Christian Science Monitor:
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center http://zionism-israel.com
by Amy Isseroff
The powers that be across the ocean need to have "peace" talks and to "resolve" the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at all costs, because of the problem with Iraq, and the problem with Iran. We are told that Arab states are anxious to reach a peaceful Israeli-Palestinian solution, so that they can support US policy and let the US deal with Iran for them. It doesn’t occur to anyone that if Arabs want the US and Israel to take care of Iran, then they should be the ones to make concessions regarding Israel, and not the other way round.
To show "movement" toward peace, it is necessary, according to the conventional wisdom, to have a peace partner. Alas, the Palestinian Authority is controlled by the Hamas. The Hamas repeat day and night that they will abide by their charter, and never make peace with Israel. In return for Israel withdrawing to the borders of 1949, they will grant a Hudna like the one just concluded between Fatah and Hamas that lasted less than a day, or the other one concluded today. Common sense would dictate that as long as there are not two partners willing to make peace, there cannot be peace negotiations. Yet on the other hand, the powers that be, require such negotiations.
Writing from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, a metropolis famous for championing human rights and logic, John V. Whitbeck offers the solution
Those who recognize the critical importance of Israeli-Palestinian peace and truly seek a decent future for both peoples must recognize that the demand that Hamas recognize "Israel’s right to exist" is unreasonable, immoral, and impossible to meet. Then, they must insist that this roadblock to peace be removed, the economic siege of the Palestinian territories be lifted, and the pursuit of peace with some measure of justice be resumed with the urgency it deserves.
Source: www. csmonitor.com/2007/0202/p09s02-coop.htm
That’s right, Israel’s right to exist is a roadblock to peace according to Whitbeck and the CSM. The article was of course timed to coincide with the meeting of the quartet.
Whitbeck arrives at his conclusion by a tortuous path of "reasoning" and euphemisms about Palestinian self-respect and the usual canards about Israeli expansionism (look at Israel on the map to see what expansionism we are talking about). He pours the best vintage Middle East establishment bumph that petrodollars can buy.
It is a grand performance in the best tradition, intended to make you lose sight of the basics. The reason the Hamas government is being boycotted by the West at present is that they announce that they are not willing to make peace with Israel. No matter how much wishful thinking is applied to the problem, the Hamas opposition to peace does not change, and is reiterated at every opportunity. Western aid to the Palestinian Authority was supposed to promote peace process, not Jihad.
It is important to go back to the sources, and see exactly what Mr. Whitbeck and the CSM are promoting. What is this peace-loving and self-respecting Palestinian Hamas movement? The Hamas charter states:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
Whitbeck is talking about a movement that advocates genocide and will not relinquish any part of the land. This is the movement that he wants to recognize. This is the movement that Christian Science Monitor wants to legitimize. Here is the Hamas peace plan, embodied in their charter, which Christian Science Monitor and Mr. Whitbeck want the West to adopt:
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
And the following, also taken from the Hamas Charter, is probably the origin of Mr. Whitbeck’s views, and those of his Arab hosts, about Israeli expansionism and Palestinian ‘self-respect’:
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
Mr. Whitbeck no doubt believes in the validity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a document forged by the Tsarist police, which is sold all over the Arab world.
Incredible as it seems, what it amounts to, stripped of sophistry and cant about Zionist expansionism, is that Christian Science Monitor has come out in favor of genocide and Jihad. Israel’s right to exist is therefore an obstacle to "peace."
The enthusiasm of CSM and of Whitbeck’s Saudi masters for making a deal with the Hamas is really strange if the purpose is really to allow action against Iran, since Iran is actively supporting the Hamas.
The real danger to Israeli interests and the interests of peace in the Middle East has never been from the fringe radical leftists and extreme reactionaries like Rabbi David Weiss of the Netureh Karteh, who make so much noise, and who are characterized by the New York Times as "Liberals". They attract a lot of attention from worriers over the "new anti-semitism," but they have no political clout in the United States.
With the virtual collapse of US policy in Iraq looming ahead, the neo-conservative pro-Israel line that was popular in Washington is in jeopardy. The replacement for the neo-conservative strategy may well be a "rescue" operation by the "old hands" of the State Department and stalwarts of Republican Middle East policy. These are people like James Baker III and the representatives of Arab petroleum interests, the pillars of conservativism and "realistic" approaches to the Middle East.
This group have always had the same line: U.S. backing of Israel jeopardizes American interests in the Middle East. Interestingly, declassified materials reveal that on the eve of the Six Day war in 1967, this line was pushed by the Aramco company and by US Ambassador to Syria, Hugh Smythe. Smythe claimed to represent the considered opinions of the US diplomatic corps. They urged the US to abandon Israel, as they always do. Whitbeck’s article no doubt represents the public expression of a campaign that is going on behind the scenes. The same line is apparent in Arab world journals. When it appears in the US, it could be an alarming harbinger of what is coming.
From my perspective, relating not only to my self-respect as an Israeli, but also to my physical integrity, it appears that Mr. Whitbeck and the Christian Science Monitor are much worse than an obstacle to peace. They are hazardous to my health, and the health of my loved ones. They are hazardous to the decency and self-respect of the Western nations. And remember, when they are done making "peace" by eliminating my right to exist, you may be next.