BCT Editorial – 8/6/06

This page was last updated on August 6, 2006.

Border wars; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 6, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Resolution of Palestinian issue is the key to any chance of Middle East peace

“From the day he took office, President Bush was dismissive of the Palestinian-Israeli issue and showed little interest in following up on former President Bill Clinton’s failed efforts in 2000.”

[RWC] By dismissive, the editorial really means President Bush’s refusal to treat terrorist Yasser Arafat as a head of state. Regarding “former President Bill Clinton’s failed efforts in 2000,” it was more like eight years. Lest we forget, Arafat was a regular overnight guest at the White House during the Clinton administration. In 1993, Arafat signed a peace agreement (Oslo Accord) in the White House Rose Garden.

As most rational people, I believe President Bush understands you can’t negotiate with terrorists for peace. You can only defeat them.

“That was an unfortunate choice in policy because the key to peace in the Middle East has always been in resolving the Palestinian-Israeli issue.”

[RWC] First, the only resolution of “the Palestinian-Israeli issue” the Muslims want is the elimination of Israel. Until that position changes, there will be no peace.

Second, if you believe “resolving the Palestinian-Israeli issue” will bring “peace in the Middle East,” you simply aren’t paying attention. If Israel ceased being an issue tomorrow, the violence would continue, as the Muslims would come up with a new excuse to kill infidels and Muslims who are not “Muslim enough.”

“However, the situation is not as hopeless as it appears.

“Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, wrote in The Washington Post that the ‘outlines of a comprehensive settlement have been apparent since’ Clinton’s effort in 2000.

“Scowcroft wrote the major elements (in very broad strokes) of such a settlement would include a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders; Palestinians giving up the right of return and Israel reciprocating by removing its settlements on the West Bank; Saudi Arabia renewing its 2002 pledge that the Arab world is prepared to enter into full normal relations with Israel upon its withdrawal from lands it occupied in 1967; deployment, as part of a ceasefire, of a robust international force in southern Lebanon, and another international force to facilitate and supervise traffic to and from Gaza in the West Bank; and the designation of Jerusalem as the shared capital of Israel and Palestine.”

[RWC] This is the “land for peace” tactic and is complete BS. Israel left Lebanon six years ago and Hezbollah never stopped its attacks. The same is true for Gaza and Hamas.

“But getting from here to there in any Middle East peace effort is notoriously difficult, and the United States is the only world power that can mobilize the international community and Israel and the Arab states to achieve this, Scowcroft wrote.

“That means getting the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations - the so-called Quartet - to organize the necessary international peace force for southern Lebanon and Gaza and then call for a cease-fire.”

[RWC] Lest we forget, the UN has been in southern Lebanon for years and has ignored – and in some cases helped – Hezbollah when it was operating right under the nose of the UN.

“No one knows for sure if that would work, but the effort must be made - and made again and again in an effort to defuse the situation and undercut support in the Arab world for terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.”

[RWC] “No one knows for sure if that would work?” Doesn’t the editorial author pay attention to the news? How many ceasefires have there been in this conflict and how many were honored by the terrorists? The terrorists – and their supporters – call for ceasefires when they are losing and then use the ceasefires to rearm and redeploy.

“The situation is bleak but not hopeless, as two fairly recent efforts have shown. Against steep odds, a fragile cease-fire is holding in Northern Ireland, while the Spanish government has gotten Basque separatists to come around.”

[RWC] Regarding the Basque separatists, is the editorial kidding? These terrorists have declared ceasefires numerous times before and always eventually violated them. The current ceasefire has been in place for less than five months and the Times calls this a success? I hope it turns out to be a success, but after previous ceasefires over a period of 40 years, forgive me if I need more than five months to declare success.

Regarding the IRA, I have the same hopes and misgivings. Remember, the IRA ceasefire is only about one year long.

“A forceful Quartet-led cease-fire that gives Israelis, Palestinians and Arabs a little breathing room might be the respite the region needs to defuse tensions and eventually diminish support for Hamas and Hezbollah.

“Terrorists being terrorists, there will be setbacks along the way, and a permanent resolution might be decades away. But whatever happens, it’s hard to see how it could be worse (barring a nuclear war) than what is taking place now.

“It all starts with a cease-fire. Let’s hope reasonable voices such as Scowcroft’s are heard.”

[RWC] I disagree. Lasting freedom and peace will begin only with the defeat of terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, et cetera.