generalspeaking

Spite Friends, Woo Enemies

The government of President Barack Obama has taken offence over a foreign country criticizing its intelligence arms of government interfering in the sovereignty and integral security of countries with which the United States has questionable relations. President Obama was also heard to have sharply reprimanded a foreign diplomat for his quiet but unfortunately-overheard remark that the United States was just doing business as usual, the proverbial 'bully on the block'.

And of course, President Obama is correct; as a sovereign country itself the United States has the right to make any and all decisions it feels are in the best interests of America. Therefore, the State Department claimed, in issuing a warning to its detractors, it will continue business as usual. And if it appears to the international community, or at least some members of same, along with the administration's opponents in Congress, as though it is spiting friends to wow enemies, so be it.

It especially took umbrage at remonstrations by Mexico and Canada that the United States had illegally annexed territories that belonged to them, and that they would very much appreciate return of said territories, thanks very much. Oh, and while they're at it, recompense in the form of monetary reparations would be anticipated. Along with patriation of certain historical documents, and kindly get to it. Time to re-write North American history.

Of course none of this actually happened. At least not since we last blinked. But what has happened is that the Obama administration has gone out of its way to confront America's sworn enemies, blandly overlooking bitter confrontations and incendiary threats and past atrocities to proffer friendship and understanding, while at the same time seeming more than eager to sacrifice its long-standing collaborative friends as a measure of appeasement.

While the Obama government claims it has no intention of imposing its view and its terms on Israel respecting the progress of peace talks, it has concomitantly brought pressure to bear upon Israel to bend to its wishes. Demanding that Israel halt all intention to continue building within areas of Jerusalem that are majority Jewish, and within the city's municipal boundaries. For it contends that only in this way will a peace agreement be possible and accepted by the larger Arab community in the geography.

This, despite the very real and persistent intransigence of the Arab world which continues to insist that negotiations are groundless without the surrender of the Old City, inclusive of eastern, northern and south Jerusalem, and the West Bank; so if surrender does not follow no agreements can be made. Negotiations with pre-conditions effectively sums up these demands, and if they are met pre-negotiations, what is the need to negotiate? And will peace automatically follow?

All the demands for surrendering hard-won, defensive attainments and heritage expectations are for Israel, to sacrifice that which is most dear to its people and the State. Notably, the Palestinians have nothing to surrender under these conditions, simply to assume all entitlements, which appear to grow from strength to strength. And, as long as the final demand for "right of return" is met as is insisted upon, Israel as a Jewish state will simply disintegrate.

No sacrifice too large to accommodate a friend, a mentor, and a supplier of arms and ostensible protection on a large scale. That Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has, under the unevenly awkward circumstances, attempted to satisfy in some measure these demands, with a settlement moratorium for the time being, checkpoint removals and the like is simply seen as preliminary and not accounting for very much of anything. The only incentive handed to Israel is international expectation and that, unfortunately is not sufficient for a country to surrender its right to existence.

But then Israel has long been accustomed to a lack of objectivity and even-handedness, from the international community. That, under this administration, the situation has been expanded, leaving it with no support from the international community is yet another unfortunate reality Israel faces. And Israel knows well what else she faces, having the experience of departing Gaza to witness it becoming a hotbed of terror-driven attacks against it. Which, when it responded, brought the wrath of the international community down upon it.

Under Ehud Barack as Prime Minister, Israel withdrew in 2000 from Southern Lebanon, and that resulted in Hezbollah exulting that it had defeated its enemy, emboldening it to launch attacks across the border into Israel, capturing and killing Israeli soldiers. Ultimately provoking Israel into response. Mr. Barak also inaugurated peace negotiations with the PLO, taking part in the Camp David 2000 Summit to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that came to nothing even though he was prepared to sacrifice to Palestinian demands.

The series of Intifadas that expressed Palestinian rage over their condition of homelessness as a result of the creation of the State of Israel, laid waste for a prolonged period of time the very thought of a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority was formed as a precursor to achieving a Palestinian State; under the PA all the infrastructure for a government was to have been installed, and Israel actively assisted in training and helping to arm a PA security force.

The succeeding intifadas gave fairly resonant indication that all cautious attempts to try for a two-state solution seemed destined to fail. When Ehud Olmert's government bargained directly with the Palestinian Authority to finally achieve a lasting peace and the reality of a Palestinian State existing side by side with Israel, his administration was prepared, and offered to surrender to just about all the Palestinian demands. Sorry, not enough, back to the table.

But as with the failure at Oslo in 1993 with the accord brokered by then-U.S. President Clinton, despite all the hope and the fanfare, and the optics between the PLO's Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and despite that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded the principals, nothing meaningful came of it, with Yasser Arafat deciding that, after all, it wasn't such a good idea, after all, and the Palestinians needed more than was agreed upon.

How much is too much to surrender for a peace that is questionable in its eventual attainment? Well, for the United States no sacrifice that Israel can be committed to make at the behest of her great good friend, is too much. And for the Palestinian Authority and its backers in the Arab world, no sacrifice is quite enough. For Israel, existential realities advise that there is a limit to concessions and sacrifices.

Labels: Israel, Peace, Political Realities, United States

posted by Pieface @ Tuesday, March 16, 2010