There is so much silliness and misinformation published about the Middle East
nowadays that the debris is obscuring reality. Four examples demonstrate this:
First, Thomas L. Friedman’s latest gimmick is “The real Palestinian
revolution.”
A real Palestinian revolution would take place when Fatah,
the PA and Palestinian public opinion really changed toward accepting a
two-state solution.
Instead, the “real revolution” of Friedman and PA
leader Mahmoud Abbas is merely a matter of image, as in the following
paragraph:
“It is a revolution based on building Palestinian capacity and
institutions not
just resisting Israeli occupation, on the theory that if the
Palestinians can
build a real economy, a professional security force and an effective,
transparent government bureaucracy, it will eventually become impossible
for
Israel to deny the Palestinians a state in the West Bank and Arab
neighborhoods
of east Jerusalem.”
It would be a good thing, of course, if the PA did
succeed in accomplishing these goals. Yet a number of cogent questions
can be
raised about Friedman’s model.
Let’s suppose the PA failed to do these
things. Nothing much actually seems to be changing and even if it did
the PA’s
modest progress to date might well collapse in a new round of extremism
and
violence.
So what if the PA failed? Would conventional wisdom in
Washington switch to saying that Israel had no real alternative for
peace and
thus US policy should back Israel or would the PA merely find some new
gimmick?
Even if it succeeded in creating a marvelous stable, prosperous,
democratic
(does that mean elections that Hamas might win?) entity, would that mean
it was
ready to make a real and lasting peace with Israel? Not necessarily.
Because the
issue is not whether there is more money or less corruption but whether
there is
a Palestinian readiness to end the conflict, teach their people to give
up their
dream of getting all of Israel, provide security guarantees and be
willing to
resettle refugees in the state of Palestine.
Why should Israel give up
territory and security to the PA merely because it prosecutes corrupt
leaders
(don’t hold your breath) and is more prosperous? What it needs to know
is that
the conflict won’t continue, that there won’t be cross-border raids,
that Hamas
won’t take over and that Palestine won’t invite in Syrian or Iranian
military
forces, to cite some examples.
But Friedman’s formula reveals the PA’s
strategy: Forget about making peace with Israel, just get international
support
for declaring independence on its own terms.
Second,
The New York Times
and
The Los Angeles Times seem
to have a policy of running as many op-eds as
possible by apologists for terrorism and advocates of engaging terrorist
groups.
Here’s another one from the NYT, trotting out all the misrepresentative
arguments by people who never say a word about the specificity of groups
like
Hamas and Hizbullah, their goals, ideology and personnel: “Why we talk
to
terrorists” published on June 29 is the kind of article that claims that
since
the South African group, the African National Congress (ANC), became
moderate,
why not Hamas or Hizbullah? While it is true that the ANC had a military
wing
and engaged in some terrorism, that violence was very limited. The ANC
was
always led by a philosophy of peace and conciliation not—as in the case
of its
Middle Eastern counterparts—totalitarian dictatorship and genocide.
There is no
sign that the revolutionary Islamist Hamas is or wishes to become more
moderate
and there are good reasons why that is so.
BY COINCIDENCE, I revisited
the terrorism museum in Israel recently. There were some new features,
including
the cigarette lighter made in China and sold in the West Bank that shows
the
World Trade Center on fire when clicked. There is massive documentation
on the
involvement of Hamas and Hizbullah in terrorism, anti- Semitism,
anti-Americanism and would-be genocide. One can see videos of kids in
the Hamas
schools carrying out military exercises.
Watch their videos and then ask
whether Hamas is intending to produce a generation of
moderates.
Revolutionary Islamism and terrorism, hatred for the US and
the desire to wipe out Israel (and Jews generally) are not some minor
side
issues for these groups but are absolutely central to their existence.
It
is amazing to think of these naïve people who think they are going to
talk
revolutionary Islamists into being moderates, or buy them off with money
(there’s that idea of prosperity solving all problems again) or
concessions.
Third, members of the official US delegation to Syria made
fools of themselves by twittering about the good time they were having.
Syria is
a repressive dictatorship.
While these American ninnies were having nice
cups of coffee, a few minutes away prisoners were being tortured because
they
had criticized the regime.
When a US official from the delegation says:
“We made it clear that we want assurances that technologies sold to
Syria won’t
be... used in ways to harm Syrian citizens,” does he have any idea how
ridiculous this sounds? Indeed, the more American delegations show up,
the more
peaceful dissidents get arrested.
FINALLY, HAMAS officials are now
claiming that the Obama administration is secretly contacting their
regime. What
is probably happening is that the US government thought itself very
clever to
send some well-connected but not official figures to hang out with Hamas
and
explore getting along with a group that happens to be backed by Iran,
revolutionary Islamist, anti-Semitic, intent on genocide, repressive
toward
women and intolerant toward Christians, among other things.
Of course,
they should understand that all this does is convince Hamas that the
Obama
administration is ready to make a deal so there is no reason for it to
change
policy. All some Hamas leaders have to do is mumble a few words into the
easily
deceived Americans’ ears and the fools will rush off to shout how these
people
are moderates in an op-ed piece.
And of course the US government makes
itself subject to blackmail from Hamas, which only has to reveal
whatever
conversations have taken place, with some creative additions and
distortions.
Thus, the title of the article about this issue, “Hamas says asked by US
to keep
silent on talks,” illustrates that point.
Let’s be clear here. If you
deal with Hamas, Hizbullah and Syria, you are dealing with thugs and
murderers.
Sometimes you do have to deal with thugs and murderers, but never forget
that
reality. And one thing you have to remember is that such people aren’t
going to
make deals with you, keep their promises, become moderate or respect
your
interests no matter how much you bribe or bow to them.
At the terrorism
museum there’s a Hizbullah poster that shows people giving money to
Islamist
charities, that money being turned into bullets and those bullets being
fired at
Israel. That’s also an accurate picture of the diplomatic “charity”
being given
to the enemies not only of the West but also of the Middle Eastern
peoples they
murder and oppress.
The writer is director of the Global
Research in
International Affairs Center and editor of Middle East Review of
International
Affairs and Turkish Studies.
He blogs
at www.rubinreports.blogspot.com