Nations Must Know When to Cringe and Crawl—But for the West It’s Becoming Routine

Posted: 10 Mar 2010 12:13 PM PST

By Barry Rubin

Sometimes selective appeasement is necessary in foreign policy. But when and just how far should a democratic country go in such behavior? Here’s a brilliant defense of giving in at times—which doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with it, but I do respect it—and a recent example of how it’s overdone and mistakenly carried out nowadays.

The Times of London article is by George Walden, a former British diplomat and Conservative member of parliament with a lot of international experience. Let’s consider what he says and how we should interpret it.
The title tells a great deal: “We can’t afford the moral high ground: “In tough economic times, Britain cannot be too picky about whom it does business with.” In other words, the West is much weaker than it used to be and is often the beggar in these relationships with Third World dictatorships.

At times this is true, but at other times craven behavior is unnecessary and dangerous. Indeed, as I’ve often pointed out, the sense of Western weakness (the West cannot do anything) and cowardice (it won’t do anything) is Viagra for aggressive regimes—from Venezuela through Russia and the Middle East to North Korea–and revolutionary groups.

Here are Walden’s vivid examples:

1. The British government had to persuade an enraged Saudi king that the showing on television of a program about his government’s nasty beheading of a princess did not reflect official British views. He writes: “Being careful not to apologize for something over which the Government had no control, in the hope of reversing a devastating trade ban and other sanctions.” This is the right way to handle it, explaining without apologizing and also, one might add, without censoring. Note, however, how often this line has been crossed more recently by the United States and European governments.

2. A cordial meeting with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, “Despite what we knew of Saddam’s crimes, not just against his own people but in London, where his goons were busy poisoning dissidents.” In this case the action was strategic as well as trade-oriented. The British government did it, “Because he was at war with Iran, because the Russians were in Afghanistan and — who knew? — en route for the Gulf; and because, for historical reasons, our exports to Iraq were rather large.”

Supporting Iraq against Iran during the 1980-1988 war was a correct decision. The great mistake though, as I have argued in great detail elsewhere (Cauldron of Turmoil; The Tragedy of the Middle East) was to continue that behavior after 1988, errors that helped produce Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. In other words, strategic appeasement has to be carefully limited and, of course, used only with countries which are actually doing something useful to you, not your enemies (Iran) or those who promise benefits and never deliver (Syria).
3. The British government also “countenanced with little more than a noisy protest the barbarously sophisticated assassination of a British citizen in London, Alexander Litvinenko. Why? Partly because to have taken it farther would have jeopardized our exports to a fast-growing market, where the largest company in Britain, BP, had extensive investments.” The same thing happened in the case of a Libyan embassy employee murdering a British policewoman in cold blood.

I’d say this is going too far. Looking the other way while one of your citizens—and especially one of your own civil servants–is murdered on your territory out of purely commercial considerations seems too craven and a violation of the government’s promise to protect its own people.

4. Prime Minister Tony Blair overrode, “The law of the land in unprecedented fashion to protect the Saudi Royal Family from a corruption investigation in connection with a BAE deal. Legally it was a scandal, but to do otherwise would have put a huge defense contract at risk (you could hear the French salivating), not to speak of the incidental disadvantage of severing anti-terrorist cooperation with Riyadh, which the Saudis had blatantly threatened.”

I think this was a mistake, though perhaps the investigation might have been slowed or reduced in scope. When dictatorships get you to break your own laws like that it is subverting your own society. As for anti-terrorist cooperation, I suspect reasonably that this was more a Saudi than a British benefit. Beware of letting a dictatorship charge you for a service which is more useful to them than to you.

5. The deal allowing a Libyan terrorist in the Lockerbie plane incident go free in exchange for an oil deal with Libya. This is a serious error because not only does it make clear you can be bought and sold but also encourages future terrorist attacks. This—not the attack on Iraq—is the real blood for oil scandal.

Ironically, of course, when once Western states conducted gunboat diplomacy to protect investments and citizens while also to open markets, today the exact opposite occurs. (Is a terrorist attack the equivalent of a modern gunboat?) Walden rightly notes, “We would do well to understand this, because the international moral climate seems destined to become more brutal at roughly the same rate as our economic vulnerability increases.”

One should ask if Western imperialism has been replaced by Third World imperialism. Wow, that’s a good subject to study, isn’t it? Let’s get the academics , journalists, and intellectuals on it right away: Once upon a time North America and Europe were at times aggressive bullies but now that torch has been passed to a variety of radical dictatorships in the Third World. They are guilty of Westophobia, anti-Western racism, opposition to diversity, and a variety of other sins. I hope you can see the potential in this line of inquiry for turning the contemporary Western debate upside down.

But I digress. Walden makes clear regarding his examples: “I am not talking about wars, so much as how sovereign nations deal with one another in conditions of formal peace. “ But I’d go further than this: one can justify concessions or even what seems like appeasement in exchange for something tangible provided by an ally, even if somewhat odious and temporary. (The prime example is the alliance with Stalin’s USSR during World War Two.)

Yet such gifts should never be given to enemies—even in conditions of formal peace—who are trying to destroy the friends and influence of one’s own countries. The reason is that given the most practical considerations, such steps will strengthen the enemies and make them redouble their efforts to attack and undermine.

While acknowledging that Great Britain and America have done wrong things themselves, Walden explains—this should be obvious but unfortunately isn’t:

“Those who look forward eagerly (pop stars and theatre folk very much included) to the demise of the Anglo-American model and the emergence of a multipolar world should pause and consider where exactly these new poles of power are to be located, and how they are likely to behave when they feel the post-colonial boot transferring to the other foot.”

He also notes that some Western countries will merely step in even if others engage in sanctions. Of course, this is a problem in the Iran case with Russia and China.

One error I think Walden makes is to attribute the demand for more moralism as coming from pop stars and cosmopolitan elitists. Yet while such groups may find a cause like saving the whales or freeing Tibet congenial, it seems that nowadays they are more often on the other side, demanding kindness to dictatorships and tolerance of terrorists.

Indeed, given the five cases he cites above, I cannot identity a single one of the “beautiful people” who were outraged and demanded tougher action against Saddam, the Saudis, Libya, or for that matter Venezuela, Russia (over its attack on Georgia, for instance), Iran, or Syria (given its terrorist intimidation of Lebanon.

Tellingly he concludes:

“I am not suggesting we ease our moral joints in preparation to incline the knee in multiple directions. I simply draw attention to the widening gap between our predilection for national outrage and our power for action, and inquire how we propose to bridge it….Above all ask yourself how you would explain your ethical one-upmanship to an-out-of-work aviation technician/oil man/fork lift truck driver in the North of England.”

This made me think of the impoverished British mill workers who demanded sanctions against the Confederacy during the American Civil War because they opposed slavery, even though refusing to buy Southern cotton made them unemployed. Are today’s workers made of the same stuff as their ancestors, even if the elite doesn’t live up to its forbears?

So often we see that what is going on, though, is not dictated by clever strategy but a belief system in which “my country right or wrong” (yes I know the rest of the quote about putting it right if it isn’t) becomes “my country always wrong.” This is what the late J.B. Kelly called the “preemptive cringe” as policy.

And so State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley who never apologized to undermining a democratic friend of the United States did so to Libya. After that country’s daffy dictator Muammar Qadhafi threatened jihad against Switzerland because that country merely wanted to sustain its rule of law against his son’s criminal behavior while on a visit, Crowley made some mildly derogatory remarks.

But once Libya threatened actions against U.S. businesses he backed down. So let’s get this straight. Switzerland briefly arrested one of Qadhafi’s sons on the charge of beating up hotel workers, Libya then kidnapped two Swiss businessmen, imposed a trade embargo on Switzerland, and barred EU citizens from visiting but the United States is apologizing to Libya.

Shouldn’t the United States be backing up brave little Switzerland? Apologizing, crawling, and appeasing should be reserved for those times when it is really required by a compelling national interest. Doing it too often can be habit-forming; teaching others that they can walk all over you to their profit.

Optional footnotes:

I resisted the temptation to make some reference about Walden’s pond being turned into a swamp by excessive appeasement.

I also resisted the temptation to quip that P.J. O’Rourke would certainly make a better–certainly a more entertaining–State Department spokesman than P.J. Crowley. For those who don’t know, O’Rourke is a bitterly acerbic and funny satirical writer.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Related Posts:

• Announcing Construction of East Jerusalem Apartments: Stupid, Yes; Proof of Disinterest in Peace, No
• Going Backward? Understanding and Attempts to Resolve the Israel-Palestinian Conflict
• The Saudi Foreign Minister Explains the New Middle East
• How to Make Defeatism Look Good: Let’s Give Up and Cheer the Islamists

Announcing Construction of East Jerusalem Apartments: Stupid, Yes; Proof of Disinterest in Peace, No

Posted: 10 Mar 2010 05:29 PM PST

By Barry Rubin

There’s been a lot of nonsense written about an Israeli government announcement that 1600 apartments will be built in east Jerusalem. The timing was stupid, of course, since Vice-President Joe Biden was in town and didn’t like the idea. Moreover, to have such an announcement just when indirect talks were about to start between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) doesn’t make Israel look helpful.

But that’s about it.

Anyone who knows Israel really well understands this to be what is called locally a “fashlan,” that is a stupid mess-up as often happens with the government there. Israel combines the candor of a First World country with the bureaucratic incompetence of a Third World one. The ministry simply didn’t think about what the impact would be nor did it consult with the prime minister’s office. It was sheer narrow-visioned incompetence.

Of course, though, Israel has announced since 1993, when the Oslo Agreement was signed, that it would continue building on existing settlements. And the government made clear all along that construction would continue in east Jerusalem. The action, if not the timing, was neither a provocation, the establishment of a “new settlement,” or proof that Israel didn’t want peace.

After all, everyone seems to have forgotten one simple fact: the U.S. government officially accepted Israel’s position that it would keep building in east Jerusalem. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton praised the resulting deal. So how all of a sudden can Joe Biden and the U.S. government say they are shocked, shocked to see that construction (in east Jerusalem) is going on when they agreed to that point months ago? (Doesn’t it seem rather important for the media to highlight that point rather than make it sound that–aside from the bad timing–Israel did something horrible and unexpected to the U.S. government?)

Actually, it’s sort of amusing that with the PA sabotaging negotiations for around 14 months while Israel was seeking them, the PA’s behavior isn’t taken as some proof that it doesn’t want peace while Israel’s single action demonstrates the opposite.

What this announcement really shows is that Israel doesn’t want or intend to give up all of east Jerusalem as part of a peace agreement, which is not exactly news.

Would it be better for Israel’s international position if the announcement had not been made? Yes. Because it allows the United States—which needs excuses for the failure to succeed at peacemaking—and the PA and Arab states—which need some rationale for their own policies to blame Israel

But does it really do any material harm to a peace process which is going nowhere due to Palestinian positions? Or does it make the PA and Arab states, which are supposedly salivating for a peace deal, change their mind? In both cases, no.

So, stupid yes. But deliberate sabotage or proof of warmongering? No.

Related Posts:

• Mideast war in ‘very’ near future?
• Muslims Furious Over Israeli Decision to Highlight Ancient Link To The Land
• More global anti-Semitic incidents reported in 2009 than any year since WWII
• Syria wants Iranian troops guaranteed for front against Israel

IN EMINENT DANGER -
In June of 2005 the Supreme Court shocked and frightened land owners across America by ruling that private property can be seized by the government and sold to private developers in order to generate tax revenue and spur economic growth. That case, Kelo v. City of New London, opened the floodgates for local governments to use eminent domain for private gain. The Supreme Court’s decision triggered an immediate response, and the following year the issue of eminent domain appeared on 12 state ballots – making it the single biggest ballot issue of the 2006 election. The ballot initiatives were successful in 10 states, giving residents in those states varying degrees of protection from eminent domain abuse. Other states have followed suit and passed similar laws. However the problem has not gone away.

In Baldwin Park, California city officials plan to use their eminent domain power to seize more than 500 homes and small businesses. The land will then be sold to the Bisno Development Company – a wealthy and politically connected private developer. The developer will use the 125 acres for projects that will generate more tax revenue. The Baldwin Park proposal is perhaps one of the worst examples of eminent domain abuse in the country (unfortunately it is not the only example).

In Kelo v. City of New London the Supreme Court changed its interpretation of the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. Historically, the government’s right of eminent domain has been invoked when land is needed for a distinct public purpose – such as a highway, public school, hospital or military base. The words “for public use” and “without just compensation” in the Fifth Amendment were meant to provide safeguards against excessive, unpredictable, or unfair use of the government’s eminent domain power. As a result of the court’s decision in the case of Kelo v.City of New London, however, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue. The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

What happened in the city of New London, Connecticut was not an isolated incident. Similar scenarios have played out in communities all around the country. The city of New London was looking for ways to improve its economy. In 2000, the city approved a development plan that would put in office buildings, a hotel, and a health club near the waterfront. When they approved the plan, however, the city gave the developers power to condemn houses whose owners remained unwilling to sell. The city argued that it would be for public good to develop the city and encourage tourism and create jobs, and for that reason, those homes could be seized - and the Supreme Court agreed.

In her dissent, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor criticized the court’s decision to expand eminent domain to include such takings. She wrote that, “under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.” Such a broad interpretation, she argued, could include just about anything.

The Supreme Court has given local governments the green light to confiscate private property for profit. Private homes and small businesses can now be bulldozed and replaced by upscale retail and housing developments, office buildings, hotels, casinos and other redevelopment projects that are owned, not by the public, but by private individuals and corporations. Such abuse of power cannot be what the founding father’s had in mind when they drafted the constitution.

[Editor's Note: It is important to point out that the Bible clearly establishes the importance of private property. In fact, God instituted the concept of private property in the Ten Commandments. Are we not told "thou shalt not steal"? Also, in several of Jesus' parables he indicated his respect for personal property and private gain. Likewise, there is nothing in the epistles that contradicts the right of private ownership and profit.]
Related Links:
• Eminent Domain Opponents Protest in Glassboro - Courier-Post
• Eminent Domain Still Worries Homeowners - NJ Herald
• Condo-Commercial Proposal May Require Eminent Domain - San Diego Union-Tribune
• Baldwin Park Eminent Domain Abuse - Pasadena Star
• Armor for the Age of Deceit - MP3 Download - Koinonia House
- From Koinonia House News Letter

Related Posts:

• Hologram Preachers Slated to Appear in Churches
• Episcopal Church Prepares To consecrate 2nd Gay Bishop
• Bible-based programs for the debt-ridden surge in popularity
• Feds weigh expansion of Internet monitoring

UNRAVELING THE MYSTERY OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE -
With talk of a recession hanging in the air it seems the Federal Reserve may once again cut interest rates. While this news caused stock prices to rebound, it most likely went unnoticed by most Americans. The reality is that few people outside the world of finance take a keen interest in such matters. If TV ratings are any indication, the American public in general is more interested in hearing about Britney Spears’ custody battle than the news that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke cut the federal funds rate by a quarter of a percentage point.

The actions of the Federal Reserve have a significant effect on our daily lives. However it remains something of a mystery to most Americans. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is perhaps the most powerful non-elected official in the world, whose decisions affect every aspect of our economy, from interest rates to the cost of groceries. So what is the Federal Reserve and how did it come into existence? The answer might surprise you.

The Meeting on Jekyll Island

In November of 1910, after having consulted with Rothschild banks in England, France, and Germany, Senator Nelson Aldrich boarded a private train in Hoboken, New Jersey. His destination was Jekyll Island, Georgia, and a private hunting club owned by J.P. Morgan.

Aboard the train were six other men: Benjamin Strong, President of Morgan’s Bankers Trust Company; Charles Norton, President of Morgan’s First National Bank of New York; Henry Davidson, senior partner of J. P. Morgan; Frank Vanderlip, President of Kuhn Loeb’s National City Bank of New York; A. Piatt Andrew, Assistant Secretary of Treasury; and Paul Warburg. The secret meeting, as described by one its architects, Frank Vanderlip, went as follows:
“There was an occasion near the close of 1910 when I was as secretive, indeed as furtive, as any conspirator. I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System.

We were told to leave our last names behind us. We were told further that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure. We were instructed to come one at a time…where Senator Aldrich’s private car would be in readiness, attached to the rear end of the train for the South.

Once aboard the private car, we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names. Discovery, we knew, simply must not happen, or else all our time and effort would be wasted…”

What’s in a Name?

The goal was to establish a private bank that would control the national currency. The challenge was to slip the scheme by the representatives of the American people. Earlier, it had been called the Aldrich Bill and received effective opposition. The devious planners of the revised bill titled it “The Federal Reserve Act” to mask its real nature. It would create a system controlled by private individuals who would control the nation’s issue of money. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Board, composed of twelve districts and one director (The Federal Reserve Chairman) would control the nation’s financial resources by controlling the money supply and available credit, all by mortgaging the government through borrowing.

The conspirators had a problem, however. President William Howard Taft had made it clear he would veto such a bill if it was introduced. They had to make sure he would not win reelection. They first supported ex-President Teddy Roosevelt in the Republican primaries, but he failed to get the nomination. The bankers then supported the Democratic contender, Woodrow Wilson.

In exchange for their support, Wilson promised to sign their bill into law. But the polls indicated that Wilson would only draw about 45 percent of the votes. The bankers needed someone who could draw a sufficient number of Republican votes away from Taft without harming their Democratic candidate. They arranged for Teddy Roosevelt to run against both men by representing a newly invented third party: the “Bull Moose” party.

The plan worked. The Federal Reserve Bill was held until December 23 (two days before Christmas!) before it was presented to the House and Senate. Only those senators and congressmen who had not gone home for the holidays - those who owed favors to, or were on the payroll of, the bankers - were present to sign the legislation.

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was a deliberate charade to pacify the American voters. They’d been crying out for banking reform and had held scores of elections, alternating one set of politicians with another, only to find themselves with the same programs and deeper debt.

The name “Federal Reserve Bank” was designed to deceive, and it still does. It is not federal, nor is it owned by the government. It is privately owned. It pays its own postage like any other corporation. Its employees are not civil service. Its physical property is held under private deeds and is subject to local taxation (government property is not). It is an engine that has created private wealth that is unimaginable, even to the most financially sophisticated. It has enabled an imperial elite to manipulate our economy for its own agenda and enlisted the government itself as its enforcer.

New World Order

Meyer Amschel Rothschild’s original plan was to facilitate “a new order of a one world government.” This explains why the Great Seal of the United States, on the back side of the one dollar bill, bears the inscription Novus Ordo Seclorum: New World Order. For more information on the Federal Reserve listen to our briefing called Behold a Black Horse.
Related Links:
• Wall Street Rebounds on Rate Cut Hopes - AP
• Recession in the US ‘Has Arrived’ - BBC
• Dollar May Fall Versus Euro, Yen on Expectation of Rate Cut - Bloomberg
• Behold A Black Horse - MP3 Download - Koinonia House
• The Vortex Strategy - DVD - Koinonia House
• The Vortex Strategy - MP3 Download - Koinonia House
- From Koinonia House News Letter

Random Posts:

• God Does Not Afflict His Children
• Hundreds of Muslim extremists rally for caliphate in London
• Genesis 21:33-34; Abraham Called upon the name of the LORD; He made not only a constant practice, but an open profession, of his religion; Abraham forgets not to give glory to Him as the Lord of all: The everlasting God, who was, before all worlds, and will be, when time and days shall be no more. B.C. 1892
• Christians face ‘hate crime’ for preaching gospel in Muslim area

THE BOOK OF REVELATION -
The Book of Revelation is the only book of the Bible that promises a special blessing to the reader. (Many verses in the Bible encourage reading God’s Word in general, but only one book has the “audacity” to claim, in effect, “Read me, I’m special.”) What is surprising is that, even for many avid Bible readers, this book is overlooked or neglected. One would expect just the opposite.

There are many reasons why this book invariably results in a special blessing to the diligent inquirer. Perhaps the most basic blessing accrues from the fact that in order to understand the back ground of the many idioms and allusions, one will have to trace back into virtually every book of the Bible. The Book of Revelation consists of 404 verses which contain over 800 allusions to the Old Testament alone! One reason the book appears so strange to the uninitiated is that most of us haven’t developed enough familiarity with the Old Testament.

The Book of Revelation is the only book I know which also has a divinely inspired outline included! Jesus Himself has provided the key to the structure of the book: He told John to write:
1. the things which thou hast seen, and
2. the things which are, and
3. the things which shall be hereafter.
The “things which thou hast seen” refers to the vision of our risen Lord just experienced previously in Chapter 1. The “things which are” refers to the seven churches which were existing at that time in Chapters 2 and 3. Interestingly, the Lord’s letters to the churches in these two chapters are the most relevant part of the book for you and me today. The “things which shall be hereafter (meta tauta)” refers to the remainder of the book.

It is interesting to notice the parallels in design between the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation. Joshua’s name is in Hebrew; in Greek it could be rendered “Jesus.” Joshua’s mission is to dispossess the usurpers from the Land on behalf of God’s people; in Revelation, Jesus’ mission is to dispossess the Planet Earth of the usurpers. Joshua initially sends ahead two witnesses. (We call them spies, but all they accomplished was getting a Gentile woman saved.) The two witnesses of Revelation Chapter 11 are a prominent element. Also we observe that in the initial attack on the Amorite capital of Jericho in the book of Joshua every rule of the Torah was violated: the Levites were exempt from military duties, yet they lead the procession. They were to do no work on Sabbath Day, yet here they march around Jericho once a day for six days, and then seven times on the seventh day! They are to keep silent until the final trumpet blast, etc. It is interesting that the Seven Trumpets in Revelation are introduced after a strange silence. It seems that in Revelation we have the final “Joshua,” dispossessing the Planet Earth of its usurpers on behalf of God’s people in a manner that is remarkably parallel.

One of the keys to understanding the book is also to take it seriously, not to get distracted with fanciful allegories or speculations but to read it with care and diligence as part of the whole Word of God. The Bible consists of 66 books, penned by 40 authors over thousands of years, and yet we now discover that it is an integrated message: every detail, every word, every number, every place name is there by supernatural engineering. And no study makes this clearer than the study of the Book of Revelation.
Related Links:
• Revelation - 8 DVD Set - Verse by Verse Commentary!
• Revelation - Workbook - Great for Small Groups!
• Revelation - CD-Rom - Koinonia House
• Revelation - MP3 Download - Koinonia House
- From Koinonia House News Letter

Related Posts:

• God’s Book
• The Apocrypha Books
• The Most Neglected Book
• Examining the Gospel of Matthew

This shows what an offence it is to God,

1. When those that are entrusted with the administration of public justice, judges, juries, witnesses, prosecutors, counsel, do either acquit the guilty or condemn those that are not guilty, or in the least contribute to either; this defeats the end of government, which is to protect the good and punish the bad, Rom. 13:3, 4. It is equally provoking to God to justify the wicked, though it be in pity and in favorem vitæ–to safe life, as to condemn the just.

2. When any private persons plead for sin and sinners, palliate and excuse wickedness, or argue against virtue and piety, and so pervert the right ways of the Lord and confound the eternal distinctions between good and evil.
- Matthew Henry Commentary

Random Posts:

• God’s Challenge (Salvation comes to the Gentiles and the Jews)
• Analysis: Hizbullah Turns up the Temperature in the North By Jonathan Spyer * July 30, 2009
• John 17:11-16; Christ’s Intercessory Prayer; He does not pray that they might be rich and great in the world, that they might raise estates and get preferments, but that they might be kept from sin, and furnished for their duty, and brought safely to heaven; He came to conquer, not to countenance, those intemperate heats and passions which make men impatient of life, and importunate for death; It is His will that we should take up our cross, and not outrun it.
• Egypt’s Christian Converts Face A Life On The Run

Going Backward? Understanding and Attempts to Resolve the Israel-Palestinian Conflict

Posted: 09 Mar 2010 10:52 AM PST

Now looking for subscriber 9,480. Please sign up and stay up to date.

By Barry Rubin

Last September, President Barack Obama said before a large audience at the UN that within two months there would be intensive, direct, final status talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Sort of a Camp David III. Now, six months later we are back in the pre-1992 era of indirect talks.

Yet reporters still ask, and write, that this might be the prelude to some grand breakthrough and a comprehensive peace deal. When will they ever learn? Never, apparently.

Note that it is important for the two sides to meet but the reason is to deal with far more immediate tasks: coordination on economic and security issues particularly. I guess I’m going to have to go on for decades saying that there won’t be a comprehensive peace agreement for decades.

Before we start, though, one more point that is very important. When I say that the continuation of the conflict is mainly the fault of the Palestinian side, I’m not doing that to score political points. Who cares? The world will go on in precisely the same way whatever people think after reading articles.

You need to understand whose fault it is because it’s impossible to understand what’s going on without comprehending that reality. Nothing makes sense. After all, if Palestinians yearn for their own country and are suffering so horribly, why do they keep rejecting a peace agreement on the basis that they might–at worst–have to give up, say, five percent of the territory they claim?

But to return to the timeline, a simple reminder about one small point regarding Israel-Palestinian issues tell more than 100 op-eds. The Palestinian Authority (PA) will now probably engage in indirect talks with Israel and this will be hailed as a great step forward by Western media and governments, a triumph for the Obama Administration.

In fact, however, this sets the conflict back to around 1992, before direct talks began in Washington for the first time. And the PA must be dragged, kicking and screaming, into doing even that much.

Aren’t they in a hurry to get a state? No.

Here are four misunderstandings that block Western understanding of the issue:

–The importance of the Arab-Israeli conflict has fallen steadily in the Middle East. Yet it is widely viewed in the West as the central issue in the region.

–The Israel-Palestinian conflict is not solvable at present. Yet it is widely viewed in the West as easily and quickly solvable.

–The reason the conflict is not solvable at present is because of the extremism of Hamas and the intransigence of the PA. Yet it is widely viewed in the West as all being Israel’s fault.

While some Israeli positions would certainly cause problems in reaching a compromise peace agreement—most notably over small areas of east Jerusalem—the PA’s official leadership is too weak to make the necessary deals, the PA’s ruling party is too radical and has the goal of total victory, and the PA’s public has not been prepared for the necessary steps.

The best way to stop building on, and even fully remove, settlements on the West Bank would be to make a peace treaty in which all settlements would be removed from the territory of a Palestinian state. (Though, with Palestinian agreement, some could be incorporated into Israel as part of territory swaps. Indeed, the Obama Administration has accepted this idea.)

–Finally, the PA has full control over all the Palestinians in the West Bank except in about 20 percent of Hebron controlled by Israel according to an agreement made by the PA in 1997 . West Bank. While Israel still occupies part of the land and east Jerusalem, there is no occupation regarding the Palestinian population itself. Israeli soldiers and roadblocks only appear in response to periods of high terrorism. It is in the hands of the PA to avoid these problems.

Come to think of it, while the PA, and its supporters abroad, constantly complain about the arrangements on the ground as being unfair and oppressive, every aspect of these things was agreed to by the PA in exchange for other concessions in previous agreements.

If the Palestinians are so desperately oppressed by the settlements and so miserable because of the occupation, why has it taken 16 years, until March 2010, for the PA to get around to ordering 30,000 Palestinian workers not to hold jobs on the settlements and to bar settlement products from Palestinian stores?

And if the Palestinians are under such Israeli control how could it do so with no Israeli effort to block the PA from doing so?

Indeed, even this step comes only after the PA was embarrassed into doing so by internal political criticism and the fact that it has fallen behind European countries in their stance.

Incidentally, the PA will do nothing to help these additional unemployed, nor will oil-rich Arab states kick in additional money for the creation of jobs. Perhaps Western donors will support them through welfare payments. If someone is found working despite the ban he might be killed, either by the PA’s militias or after a trial for collaboration.

At any rate, these misunderstandings and realities shows the difference between the image and reality of the issues which bedevils any comprehension of what’s going on and hence any possibility of improving the situation.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

Related Posts:

• Scoop: Fatah’s New Charter Shows Why Peace Won’t Happen
• The “Why Can’t Everyone Just Be Friends” Narrative of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, Evenhandedness Gone Mad
• Nations Must Know When to Cringe and Crawl—But for the West It’s Becoming Routine
• Announcing Construction of East Jerusalem Apartments: Stupid, Yes; Proof of Disinterest in Peace, No