When it comes to Israel, why is the liberal position always that Israel must give in to what useless organizations like the U.N. want, which is for Israel to basically quit defending itself, and now to sit down and talk with its neighbors? This is aptly demonstrated again today by the Fish Wrapper editors in their editorial Gaza chaos drives peace hopes backward. In a piece that is mostly about how the U.S. must find "some way" to negotiate peace in Gaza, the DFW editors continue to pound two points from the now-seen-as-useless Iraq Study Group report.
But the U.S. position has to be more than what it won't do. The United States has to increase efforts to avert humanitarian disaster among Palestinians, strengthen the moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and look for ways for Israel to speak with Syria. Admittedly, that part isn't helped by the Bush administration refusing to speak to Syria itself, but Syria isn't going away.
As I explained here, there is no point in talking with Syria. All Syria cares is that Israel is gone, wiped off the face of the earth. The reason Israel took the Golan Heights from Syria during the Six Day War was because Syria was shelling Israeli settlements from there. Let me illustrate it this way: if there is a guy stalking me and my family and wants nothing more than to kill us all, do you think I want to sit down and negotiate with him? No, I want everything done to make sure my family is secure from him.
The second point is this:
As the Iraq Study Group points out, the Arab-Israeli situation hurts the U.S. position throughout the Muslim world.
Right. So if the Israelis and Palestinians somehow miraculously reach a peace agreement and Israel is allowed to live in peace, that means that the Sunnis and Shiites will stop hating and slaughtering each other? That means that al Quaeda will stop following through with their Islamic fascist fanaticism and doing everything in their power to create instability in Iraq so they can come in and establish a theocracy under Sharia law? That means that Muslims will be so tolerant that they will stop slaughtering and oppressing Arab Christians so that the Christians won't be forced to flee Iraq for their lives? The ISG didn't even seem to think the Christians were important. Chuck Colson makes some good points about these questions:
The extent of this neglect and indifference is on display in the study group’s final report: In its eighty-four pages, the word Christian never appears—not once. The words Assyrians and Chaldeans appear only in passing in the next-to-last recommendation as part of a longer list. Not one paragraph, not one sentence.
In contrast, the report makes multiple references to the fate of the Palestinians whom, last time I checked, don’t live in Iraq.
Whatever else it represents, the group’s report represents the conventional wisdom about Iraq: Figure out who matters and who needs to be made happy or, at least, less upset. So, while Syria and even Iran are accommodated, the well being of Iraqi Christians doesn’t figure into the equation at all.
So once again, the Fish Wrapper continues to propagate two of the the typical liberal points: 1) Force Israel to sit down and talk with nations that want them wiped off the face of the earth, and 2) solving the Israel-Palestinian problems will help Iraq. I think someone needs to explain to them how the world really works and how it's different than liberal fantasies.