Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rubin Reports

Then there is the list of countries involved. I have no difficulty in believing that the governments of Bahrain, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are ready for a deal. Jordan has already made peace; Saudi Arabia proposed a reasonable offer a decade ago (before it was sharply revised by hardliners before becoming an official Arab League position), and Bahrain’s regime is desperately afraid of Iran and has become a semi-satellite of the Saudis.

But what about the other three countries? Are we to believe that the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt, the Hizballah-dominated regime in Lebanon, and the quirky but pro-Hamas and pro-Muslim Brotherhood regime in Qatar have suddenly reversed everything that they have been saying in order to seek a compromise peace with Israel? Highly doubtful to say the least.

In other words, the reportage ignored the interesting detail about the three most radical regimes (Qatar’s regional policy is radical; not its domestic policies) suddenly making a concession to Israel that had been previously unthinkable?  It’s sort of like taking for granted, say, Joseph Stalin’s supposed embrace of capitalism or France’s rulers proclaiming that American culture is far superior to their own.

And let’s also remember the radical forces not present. The Syrian rebels who will be holding the Arab League seat are dominated by Islamists. Hamas itself, which governs the Gaza Strip, will refuse to abide by any such agreement. Remember that this group represents at least one-third of Palestinians and perhaps a plurality over Fatah, which governs the PA. Tunisia’s Muslim Brotherhood-dominated leadership have even written into the country’s new constitution that it can never make peace with Israel!

Finally, there is a curious lack of mention over the demand, enshrined in the previous “Arab Peace Initiative,” about what is called the “right of return.” Namely, to satisfy PA demands Israel would have to accept the immigration of hundreds of thousands of passionately anti-Israel Palestinians who had lived in the country 60 years ago (or their descendants) and who have been fighting all that time to wipe Israel off the map.

Is the “right of return” as a condition for making peace still in the small print? I don’t see that anyone else has asked that rather important question. Presumably it is still there. Consequently, what is in fact a suicidal offer to Israel is made, by selective reporting, to make it sound like an attractive offer. But if the demand for a massive immigration of hostile Palestinians is indeed dropped that in fact is the real news. Of course, the PA would passionately denounce such a step and since it has said nothing on the point one might assume that this demand still stands.

Then there are the citizens of these Arab countries — stirred up by Islamists and radical nationalists — who would seek to overthrow them if they believed their rulers were going to make peace with Israel. And there has been no hint from these regimes before and no statements now back home in Arabic to indicate any dramatic change of heart.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (1)
All Comments   (1)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
This is very well argued - as usual. I'll add that there is a wealth of experience to be considered as well; the peace with Egypt e.g. It has been argued that the peace was made with the leadership but not the people; this then nullifes everything. Another argument is that as peace has not been achieved with the Palestinians - this was mentioned in the Accord - the Accord is null and Egypt is free to go to war with Israel.

Western leaders have seldom stood up to such barbarous logic and the leftist ones sometimes even espouse it.

I do not think peace is possible until the Muslim World undergoes a complete transformation. (I also think this could actually happen. I've seen the "West" become stupid in a short space of time and assume a reverse of the process is possible too.)
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All