Monday, August 06, 2007


Do I understand this correctly, that the Bush Administration, as part of its push for a Middle East "regional conference" in November, has signed off on the Saudi/Arab League plan that makes Israeli withdrawal to the indefensible pre-1967 borders a prerequisite to diplomatic recognition of the Jewish State and a prooffered "peace"?

Sure looks that way judging by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent comments (via PL):

These negotiations must resolve difficult questions and uphold clear principles. They must ensure that Israel is secure. They must guarantee that a Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. And they must lead to a territorial settlement, with mutually agreed borders reflecting previous lines and current realities, and mutually agreed adjustments. America is prepared to lead discussions to address these issues, but they must be resolved by Palestinians and Israelis, themselves. Resolving these issues would help show Palestinians a clear way forward. And ultimately, it could lead to a final peace in the Middle East - a permanent end to the conflict, and an agreement on all the issues, including refugees and Jerusalem. [emphases added]

A "contiguous" Palestinian state? Does this mean Gaza is being excluded from that state? I sure the devil hope so; otherwise, leaving aside the reality of Hamastan, Israel itself would be cut in half. Not a pleasant prospect for Mahmoud Abbas.

As to "refugees and Jerusalem," that appears to refer to the long-time non-starter, the "right of return" that would swamp Israel with Palestinian Muslims, demographically destroying the Jewish State without having to fire a shot. Partitioning Jerusalem used to belong in that same non-negotiable category, but these days it seems Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is willing to bargain away just about anything. Is that what the Bushies are now encouraging?

Some say no; others are not so sure:

On June 24, 2002, Mr. Bush declared, "The United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure." Less than a year later the State Department reversed course, eliminating the cessation of terror as a precondition for engagement. Palestinian terrorism grew.

While the White House condemns Hamas terrorism, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement, to which Mr. Bush promised a half billion dollars in July, is equally culpable. A year ago Fatah's military wing threatened to "strike at the economic and civilian interests of these countries [the U.S. and Israel], here and abroad," and it claimed responsibility for a rocket attack on the Israeli town of Sderot in June.

Empty promises of accountability encourage terror by diminishing the costs of its embrace.

I haven't seen anybody else in the blogosphere echo my take on the Fatah-Hamas split, but I'm sticking with it anyway. Whether by collusive design or by Mr. Abbas' shrewd exploitation of his erstwhile terrorist partners' utter dearth of guile, the Fatah leader is zeroing in on pulling off a coup even his mentor Yassir Arafat never approached: duping the Israelis into setting themselves up for their enemies' "Final Solution" and the U.S. into signing off on it.

That George W. Bush is to be that signator is irony bitterer than wormwood itself.

UPDATE: Israel can concede not one more inch of territory and retain any expectation of survival. Note as well the range of the latest additions to the Iranian missile arsenal. Unless I'm grossly misreading that map, I believe the longest-range model can reach the eastern seaboard of the United States.

UPDATE II: UNIFIL's mandate for southern Lebanon has been renewed. If that doesn't guarantee another full-scale Hezbo attack on Israel, nothing will.

UPDATE III: Two al Qaeda affiliates have now set up shop in Gaza (aka Hamastan). Gosh, but the Israelis' 2005 withdrawal strategy has paid handsome dividends, hasn't it?