The preconditions Ahmadinejad proposed in talks with the US were the equivalent to unconditional surrender.
By ELWOOD MCQUAIDElwood McQuaid 224-88(photo credit: )
We often hear the famous words of the late U.S. President Ronald Reagan, trust and verify, repeated in the heat of negotiations with world leaders who are less than scrupulous in their commitment to keep agreements. However, in
the current climate, one may question the sequence of the statement. Perhaps "verify and trust" might be more appropriate.
Let's look at a case in point. There was a significant amount of talk during last year's run for the White House in America as to the appropriateness of sitting down with our enemies, without preconditions, to talk things over. That notion came from our side of the table. However, when the Iranians-the primary recipients of these felicitous solicitations-responded, they had a different idea.
According to the Farsi News Association (FNA), a top advisor to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said there would indeed be preconditions-set by the Iranians-before talks
would be held. Iran, he said, will only consider
negotiating with the United States if U.S. forces leave the Middle East and Washington ends its support for Israel. As long as American forces remain in the region and America continues to back Israel, no talks will take place, he said.
What he proposed is the equivalent of the terms the Allies insisted on from Axis leaders near the end of World War II: Unconditional surrender, the
operative word being surrender.
And no matter how the statement of Ahmadinejad's underling might be parsed or spun when objections are raised, the meaning is crystal clear. Israel must surrender, the United States and its allies must capitulate and relinquish all plans to encourage freedom and democracy in the region, and we all must then beat a hasty retreat from the entire Middle East.
Truth be told, the current position of radical Islamofacists is a reassertion of the Arab response to the 1947 UN Partition Plan. That plan would have established a viable two-state solution: an Arab and a Jewish state on the land
the British vacated when they left the Middle East. Jewish people, fresh from the shadows of the Holocaust, accepted. Arab leaders, however, responded with the now familiar "all or nothing" attitude that began the long war of annihilation against Israel that continues to this day.
The irrepressible quest for success in the search for peace was most rationally addressed in a formula offered by former Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu: the Doctrine of Reciprocity. When carefully considered, it contains the essential kernel of the Reagan's trust-but-verify prescription. That is, one side's concession must be met by the other side's verifiable grant in kind. It is a simple principle that will work-that is, if both participants are truly looking for a solution, rather than an advantage.
Increasingly, Israelis are being asked to make painful concessions for peace. Inexplicably, some of the nation's own leaders have joined overeager
proponents in the West clamoring for what amounts to a peace-at-any-price giveaway, as opposed to a two-way negotiation that might bring some semblance of enduring stability to Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Under the current terms of engagement, however, such an outcome is predictably impossible. A one-way approach to a settlement can only be termed surrender, which is what Islamic radicals continue to insist upon. Reciprocity with
verification will work. It alone embodies the absolute essential: sincerity of intent. And that is, after all, the acid test.
Elwood McQuaid is Executive Editor for The Friends of Israel. His most recent book, For the Love of Zion, is now available online and in bookstores.Previous entries:
Breaking bread with the bad guysRussia is back in businessMartyrs of Murderers? There is a differenceAmerica the BeautifulGod Bless America
if(catID != 151){
var cont = `Take Israel home with the new Jerusalem Post Store
