Israeli archaeologists have uncovered a 3,700 year old wall, the oldest yet found, in Jerusalem's Old City. Which brings to mind two thoughts. First, does anyone think the Arabs can be trusted to preserve, let alone look for, these antiquities, when there airbrushed official history denies the First & Second Temples? The Jordanians torched Jewish synagogues after taking the eastern section of Jerusalem in 1948, and after taking control of the West Bank Yasser Arafat's minions were caught destroying evidence of Jewish antiquity on Temple Mount. That is how the Palestinians repaid former World's Best Mayor Teddy Kollek for turning over to control of the Muslim Waqf (religious authority) administration of what to Muslims is called Haram al-Sharif ("Noble Sanctuary"). Indeed there is a pre-1948 record of Arab desecration & destruction of Jewish holy places. Here is more detail on how bloody-minded supposed Palestinian moderates in Fatah are--never mind Hamas.
Second, had the Obama administration's ban on settlements in so-called East Jerusalem (an appellation created after the 1948 Jordanian conquest to ratify the seizure)been in place, would this ancient treasure even have been built?
On to modern times: The Jerusalem Post reports that Israel has approved construction of 455 new settler homes within existing Judea & Samaria settlements. a new poll run by the firm of ex-Clinton pollster Stanley Greenberg shows a majority of Palestinians in both the West Bank & Gaza holding a negative view of Hamas. While most (no surprise) blame Israel, as usual, for their troubles, there were other surprising results noted in the Jerusalem Post article:
Nonetheless, Gazans and Jordanians both showed a surprisingly high level of support for direct negotiations with Israel. More than half of those two groups - 52% of those polled - said they believed Palestinians should negotiate directly with Israel, accept its right to exist and honor past agreements. Thirty-nine percent of Egyptians said the same, compared to 36% of Palestinians in the West Bank.
Also surprising, Greenberg said, was that while 35% of the other groups polled stressed the importance of releasing captive IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, an overwhelming two-thirds of Gazans said the same.
The poll also revealed that nearly a decade after the breakdown of the Camp DavidAccords between Yasser Arafat, then-US president Bill Clinton and then-prime minister Ehud Barak, a majority of those polled in Egypt, Jordan and the West Bank expressed regret that Arafat failed to accept the peace deal proposed there.
Fifty-six percent of West Bank Palestinians said that in retrospect, they wished Arafat had accepted the agreement, while 50% of Jordanians and 39% of Egyptians said the same. In Gaza, 57% of those polled said they did not regret Arafat's rejection of the deal.
Greenberg said that these West Bank results show a change of heart since the breakdown of the Camp David talks.
Ex-Reagan & Bush 43 senior foreign policy official Elliott Abrams demolishes Jimmy Carter's latest sally against Israel over settlements & Palestinians, in a crisp op-ed (Abrams links to Carter's op-ed, if you can stand it). Abrams offers economic growth figures that buttress what Greenberg says (as well as what George Gilder said in The Israel Test, a book I recently reviewed in The American Spectator).
While this would seem to hold out hopes for talks, Mideast ace Barry Rubin warns Americans not to place too much faith in Mideast regional dialogue. Re BR's full column for relevant history, but he says of Team Obama's tilt towards Syria,--despite Syria's role in bombings inside Iraq--that it is reminiscent of US appeasement of Saddam prior to Saddam's invading Kuwait:
And now the Obama administration has done precisely the same thing. Of course, Syria won't invade Iraq, it will just keep welcoming, training, arming, financing, transporting and helping the terrorists who do so.
The Obama administration has declared the war on terrorism to be over. But it also said that the US viewed al Qaida and those working with it as enemies. The Syria-based Iraqi terrorists fall into that category. America sacrificed hundreds of lives for Iraq's stability. Most of those soldiers and civilian contractors were murdered by the very terrorists harbored by Syria.
HOW CAN the administration distance itself from this conflict instead of supporting its ally and trying to act against the very terrorists who have murdered Americans?
Nominally, of course, the cheap way out was to say: We don't know who did these particular bombings. Well, who do you think did it, men from Mars? Even this is not relevant since the Iraqi demand for the expulsion of the terrorists - who have committed hundreds of other acts - came before the latest attack even happened.
Moreover, the administration not only invoked its obsession with dialogue at any price but did so in an incorrect and dangerous manner. The Iraqi government had sought dialogue, had used diplomatic means and was turned down flat.
So is this administration incapable of criticizing Syria? Even if it wants to engage in talks with Syria, it doesn't understand that diplomacy is not inconsistent with pressure and criticism, tools to push the other side into concessions or compromises.
Looking at this latest development - along with many other policy statements and events during the new administration's term so far - how can any ally have confidence that the US government will support it if menaced by terrorism or aggression? It can't. The problem with treating enemies better than friends is that the friends start wondering whether their interests are better served by appeasing mutual enemies or mistreating an unfaithful ally which ignores their needs.
Bottom Line. Henry Kissinger's famous line after the fall of the Shah of Iran was aided by foolish Cater administration policy, that if it is dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, it can be fatal to be its friend. The leftist trope of appeasing enemies whilst pressuring allies is aimed at moving parties towards presumed common ground. The idea that we have much common ground with the ordinary Palestinians is a huge stretch; the idea that we have any with the likes o Syria & Iran beggars the imagination.
Comments