Thursday, January 10, 2008


Sean Hannity makes a show out of stating, over and over again, that he is not a partisan hack because he has disagreed with the President on immigration, on Harriet Miers, and the Dubai ports deal (a deal that I still suspect the President had his good reasons for making, not the least of which may be summed in Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.)
The issue I am about to raise is not to establish my objectivity credentials. I have immense respect for President Bush, and believe that he is a more committed social conservative than President Reagan.
But his stance on a Palestinian state is unacceptable. It is no more moderate than any of his predecessors, but it is still a solution that would place Israel in an untenable position. I believe it was Joel Rosenberg who said that for an American to understand the Israeli opposition to a Palestinian state, you would have to imagine how you would feel if Al-Queda was requesting statehood in an area adjacent to Washington D.C.
Most pretentiously, President Bush called for an end to the "occupation" of the West Bank by the Israeli military. This is incredible naivete, even for an optimistic peacemaker, and I question whether he really believes it is possible for Israel to protect itself with no buffers.
I think a more appropriate stance would have been a demand for all the rocket attacks from Gaza to cease completely and immediately. There have 2,500 since 2005, and, according to Rosenberg, 25 just since the President arrived in Israel. I don't understand the blindness that would ask for a peace settlement with enemies such as these.
I have heard it said that the Jews have a saying, "Never again." It is the defiant, to-the-wall determination of a people who have been hounded by every race on earth for thousands of years; a persecution culminating in the death of six million.
And it is this perceived paranoia that has protected them thus far. They cannot afford to be magnanimous. They share borders with four countries who wish them death and destruction.
I understand the idealism that propels the prospect of peace in the Middle East.
But peace, if I am not mistaken, has never been afforded by a compromise. Peace is gained when the aggressor is defeated.
More land will most definitely leave the Palestinians hungry for more.

No comments: