The sane Left realizes there's no turning back
Martin Peretz is known both as a supporter of Israel and an opponent of Israeli 'settlements' beyond the 1949 armistice lines. In the current issue of The New Republic, Peretz has a lengthy piece that addresses President Obama's Cairo speech from two weeks ago. Here's the bottom line: But "it is time for the settlements to stop." Which settlements? Does the president believe that several particular Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem are "settlements"? Fess up. If they aren't, and the towns abutting the armistice lines aren't either, the president may have a deal. If not, he's in a fight against real history. And, believe me, I am mortified by many of the settlements. I think they are dangerous for the Jewish state. But not as dangerous as leaving the West Bank in unreliable Palestinian hands. Like in Gaza. But what does the president think is the consequence if Netanyahu actually stops construction in the settlements, however described and defined? What does Obama think is the next step? Will the Palestinians be more forthcoming, and with what? Will the next step be to coerce Israel into taking in some Palestinians who are, 60 years after, still defined as refugees although they live only ten miles away from where their great-grandmothers made falafel?Two things leap out here. First, that the sane Left recognizes that there is no turning back the clock to June 4, 1967. But don't expect the 'Palestinians' to give up on that demand. The 'Palestinian leadership' doesn't want a solution - they want a revolution. Continued insistence on a return to the June 4, 1967 lines - which even much of the Left recognizes is unrealistic - is meant to give the 'Palestinians' an excuse not to make peace with Israel.
So, in the end, the grand conciliator violated his own principle and spoke asymmetrically: He was very tough on Israel, but he was vague to the Palestinians and to the Arabs. The president was not at all specific about what he wished from people who are still enemies of the Jewish state. Every Israeli concession requires a reciprocal concession, and not just words. But even words are difficult to extract from the Palestinian Authority, the so-called moderates. Mahmoud Abbas said only a fortnight ago that he had only to wait on what Israel surrenders. No reproach from anybody in Washington, except a few honest journalists.
Second, by making such an obviously irrational demand, President Obama shows the depth of his contempt for the State of Israel. Hopefully, enough Democrats in Congress who still have some feeling of warmth for Israel will
Read the whole thing.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:00 PM
3 Comments:
In a rational world, there would be peace already. Peace is not the absence of war - it is peace between Man and G-d, peace between nations and peace between and within families. There is no true peace anywhere on earth today.
Isn't "the sane left" by definition, an oxymoron?
Its ok to be empathetic to others, to their genuine dreams, and desires for a better life.
Are any of the 'palis' dreams of killing all jews, and desire to drive Israel into the sea an expression of something that is a better life?
The 'palis' don't even want a state, and the insane left wants to cede them one.
If I am not for myself, who will be?
The Left is satanic - not sane. Otherwise it would not be supporting a medieval theocratic regime brutally oppressing its own people and it would not be pushing for a terrorist state in Israel's heartland. When Tony Blair calls for Israel to negotiate the "right of return," the cat is out of the bag, folks. These are the folks working for Israel's extinction and the demise of the West. They are the gravediggers of freedom and justice in our world.
Post a Comment
<< Home