Patrick J. Buchanan: Mideast peace an illusion?

WorldNetDaily ^ | Tuesday, November 20, 2001 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[ouroboros]

"Israel controls the Senate," said J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, in 1973. "We should be more concerned about the United States' interests." That nothing has changed was evident this weekend. Secretary of State Powell received a letter, instigated by the Israeli lobby and signed by 89 U.S. senators, directing him not to interfere with Israel's crushing of the Palestinian uprising.

President Bush may have promised the Peace Party, Tony Blair and the Saudis he will use his muscle to broker a just peace. If he did, he made a promise he cannot keep. For the conditions of peace that seemed present when Ehud Barak led Israel no longer exist. The moment has passed, the window has closed.

Real peace requires something close to what Barak offered Arafat: a Palestinian state with full sovereignty over Gaza, the West Bank, Arab East Jerusalem and the Islamic holy places. This would entail a dismantling of Israeli settlements and withdrawal to something like the borders of 1967.

That is impossible now. Sharon not only distrusts Arafat, he detests him and rejects the Oslo formula of land-for-peace. Sharon believes the Arabs will use a Palestinian state as a base camp for a new war of annihilation. He won his office by accusing Barak of pandering to terror and inviting national suicide. Should he offer Arafat a similar deal, his Cabinet would break up and he would be replaced by Benjamin Netanyahu.

More important, with this latest intifada marked by massacres of children at pizza parlors, Israelis no longer believe security can be found cheek-by-jowl with an Arafat-led Palestinian state. Who can blame them?

But if Arafat is considered by Israelis to be a terrorist, among the Palestinians, he is increasingly viewed as a poodle of America and an appeaser of Zion. Palestinians have lost 700 dead in this uprising – including women and children – and thousands wounded. For fighting against Israeli troops, it is Hamas and Islamic Jihad who are capturing the hearts of the young. Arafat's mandate is running out.

Moreover, Bush cannot force Sharon to give up occupied land, for he cannot threaten Sharon with a cut-off in aid. Should he try, he will call down the rage of Congress and the wrath of the Israeli lobby and its Amen Corner. Not since Dwight Eisenhower, safely re-elected, ordered Ben-Gurion to get his army out of Sinai in 1957 has a president compelled Israel to meet U.S. demands.

When Israeli and U.S. policies clash, it is U.S. presidents who back down. For 30 years, the United States has held that settlements in the territories occupied in the 1967 war were "illegal" and impediments to peace. Yet, despite $100 billion in U.S. aid to Israel since 1972 – $20,000 for every Israeli – the number of settlers has risen from 8,400 to 357,000. Israel ignores U.S. pleas and demands, for it knows they are bluster and bluff, designed for Arab consumption.

Should Bush invest his postwar popularity and prestige in a Palestine with its capital in East Jerusalem, he will see both dissipated, while failing, even as his predecessors have failed.

Already, Bush's suggestion that he supports Israeli concessions for a Palestinian state, to draw down anti-American venom in the Islamic world, was met with Sharon's retort that Israel will not play the role of Czechoslovakia to Bush's Neville Chamberlain. In a normal relationship, such a gross and gratuitous insult would have brought a recall of the U.S. ambassador. Instead, it produced a wimpish little peep of protest from Ari Fleischer.

Bush should look over the horizon and ask himself what Israel will demand as the price of a Palestinian state. It is: scores of billions of U.S. dollars to take down settlements, whose building we opposed, and a permanent U.S.-Israeli military alliance, backed up by the presence of U.S. troops. This would guarantee Americans fighting in every future Israeli war. And this we cannot give.

Prediction: Bush and Powell will start up the road to a brokered peace and find they are on a political Highway of Death. Karl Rove will walk into the Oval Office and say, "Mr. President, it is not worth it, it is not working – we are down to 60 percent in the polls. Let's go back to benign neglect."

Israelis will emerge victorious and delighted. The Arabs will be frustrated and outraged, and Bush's prestige in the Arab world will vanish as his father's did after Desert Storm. In Kuwait, they no longer name their children Bush, but Osama. So, the downward spiral toward an Arab-Israeli and U.S.-Islamic war will continue and the enemies of peace, on all sides, will be exulted, and exalted.

Where have you gone, Gen. Eisenhower?

---

Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. Now a commentator and columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national televison shows, and is the author of six books. His current position is chairman of The American Cause. His newest book, "Death of the West," will be published in January.

[imperator2]

Grow up teenager. We are at war with Islamic killers. That's the enemy.

[sakic]

S, Excepting for the first two paragraphs, how does THIS Article Differ from Pat's writing "against" Israel? Peace and love, George.

Interesting tactic. I'm sure if we edit the offensive parts from Hitler's speeches we can demonstrate that he too had nothing against Jews.

[sakic]

It would be helpful if you actually read and tried to comprehend the article.

It's incredibly easy to comprehend. Pat B. has once again come down on the side opposite Israel. If you deny or can't comprehend this it's you with the reading or comprehension problem.

[sakic]

Remember the uss liberty and francis pollard? Courtesy of our "friends " in Israel.

It's entirely within your rights to dislike Israel or Jews just like Pat does. At least you are honest about your feelings, unlike Pat B's other supporters here.

[annalex]

It is silly to think that US policy toward Israel is driven by nothing else but the "Amen corner". There is logic in Israeli retaliatory raids into the PA: the same logic by which we bomb the Taliban. There is logic in denying the Palestinians a sovereign state: if they can't hold the terrorist attacks for one month, nothing better should be expected of a Palestinian state.

The only sensible American policy toward Israel would be to encourage them to annex the West Bank and Gaza, so that they could police it, drastically reduce aid to the region, and signal to the Middle Eastern states that whatever results would be achieved by war, if they choose to go to war, will be allowed by the United States to stand, -- neither Jews or Arabs will be shielded from the consequences of their political decisions by a truce forced from the outside.

[mmmmmmmm....... donuts]

No, I wouldn't have any US troops in Israel or the territories, as I've said before on FR. Only Peres has recommended this, never Sharon.

[Nimitz]

You are dead wrong. If Israel wants to fight a battle for that little slice of heaven, let them go right ahead. I mean EVERYTHING is on the table here, chems, bios and even nukes. We need to get OUT of there. The blood of my son or daughter is NOT going to subsidize their blood feud.

Israel is our ally? Israel is our ally because and ONLY because we are the hand that feeds them. It's as simple as that folks. Let 'em go, let 'em end it. I've been there, I've seen it, I don't want it. It's not our problem.

You know which argument doesn't fly with Americans anymore, Sakic? The BS "regional stabilization" argument. We've all heard it before. "If Israel falls, the middle east falls." Then what? Armegeddon? Jeesh. If we have to secure our interests in that region of the planet, we'll do it on our terms. Increasingly, Americans as a whole are finding little to no value in the oil reserves ka ka that usually accompanies and permiates diatribes such as yours, having found vast reserves on our own soil in Alaska and San Padre Island, Texas. After 9/11, we have been reminded of the horrors of war in technicolor. Me thinks that fighting and dying for a reason has a new standard to be met. To Israel: Get it done or shut the F up. To Palestine: Get it done or shut the F up. If one requires the others' extermination, so be it.

[mmmmmmmm....... donuts]

What is the 'it' that Israel and/or the Palestinians need to do? I'm not sure what you're advocating.

[Anamensis]

Its not a question of Barak dying and a new Pasha taking over. H got voted out of office after Arafat said NO to 98% of the occupied territories, half of Jerusalem, additional land to make up for the 2% he lacked. Plus handover of the settlements, MILITARY ASSISTANCE for God's sake, untold billions of US foreign aid from Clinton. Arafat says NO to this. Why? Because he would have been murdered by Hamas. What the Israeli doves learned last year, was that Arafat cannot deliver the "peace" part of this deal. The offer is still there of course. Sharon says he'll start talks as soon as 7 days go by without a terrorist attack on Israelis. So far there has been no hiatus.

I just thought that was worth repeating.

[Sabramerican]

Israelis will emerge victorious and delighted.

It's the way of the universe.

Something to balance out Buchanan's defeat and bitterness.

[Cacophonous]

Nicely said. For once I would like to see someone advocate a pro-US policy instead of a pro-Israel policy.

[Nimitz]

The "it" means DESTROY YOUR ENEMY and bring about a semblence of a conclusion here. Whatever it takes. Invade, murder, chaos, destroy. Tens of millions of souls need to perish if necessary. I am my brothers keeper. If someone would tell me why Israel has been designated as my Brother I'd find the reasoning interesting.

An illustration. We've all said it here, Saudi Arabia is no friend to the US. Sure, they have terrorists. They also sell us oil. Let's kill all those who would support the terrorists, then we can talk oil sales again. If that means kill everyone within a 2500 km radius, so be it. That is really what we're talking here. What price are you willing to pay to continue your life the way you want to live it? The same applies to Israel. We know they are victims of terrorists, as so many other nations are. What price are they willing to pay? puhleez no BS about the price they have already paid. What are they willing to do NOW? Right now.

If the result of isolationism is to be the target of terrorists because they don't like you and would seek to harm you as a nation or a person, then kill them. Why oh why are these threads necessary? F Israel, F Palestine. If they can't get "it" done, f 'em all.

[scottiewottie]

And I thought I was confused!! PJB, the great isolationist opponent of "Empire", the white cross bearing Knight of Malta, now presents us Pax Americana??

[Sabramerican]

pro-US policy instead of a pro-Israel

So lets suppose it is you that makes US policy. What would be your pro-US, not pro-Israel, policy?

Expound on how your policy would be pro-US, as compared to the current policy. Is joining the Arabs in their desire to destroy Israel a pro-US policy? Is denying the Jews the right to their holiest sites a pro-US policy? Is making certain areas off limits to Jews a pro-US policy?

How would the US be better off with your pro-US, not pro-Israel, policy? Would the Arabs then love the infidels? Free gas for everyone?

[ex-snook]

"Nicely said. For once I would like to see someone advocate a pro-US policy instead of a pro-Israel policy. "

A nicely said to you too. Buchanan is for America first, last and only. That means anti-Israel only to the Israel first and free Pollard crowd. Buchanan has always been given the big lie treatment because he doesn't sing in the Amen chorus. (As did Fulbright for his comment). Pat's great pro-America book, A REPUBLIC, NOT AN EMPIRE, got the Goebbels treatment as 'pro-hitler' by those unable to cite a page reference.

The Amen chorus and assorted groupies are sticking pins in Buchanan and Powell as Bush voodoo dolls because of the Bush popularity factor.

Bush is trying to bring the peace that is in America's long term interest. If Bush does not cave, the media more-war-chorus, with soloists Kristol and McCain, will start their concert to raise the negatives of Bush.

[sakic]

You are dead wrong.

I read the rest of your post and don't see what it is I'm wrong about.

If Israel wants to fight a battle for that little slice of heaven, let them go right ahead.

I agree but our Prez disagrees.

I mean EVERYTHING is on the table here, chems, bios and even nukes. We need to get OUT of there. The blood of my son or daughter is NOT going to subsidize their blood feud.

We're not IN there and I don't advocate us going there.

You know which argument doesn't fly with Americans anymore, Sakic? The BS "regional stabilization" argument. We've all heard it before. "If Israel falls, the middle east falls." Then what? Armegeddon? Jeesh. If we have to secure our interests in that region of the planet, we'll do it on our terms.

What are our terms?

Increasingly, Americans as a whole are finding little to no value in the oil reserves ka ka that usually accompanies and permiates diatribes such as yours, having found vast reserves on our own soil in Alaska and San Padre Island, Texas.

You're arguing with me because you agree with me about our devotion to Arab oil? If you want to disagree with me then disagree with me. You call me dead wrong and agree with me. You're an odd duck.

After 9/11, we have been reminded of the horrors of war in technicolor. Me thinks that fighting and dying for a reason has a new standard to be met. To Israel: Get it done or shut the F up.

They would like nothing better but America continues to try and constrain them from defending themselves. Your beef isn't with me. It's with Bush's policy in the region.

[shuckmaster]

In 1953, he (Benson)drastically cut 5 million acres from the national cotton allotment. The following year, he added rice & tobbaco to the allotment cuts in addition to furthur reducing cotton. Then he sent out teams of feds to monitor Southern farms then charged them for remeasurements & then charged them again to have committees destroy the overage. In some cases, for as little as .02 acres over.
It's been noted that he was particulary harsh on Southern blacks who had their allotments cut 66% or more making it impossible for them to harvest enough to pay bills.
In 1955, he came down particulaly hard on Southern grown rice. In many cases his fed agents included 'personal' vegetable garden acreage when measuring the shrinking allotments.
In 1956, he backed the 'soil bank' programs which paid selected 'landlord' farmers a shut up bribe for unplanted acres which actually had the counter result of putting even more farm labor out of work while the landlords he picked got a free government check.
The whole time all of this was going on, he pushed other socialist farm programs that assisted big corporations in setting up huge production farms in non-Southern states. Particularly California & Iowa.
By the time he was done, at least one million less Southerners were living on a farm.

[Zorobabel]

I wonder if Pat ever stopped to think that maybe it's the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Holy One of Israel, that is the REAL "amen corner?" Not only the overwhelming majority of the senate but of the American people support Israel. Gee, I wonder why? Duh.

[Cacophonous]

Is joining the Arabs in their desire to destroy Israel a pro-US policy?

Wow. You really said a mouthful, but I still have not seen one person on here (me, Buchanan, or anyone else) advocate "joining the Arabs in their desire to destroy Israel". And neither have you.

A pro-American policy requires our leaders to put the interests of the US over those of other nations, whether they be English, Jews, Arabs, Germans, or whoever. This does not seem controversial to me...aren't America's leaders suppose to do this?