Insanity, By Definition
I'll say this for Mahmoud Abbas: he grasps the public relations importance of good grooming and sartorial splendor like Yassir Arafat never did. Ole Yassir always looked, sounded, and most likely smelled like a wino you might stumble over on a random big-city street corner. And with the ubiquitous headdress, he radiated the stereotypical appearance of the unrepentant terrorist. A holster with semiautomatic pistols was as natural in that getup as the ever-present beard stubble. Whereas Abbas dresses for success, dispenses with the headgear, and looks like a swarthier cousin of Dick Van Dyke.
Of course, on the other hand, look at how the "international community" feted Arafat for all those years. That tends to suggest that the "burdensome stone" of Jerusalem is far from being about slick marketing and Armani suits. And, as well, that such a gambit would never work for the Israelis, who always and ever will be cast as the villains in this production.
And, I am quietly amazed (but not surprised) to say, they're falling for the "peace" gambit yet again:
Israeli and Palestinian leaders announced late Monday that they would declare the formal end to more than four years of fighting during the summit in this Egyptian resort. It was the clearest indication yet of momentum following Yasser Arafat's death, the election of a new Palestinian leader and a signal from the White House that it plans a renewed push for peace.
"The most important thing at the summit will be a mutual declaration of cessation of violence against each other," said Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian negotiator.
Erekat said the agreement also includes the establishment of joint committees one to determine criteria for the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, and the other to oversee the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian cities on the West Bank.
An Israeli government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the cease-fire agreement and said it would also include an end to Palestinian incitement to violence, such as official Palestinian TV and radio broadcasts that glorify suicide bombers and other attackers.
{sigh} For the record I will ask the (by-now rhetorical) question again: How many times have we heard and/or read this story? It works the exact same way every time: some Pal factions signal their willingness to perhaps, maybe, kinda-sorta begin to entertain the possibility of considering that someday they might think about reducing their terror attacks from seven days a week to six; overnight hopes for "peace" rise; the "international community" pushes the already stumblingly siege-weary Israelis to cave to every last Palenstinian demand; the Israelis, cornered again, agree to return to the bargaining table, but once there refuse, again, to commit national suicide; one of the PLO factions (the one that did not offer the ersatz olive branch) resumes terrorist operations; the Israelis retaliate; and the war is back on, with the "international community" blaming Israel for "rejecting peace."
Ed Morrissey calls it the Palestinian "Triangle Offense". I call it insanity.
One of insanity's metaphors is trying to accomplish something via a particular method, failing, and then persisting in using that same failed method, believing that with sufficient repetition it will succeed. If this doesn't sound like the "Middle East peace process," I don't know what does.
What has really changed in this equation? The death of Yassir Arafat and the ascension of Mahmoud Abbas as the new Palestinian kingpin. Has that changed anything else? Read this and then you be the judge:
But a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip struck a cautionary note, saying the radical Islamic group, which has been responsible for hundreds of attacks against Israelis during the past four years, would evaluate the summit before committing itself to halting its campaign of violence.
"We agreed before with Mahmoud Abbas that if he succeeds to achieve our national goals, he should come back to the Palestinian factions to discuss the issue, and after that we will decide our stand," Mahmoud Zahar said.
What is Hamas' "national goal"? The complete annihilation of Israel. It has always been the PLO's goal. It was Yassir Arafat's goal. And there is nothing to suggest that it isn't Mahmoud Abbas' goal as well.
And to think that just a few weeks ago, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had broken off all ties to Abbas over his "failure" to "control" his terrorist minions - something that were Abbas to actually make the attempt, would earn him a swift and fiery demise.
So, either the avuncular Pal leader is Arafat with a better tailor and a more than passing acquaintance with a razor, or he's at the mercy of the real Pal leadership. Or he's the face-man, like a Palestinian Bill Clinton. But in no way can true "peace" come from any of this, because the instigators of and aggressors in this conflict have not been defeated.
That's the lesson self-styled "peacemakers" never learn from history: peace is never negotiated, or purchased with concessions; it can only be won in war, purchased in blood, by destroying those who seek your destruction. The only way that this dynamic would change in the Middle East would be for the Pals to give up their objective of destroying Israel. Does the aforequoted Hamas "spokesman" leave any such impression to you? And will Israel jumping on the same failed "peace process" merry-go-round again communicate anything to the Pals other than that their assymmetrical tactics are working and that they can wear the Jews down until they're finally in a position to finish them off once and for all?
No matter how many times one calls chickenbleep chicken salad, it still tastes like chickenbleep. And no matter how many times one dances with the devil, he's still the devil.
He just has a better looking face.
Of course, on the other hand, look at how the "international community" feted Arafat for all those years. That tends to suggest that the "burdensome stone" of Jerusalem is far from being about slick marketing and Armani suits. And, as well, that such a gambit would never work for the Israelis, who always and ever will be cast as the villains in this production.
And, I am quietly amazed (but not surprised) to say, they're falling for the "peace" gambit yet again:
Israeli and Palestinian leaders announced late Monday that they would declare the formal end to more than four years of fighting during the summit in this Egyptian resort. It was the clearest indication yet of momentum following Yasser Arafat's death, the election of a new Palestinian leader and a signal from the White House that it plans a renewed push for peace.
"The most important thing at the summit will be a mutual declaration of cessation of violence against each other," said Saeb Erekat, a Palestinian negotiator.
Erekat said the agreement also includes the establishment of joint committees one to determine criteria for the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, and the other to oversee the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian cities on the West Bank.
An Israeli government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the cease-fire agreement and said it would also include an end to Palestinian incitement to violence, such as official Palestinian TV and radio broadcasts that glorify suicide bombers and other attackers.
{sigh} For the record I will ask the (by-now rhetorical) question again: How many times have we heard and/or read this story? It works the exact same way every time: some Pal factions signal their willingness to perhaps, maybe, kinda-sorta begin to entertain the possibility of considering that someday they might think about reducing their terror attacks from seven days a week to six; overnight hopes for "peace" rise; the "international community" pushes the already stumblingly siege-weary Israelis to cave to every last Palenstinian demand; the Israelis, cornered again, agree to return to the bargaining table, but once there refuse, again, to commit national suicide; one of the PLO factions (the one that did not offer the ersatz olive branch) resumes terrorist operations; the Israelis retaliate; and the war is back on, with the "international community" blaming Israel for "rejecting peace."
Ed Morrissey calls it the Palestinian "Triangle Offense". I call it insanity.
One of insanity's metaphors is trying to accomplish something via a particular method, failing, and then persisting in using that same failed method, believing that with sufficient repetition it will succeed. If this doesn't sound like the "Middle East peace process," I don't know what does.
What has really changed in this equation? The death of Yassir Arafat and the ascension of Mahmoud Abbas as the new Palestinian kingpin. Has that changed anything else? Read this and then you be the judge:
But a Hamas spokesman in the Gaza Strip struck a cautionary note, saying the radical Islamic group, which has been responsible for hundreds of attacks against Israelis during the past four years, would evaluate the summit before committing itself to halting its campaign of violence.
"We agreed before with Mahmoud Abbas that if he succeeds to achieve our national goals, he should come back to the Palestinian factions to discuss the issue, and after that we will decide our stand," Mahmoud Zahar said.
What is Hamas' "national goal"? The complete annihilation of Israel. It has always been the PLO's goal. It was Yassir Arafat's goal. And there is nothing to suggest that it isn't Mahmoud Abbas' goal as well.
And to think that just a few weeks ago, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had broken off all ties to Abbas over his "failure" to "control" his terrorist minions - something that were Abbas to actually make the attempt, would earn him a swift and fiery demise.
So, either the avuncular Pal leader is Arafat with a better tailor and a more than passing acquaintance with a razor, or he's at the mercy of the real Pal leadership. Or he's the face-man, like a Palestinian Bill Clinton. But in no way can true "peace" come from any of this, because the instigators of and aggressors in this conflict have not been defeated.
That's the lesson self-styled "peacemakers" never learn from history: peace is never negotiated, or purchased with concessions; it can only be won in war, purchased in blood, by destroying those who seek your destruction. The only way that this dynamic would change in the Middle East would be for the Pals to give up their objective of destroying Israel. Does the aforequoted Hamas "spokesman" leave any such impression to you? And will Israel jumping on the same failed "peace process" merry-go-round again communicate anything to the Pals other than that their assymmetrical tactics are working and that they can wear the Jews down until they're finally in a position to finish them off once and for all?
No matter how many times one calls chickenbleep chicken salad, it still tastes like chickenbleep. And no matter how many times one dances with the devil, he's still the devil.
He just has a better looking face.
posted by JASmius at 8:50 AM
<<< Home