dirt." We said it several times. We even said it after the invasion had started.
It's pretty rigid, but it's negotiating. Now the American position toward Arafat is harsher than I can remember any American administration ever taking: "Good words. Now we'd better see some action. We mean it. We want to see action." That's been the unwavering line from everyone in the administration; clearly, both the "moderates" (Powell, Rice) and the "hard liners" (Rumsfeld, Cheney) are in lock step with that position now.
While Arafat's promised action and betrayed it before, I can't be the only one who's noticed he's been looking nervous lately.
"We'd better see action" is not exactly "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" but it's harsher than anything I can remember any American administration saying to Arafat. Sure, it's just words, but I'm willing to bet there were career diplomats at Foggy Bottom soiling their pants when they heard the President intended to take that line.
Now, if we can keep saying it with a straight face until we accomplish our larger strategic objectives, the war effort will be well-served. If Arafat weasels out again, then we might be forced to take the Pipes path immediately--whether we like it or not. :-(
Dean, There is a big difference between "ultimatum" and "negotiation." What we demanded of the Taliban was unconditional surrender. Read Bob Woodward's account of it in the Washington Post; our diplomats changed the initial message to stiffen it up substantially so that it was clear that there was nothing negotiable about our demands.
It's simply not the same as what's happening now in Israel.
Check out Tom Toles' cartoon at:
www.uclick.com/client/nyt/tt/2002/05/06/index.html
I think he says it all.
Is asking Sharon to show restraint not in line with the Bush Doctrine? Absolutely NOT. When Sept 11 happened. Bush did not roll over Afghanistan a day or two later. He showed restraint. He investigated and determined that Al Qaeda & Bin Laden were responsible. Then he decided how he was going to proceed and then he made his demands of the Taliban. We didn't drop bombs for about 4 weeks. That is restraint!
Also, part of the Bush Doctrine is to go after terrorist cells and the States that sponsor terrorism. As we all know Arafat is not a leader of a State and frankly at this point he isn't much of a leader of anything.
But, currently, he is all Israel has to deal with if there is to be peace.
Unless Israel plans to obliterate the Palestinians - then Sharon needs to show restraint. Yes, there is a difference between an ultimatum and a negotiation.
There is also a difference between living and being alive. With the tanks and the fighting and the impatience Sharon can insure that the Israelis continue to be alive. Without negotiating a peace the Israelis will not really live ever again.
Dean:
I believe I have a partial explanation for your "bully" concept you mentioned here. David Pryce-Jones mentions in the first chapter to "The Closed Circle" why this might be.
In this chapter, he mentions the legacy of tribal societies in the Middle East. He states Arab tribal society has local, parochial loyalties. The Arabs' first loyalty is to his clan then to his own tribe. His loyalty then, to his country, or nation-state, is last.
This means the western concept of nationalism is non-existent in the Arab mind. We do not understand just how local their mindset is. Each Arab identifies much more strongly with his religion than with his individual country. This leaves a cultural gulf between our world and theirs.
Arabsí strong identity with their religion complicates any negotiations with them; Arab sensitivities transcend national boundaries in non-secular ways. Considering these sensitivities becomes problematic when negotiating with individual nations since we must negotiate with individual tyrants, or at least individual, corrupt, myopic governments.
Each tyrant probably seized power from another tyrant and must necessarily protect against having the exact same done to him. His most trusted people are those who helped him achieve national power: his clan or tribe. Saddam Hussein is a classic case in point. Saddamís entire group of advisers is his own family. He trusts nobody else.
This power structure invites challenges to his power. The Arab leader must crush his political enemies. They will crush him if he does not.
You can see just how this cycle of power challenge followed by muscle flexing can crush free expression and any sense of individuality. Any sense of loyal opposition does not exist in the Arab world. Middle Eastern tyrants see as disloyalty any contrary idea. The Middle Eastern tyrant must crush this perceived threat. This, in turn, prevents expression of new ideas.
A stagnant society results. This dynamic explains the cyclical problems within modern Middle Eastern governments. It also goes a long way to explain the concept of bullying you mentioned earlier.
On top of this, the Israelis are western in their outlook contrary to the Arabs. The radical Arab movements we see today are very intolerant. They see western influence ìpollutingî their Islamic culture. The only solution in their minds is to return to a ìpureî Islamic state that has never before existed.
This dynamic explains why radical Arabs seek to expel the U.S.A. from Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East. It also explains why they want to expel Israel from the Levant. It also totally ignores the part governments representing Arabs for centuries played in incompetently representing them.
The case of Egypt Muhammad Ali illustrates this better than any other. Mr. Ali, who represented Egypt in the 19th century, so incompetently managed the finances of Egypt that he asked the British government to run the entirety of Egypt! The British turned him down. Muhammad Ali then asked the British to manage the Suez Canal since he could not. The British accepted that one. This is not western imperialism. This is Middle Eastern incompetence.
Superimposing all this on top of the power-challenge dialectic gives you some idea of what we are up against in the Middle East. It also explains how the bullying tyrant plays Middle Eastern ignorance off against the west to keep himself in power.
Respectfully,
Kevin Brehmer
Rosemary:
Have you ever heard a description of what a 15,000 pound "daisy cutter" can do when you drop it on an Afghan village?
That is definitely NOT restraint.
Far be it from me to suggest we did the wrong thing in Afghanistan. Au contraire, it was most correct.
But to call it restraint...well, that's stretching it.
"Terrible swift sword" might be a more, ahem, picturesque description.
Re: what the Israelis did, going house to house, putting their fighting men in harm's way to clean out a nest of terrorists, while minimizing civilian casualties...that was pretty restrained.
You know the part of Jenin that was bulldozed was a very minor part of the camp. And the camp is a very small part of the town itself. I can give you a link to aerial photos showing the extent of the destruction.
The Israelis called it "using a pair of tweezers", and absent the ironic twist in that phrase, I think they had it just about right.
Even the Palestinians now admit there was no "massacre." No Palestinians were "obliterated."
But, as we know, war is hell, no matter how you cut it. Unfortunately there is probably more to come before it's all over.
I DO find it unfortunate that Sharon's own Likud Party has endorsed a non-binding resolution rejecting the formation of a Palestinian state, EVER.
Oddly enough that just serves to make Sharon look like a moderate. Maybe that's why they did it..?
Ultimately, there needs to be two states living side by side in peace.
Re: waiting to gather the evidence...the Israelis went in, they knew who was complicit in the many acts of terror leading up to that point. Many terrorist groups had, after all, taken credit proudly.
And, in the weeks leading up to the Passover massacre, the Israelis had declined to retaliate at all; but public outrage boiled over as did the patience of the government. We forget too soon...
As for Arafat: The guy is a terrorist. Full stop. He is signing the reimbursement checks for those who bomb innocent women and children. And when he's caught red-handed he denies it and then calls it "unemployment compensation" for the bombers.
Why are you so willing to believe that garbage? You're smarter than that!
How can you negotiate with someone like that?
As for the "difference between living and being alive"...I hate to say it but many widows and orphans (and widowers too) would suggest that this is cold comfort.
I am going to respond only to the points I feel Ara is missing...
#1 "Have you ever heard a description of what a 15,000 pound "daisy cutter" can do when you drop it on an Afghan village? That is definitely NOT restraint. "
Considering we have the fire power to make that country into a parking lot - yeah its restraint. What I actually was referring to was the fact that we didn't go off half cocked on Sept 12th or 13th. We investigated and concluded who was responsible and made demands - when they weren't met - BAM.
#2 "Why are you so willing to believe that garbage? You're smarter than that! How can you negotiate with someone like that?"
I am smarter than you are obviously giving me credit for being - that's a certainty. How can I believe what precisely? I believe Arafat is a terrorist I'm sure that's not disputable. I also believe Arafat is who Israel HAS to deal with - this also is currently not disputable. Unless of course as I stated earlier Israel PLANS to wipe the Palestinians off the map. I am assuming that they're not so they have to negotiate.
#3 As for Jenin - I for one defended the Israelis response and the fact that claims of a massacre were bogus.
My whole point was regarding the Bush Doctrine. I am sick and tired of people whining that Bush is soft on terror because of his dealings with Israel. This is without a doubt the MOST Pro-Israel administration EVER.
If you were President Bush - what exactly would you have done differently? Besides OBVIOUSLY being a democrat - I mean.
Please keep in mind that your "friends" around the world are watching you.
(Ducking to avoid the crossfire)
I keep meaning to point out--isn't it interesting that, while the Likud party voted on a statement denying the Palestinians a state, they didn't actually vote to say that Arafat should not be talked to or dealt with in any way?
Also, I do wonder: is Sharon soft on terrorism if he supports a Palestinian state against the obvious wishes of his party? Is he waffling on the war?
Dean
(phoning in from triage, being treated for superficial burns)
Re: Sharon being "soft on terror."
Clearly this proves that Bibi has been reading my web log "Postmodern Politics" (www.rubyan.com/politics) and has seen that there may be some politcal hay to be made.
Seriously, we musn't forget that, absent Bibi's resolution, no one alive on Planet Earth would dream of suggesting that Sharon was a "moderate" or was "waffling".
Sharon has always been the hardest of the hard line. "Carving out his place in history with a bayonet" was a phrase used to describe Sharon recently.
And that was one of the nicer descriptions.
So when Bibi outflanks him on the right and defines a new harder line position, well, I'd say we've passed thru Alice's Looking-glass; over there, Sharon is a moderate.
Who'd of thunk it?
So it's too soon to tell if Sharon has made a fatal mistake. We have to see if one or more of the following things happens in response: more murder-suicide bombings occur and/or the war in Gaza starts up, and/or Bibi defeats Sharon in the next election.
So, in summary, and to respond to your delicious tone of arch bemusement, I'd say it's too early to tell if what Sharon is doing is a mistake.
If he is trying to broom Arafat off the stage, well, it might succeed. But waiting behind Arafat are more hardliners, i.e., Hamas. They, too, have a stake in brooming Arafat.
So maybe Arafat v. Sharon is just the undercard. Maybe the main bout is Bibi v. Hamas?
Stay tuned. Remember, we're dealing with the Middle East. If you don't like what's happening, wait 15 minutes, the tables will turn.
And you'll probably get something worse rather than something better.
Mr. Rubyan:
You make some interesting points here. I am not sure yet whether or not Sharon has made a mistake in being hard-line at all. I personally believe he is in a very difficult political position. First, he must provide security to his constituents. He must stop the terrorist bombings at all cost.
Arafat, Hamas, et. al. intend to make this impossible; that is why they sponsor terrorist bombings in the first place. That is why I believe Sharon must first impose a military solution as a status quo before beginning ANY negotiations with anybody.
Next, he must negotiate with some representative for the Palestinians, but who? I do not believe Arafat any longer deserves to represent anybody. Every concession he makes is always a minute too late and a dollar short. Arafat will do so again in the future given half a chance. He must go.
But with whom, then, do you negotiate? The Palestinians will choose somebody who is worse than Arafat. Radical Moslems will murder any moderates the moment they try to be moderate. They just did so in Indonesia; they will do so again here, too.
This naturally chases off any competition except the radical, violent types. This dialectic also removes any loyal dissent that might otherwise compose a democratically elected government representing Palestinians.
This appears to me as one intractable problem. It will take a diplomat with some good imagination to figure a way of this mess.
Kevin Brehmer
Mr. Brehmer,
Thanks for the feedback. I always appreciate thoughtful comments like yours.
I might be more bullish than you about the prospects for peace. Here's why:
Charles Krauthammer writes that the emerging conventional wisdom is wrong when it says that Israel is fighting an unwinnable war. Here's what he said:
"After the Passover massacre, Israel launched its offensive into Palestinian territory. The most dramatic effect has been a reduction in terrorism. It is no accident that while Israel suffered seven suicide bombings in the seven days of Passover, there has been but one successful suicide bombing in the past month. There will surely be others. But the frenzied wave of terror that pushed Israel over the edge has been stopped.
"Why is the level of terror down? Because terror does have an infrastructure, and attacking and degrading it makes it harder for terrorists to operate, as the United States proved in Afghanistan. During Israel's offensive, hundreds of bomb makers, gunmen and trainers were captured. Others are on the run. Huge caches of illegal weapons and explosives were seized or destroyed. Can they be replaced? Perhaps, but it will take time. It took Arafat eight years to build this arsenal. He will not be able to replace it in a day."
Is Krauthammer right? Well I do know that we are now seeing something new: dissident voices rising up within the Palestinian side. Even Hanan Ashrawi, the most recognizable brand-name in Palestinian apologia, is waxing skeptical about Chairman Arafat's recent "performance."
Who'd have thunk it?
But luminaries like Paul Wolfowitz, Sandy Berger, George Mitchell, Colin Powell and Kofi Annan want to ignore the evidence.
Wolfowitz has even gone on record airily dismissing Israel's recent military campaign, calling it a "temporary tactical success."
But where was Wolfowitz when the nervous nellies were talking "quagmire" in Afghanistan? We redoubled our efforts and won that war handily. Why can't we allow Israel the same latitude in their own war on terror?
Krauthammer understands what's at stake when he says this:
"The fire will cease in the Middle East not when a piece of parchment is signed (remember Oslo?) but when the Palestinians conclude that they are no longer winning, that the Israelis are not going to give up and go away, as they did from Lebanon. Israel's offensive has begun to restore the deterrent that Israel forfeited with its unceasing concessions under Oslo and its precipitous withdrawal from Lebanon."
That's why I'm bullish. I think Sharon's approach is working. Oddly enough it is aided and abetted by Netanyahu, who gives Sharon political cover by making him look moderate.
Kind of like a good-cop/bad-cop routine.
So, maybe we are seeing the beginning of a trend toward peace. But it is a peace built on strength, not wishful thinking.
You can read more of my comments at:
"Postmodern Politics"
http://www.rubyan.com/politics
I'll be even more succinct than Ara: over the last decade or so, every time the Jews act like civilized, decent people, they get kicked in the nuts.
If tyrants get and keep power by brutality, then what will they respect at the negotiating table? Someone who, when he gets kicked in the nuts, whips out a baseball bat and swings for your head like Mark McGuire.
Decent, civilized people are rightly appalled and repulsed by such behavior. That's why being decent and civilized in certain parts of the world will get you killed.
Mr. Rubyan,
I believe we are in agreement on this most important point. There will be no political solution in the Middle East without a military solutionÖfirst. It is painfully obvious the Palestinians, and other Arabs in general, have been represented by the most shortsighted, stupid, pigheaded, incompetent, and corrupt leadership ever seen. Any time you turn down 97% of what you want in favor of getting 100% you deserve to be taken to the political woodshed. The Arabs just were.
Unfortunately, they suffer the worst fate of any person in Asia, the loss of face. But their loss is a direct result of incompetent leadership. After reading ìEmpires of the Sandî and ìThe Closed Circleî (both appear on the Daniel Pipes reading list @ http://www.danielpipes.org) I learned just how poorly led the Arab Middle East is. They have not won any wars, let alone any battles, since being forced to sign the Treaty of Carlowitz in 1699.
They lost all wars, except WWI, since. They blame the imperialist west for all their problems. The Moslems of the Middle Ages were the first imperialists in modern history. They despise all rival religions as ìinfidelî while imposing their beliefs on others. They exhibit narrow-mindedness from the burning of the ancient library of Alexandria to the demolition of Buddhaís in Afghanistan then bemoan their humiliation after losing wars to technologically superior enemies.
These people need to be ruled over. I doubt they will make democracy work w/ Arafart heading a Palestinian government. They are their most peaceful and productive when they are not left to their own devices.
That is why I disagree with Dean regarding civilized people. The Arabs are civilized in their own mind. The radical Arabs are just trying to impose their own civilization on everyone in the ME. I just do not see any way of stopping them. They successfully kill off any moderate element.
I wonder just how long the moderate Palestinians will live without western imposition of a moderate government. I fear any such move will simply set off another round of terrorism. I hope Bush does not send our troops to sort out this Palestinian problem.
I doubt these intolerant, narrow-minded people are able to choose any decent government. Their entire social structure works against it. That is why the Israelis need to win this war first.
KevinB
Tremendously worded, keep up the tremendou work