Allow me to stand corrected: both Stephen Kruiser and Tom Gross are certain Pope Francis’ reference to “angel of peace” in connection to Mahmoud Abbas was a hopeful suggestion, rather than a proclamation of fact. So stipulated.
That such a turnabout by Mr. Abbas, ally of Hamas, would be a miracle should not discourage the pontiff from wishful optimism; popes are the business of miracles. Besides, one can argue, it would have been a lost opportunity for him not to have spoken as he did. After all, how often have much lesser public figures lamented that if they had but the opportunity to sit down and reason with that nice Mr. Hitler (or bin Laden, Stalin, Tojo, Abdulhamit, etc.) then (World War Two, the Soviet deportations, the Nanking massacre, the Armenian Genocide, etc.) would have been avoided?
Great leaders must grasp the doors opportunity opens for them, muster their best intentions, and march through. This, we are told, is the case here.
But good intentions are not policy.
Pope Francis’ plea, if that’s what it was, to the chairman of the PA — whose component parts are dedicated to the destruction of a neighboring state because of the religious faith of its inhabitants, and to the subsequent genocide of those people — is defined as kindly as possibly as only that: good intention.
But Papal State recognition of Abbas’ “state,” co-governed with the sin-ridden, murderous Hamas, is policy.
The Vatican assures us the instrument of recognition will contain guarantees of religious freedom. If Mahmoud Abbas agrees those guarantees shall extend to all faiths — including Jews — then the pope’s dream will have become concrete reality. (Assuming the PA is good to its word.) If, on the other hand, the guarantee extends only to religious groups favored by the pope, then the pope’s dream has been made a nightmare — a horrid relic of the European hatred of the 1930s, now in glorious redux both there and throughout the extreme precincts of Islam.
The hypocrisy of such a treaty would be a triumph for moral relativists everywhere: liberation theologists, Alinskyites, “progressives,” Leftists, Fascists, Communists, and of course, anti-Semites.
As God instructed Moses to tell the assembly ay Mt. Sinai: “I have today set before you a choice … ”
Earlier today, Ray Lahood, the Secretary of Transportation, lectured Congress to to compromise: “Compromise is how Congress always worked. We always take a little, give a little. It’s the way it has always worked.” He further admonished them to get busy and resume doing business as, in his view, it should be done. The excellent 1957 film, “Fear Strikes Out”, examined the life of Jimmy Piersall, a brilliant pitcher whose career was diminished by mental illness, an affliction both the film and Piersall’s biography ascribed to his overbearing, shortsighted, and expedient father. A remarkable scene finds Piersall in a mental home, furiously resisting the efforts of a psychiatrist to help him come to terms with his demons. In the process the psychiatrist suggests Piersall’s problems stem from his father. Piersall snaps, screams at the shrink, “You leave my father out of this! It’s because of him I got to where I am today!” To emphasize his point Anthony Perkins (who plays Piersall) slams his fist on the window whose bars were part of the restraints keeping him where he was that day: a prisoner in a mental institution. Secretary Lahood should note the irony when he suggests that compromise is devotedly to be wished because “it got us where we are today”: a government in almost complete denial, sacrificing its own wellbeing and that of our nation in order to avoid the truth and allow them to continue on a destructive course that, while it may insure the participants’ reelection, can surely only lead them to Jimmy Piersall’s old ward. He won’t be there; he faced the truth and returned to sanity.
This is a massive collapse of our intelligence establishment and our diplomatic corps. These were the people who preached “to each his own” and “don’t rock the boat”. When Geo. W. Bush insisted both Saudi Arabia and Egypt allow secular opposition to form, the MSM laughed at him and his naivete: “We have nothing to fear from the Moslem Brotherhood. They’re a fine opposition who care about the people,” they said, ignoring the writings of Sayyid Qutb, its principal theorist and now the prophet of, among others, al Qaeda. He calls for western civ’s destruction; he praises martyrdom… In 2005, Condoleezza Rice gave a speech, also in Cairo, and said (from memory, paraphrased) “for too long, the U. S. has sacrificed stability for democracy and got neither.” The left taunted her and the intelligence & diplomatic communities sneered that they knew better. Now, the regional turmoil exposes the magnitude of their foolish, politically correct pandering. Yet they cling to the myth of the blandness of the Moslem Brotherhood. So who can they blame? Guess. On Fox Tuesday morning, a Michael Scheuer, billed as former head of the FBI al Qaeda team, assured us all the MB were far more humane than Mubarak (as, e.g., in Saudi Arabia, governed according to wahabbi — a sect Qutb held up as a fine example?) — so the answer must be? Of course: Israel. Scheuer actually went on to say, (from memory, paraphrased) “the only people who fear the MB are Israel and its friends…” Today, on Glenn Beck, he further developed the notion by saying Israel was the U. S.’s greatest liability. It seems the intelligence/diplomatic elite is finally joining with the full-throated cry of the left for Israel’s blood.
For more, check out Roger Simon and me on Poliwood: Clueless in Cairo? Do US Leaders and Journalists Understand Egypt?