Laurence Simon is usually a pretty astute guy. He catches a lot of things others miss (and then points them out in his uniquely vile manner). But he failed pretty miserably this time. He only got half the story.
Apparently Lair’s blood pressure has been too low lately with the crappy job and the brush with Hurricane Rita, so he went reading up on Arab News — where he discovered this article. Lair rightly points out how the author discusses Israel’s pullout from Gaza and recent military strikes on Hamas, but somehow failed to mention the literal dozens of rockets Hamas fired into Israel between the two events — and their prideful glee in announcing it. According to Ms. Heard, those acts of war simply never happened.
But Lair misses the real point of Ms. Heard’s piece:
Formerly optimistic politicians and commentators, who perceived the Israeli exit from Gaza as a first step toward implementation of the “road map” must surely be disappointed.
This is a flagrant attempt to redefine the Road Map. The evacuation of Gaza was about the third or fifth step Israel has taken on the Road Map. And in stark contrast, the Palestinians are refusing to even consider fulfilling their own First Step: an end to Palestinian violence.
The whole Palestinian attitude towards the peace process reminds me of a couple of historical precedents. Ronald Reagan once described the Soviets’ attitude towards arms negotiations as “what’s mine is mine. What’s yours is negotiable.” But even more, it sounds like the “The People’s Peace Treaty” John Kerry helped draft to end the Viet Nam war.
In that agreement, the United States agreed to withdraw completely from Viet Nam, the North Vietnamese would “discuss” releasing all prisoners. Not actually release them, but talk about them.
Likewise, the Palestinians’ approach to the Road Map seems to be once Israel completes all the stages of its commitments, it’ll “consider” meeting its own. Once Israel withdraws from Gaza and the West Bank, releases all Palestinian prisoners, allows the “Right Of Return” of those who left Israel over the decades, and (I’m speculating here) pays appropriate “reparations,” then they’ll consider things like stopping terrorism.
This attitude is not unprecedented. In fact, it has a long and distinguished history, even in the United States as recently as 1945. It’s called “unconditional surrender.”
The only problem here is, it’s usually granted to the winner of the conflict. Those who fight and lose don’t get to impose it on the winners.
The Palestinians have one defining national characteristic: they are losers. Whenever given the chance, they will cheerfully and passionately choose the losing side in any conflict. When the Arabs told them to get out of Israel while they drove the Jews into the sea back in the 40’s, they voted with their feet — and they’re still waiting. They’ve backed every single Arab war with Israel, and watched as the Arabs lost every single one. When Saddam invaded Kuwait back in 1990, they cheered him on. When Al Qaeda struck us on 9/11, they danced in the streets.
One common definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.” The Palestinians have consistently backed anyone who attacks Israel and the US, and each time they end up losing even more ground. Hell, they say that Israel was the worst thing that ever happened to them, but Jordan killed more Palestinians in “Black September” than Israel ever did.
But nonetheless, the Palestinian Authority seems to think that it’s in a position to dictate terms to Israel.
And it amazes me how many idiots are so eager to support that.