Daniel Greenfield gives out a dose of reality pertaining to
a Two-State Solution between the Jewish State of Israel and the Islamic
terrorism of Arabs that made up a non-existent Palestinian nation.
JRH 2/18/17 (Hat Tip Donald Moore – Blind Conservatives)
*****************
THE END OF PALESTINE
February 16, 2017
Daniel Greenfield, a
Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing
on radical Islam
Palestine is many things. A
Roman name and a Cold War lie. Mostly it’s a justification for killing Jews.
Palestine was an old
Saudi-Soviet scam which invented a fake nationality for the Arab clans who had
invaded and colonized Israel. This big lie transformed the leftist and Islamist
terrorists run by them into the liberators of an imaginary nation. Suddenly the
efforts of the Muslim bloc and the Soviet bloc to destroy the Jewish State
became an undertaking of sympathetically murderous underdogs.
But the Palestine lie is past
its sell by date.
What we think of as
“Palestinian” terrorism was a low-level conflict pursued by the Arab Socialist
states in between their invasions of Israel. After several lost wars, the
terrorism was all that remained. Egypt, Syria and the USSR threw in the towel
on actually destroying Israel with tanks and jets, but funding terrorism was
cheap and low-risk. And the rewards were disproportionate to the cost.
For less than the price of a
single jet fighter, Islamic terrorists could strike deep inside Israel while
isolating the Jewish State internationally with demands for “negotiations” and
“statehood.”
After the Cold War ended,
Russia was low on cash and the PLO’s Muslim sugar daddies were tired of paying
for Arafat’s wife’s shoe collection and his keffiyah dry cleaning bills.
The terror group was on its
last legs. “Palestine” was a dying delusion that didn’t have much of a future.
That’s when Bill Clinton and
the flailing left-wing Israeli Labor Party which, unlike its British
counterpart, had failed to adapt to the new economic boom, decided to rescue
Arafat and create “Palestine”.
The resulting terrorist
disaster killed thousands, scarred two generations of Israelis, isolated the
country and allowed Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and other major cities to come under
fire for the first time since the major wars. No matter how often Israeli
concessions were met with Islamic terrorism, nothing seemed able to shake loose
the two-state solution monkey on Israel’s back. Destroying Israel,
instantaneously or incrementally, had always been a small price to pay for
maintaining the international order.
The same economic forces that
were transforming the world after the Cold War had salvaged “Palestine”. Arafat
had lost his sponsors in Moscow, but his new sugar daddy’s name was
“Globalism”.
The Cold War had been the
focus of international affairs. What replaced it was the conviction that a new
world tied together by international commerce, the internet and international
law would be born.
The demands of a clan in
Hebron used to be able to hijack the attention of the world because the scope
of the clash between Capitalism and Communism could globalize any local
conflict. Globalization was just as insistent on taking local conflicts and
making them the world’s business through its insistence that every place was
connected. The terrorist blowing up an Israeli pizzeria affected stock prices in
New York, the expansion prospects of a company in China and the risk of another
terrorist attack in Paris. And interconnectedness, from airplane hijacking to
plugging into the international’s left alliance of global protest movements,
had become the best weapon of Islamic terrorists.
But now globalization is
dying. And its death may just take “Palestine” with it.
A new generation of leaders
is rising who are actively hostile to globalization. Trump and Brexit were the
most vocal rebukes to transnationalism. But polls suggest that they will not be
the only ones. The US and the UK, once the vanguards of the international
order, now have governments that are competitively seeking national advantages
rather than relying on the ordered rules of the transnational safety net.
These governments will not
just toss aside their commitment to a Palestinian state. Not when the Saudis,
Qataris and countless other rich and powerful Muslim countries bring it up at
every session.
But they will be less
committed to it.
45% of Americans support the
creation of a PLO state. 42% are opposed. That's a near split. These historical
numbers have to be viewed within the context of the larger changes sweeping the
country.
The transnationalists
actively believed that it was their job to solve the problems of other
countries. Nationalists are concerned with how the problems of other countries
directly impinge on them without resorting to the mystical interconnectedness
of everything, from climate change to global justice, that is at the core of
the transnational worldview.
More intense competition by
Western nations may make it easier for Islamic agendas to gain influence
through the old game of divide and conquer. Nations facing terrorism will still
find that the economic influence of Islamic oil power will rally the Western
trading partners of Islam against them.
But without the transnational
order, such efforts will often amount to little more than lip service.
Nationalist governments will
find Israel’s struggle against the Islamic invaders inconvenient because it
threatens their business interests, but they will also be less willing to
rubber stamp the terror agenda the way that transnationalist governments were
willing to do. The elimination of the transnational safety net will also cause
nationalist governments to look harder at consequences and results.
Endlessly pouring fortunes
into a Palestinian state that will never exist just to keep Muslim oil tyrants
happy is not unimaginable behavior even for a nationalist government. Japan has
been doing just that.
But it will be a less popular
approach for countries that don’t suffer from Japan’s energy insecurity.
Transnationalists are
ideologically incapable of viewing a problem as unsolvable. Their faith in
human progress through international law made it impossible for them to give up
on the two-state solution.
Nationalist governments have
a colder and harder view of human nature. They will not endlessly pour efforts
and resources into a diplomatic black hole. They will eventually take “No” for
an answer.
This won’t mean instantaneous
smooth sailing for Israel. It will however mean that the exit is there.
For two decades, pledging
allegiance to the two-state solution and its intent to create a deadly Islamic
terror state inside Israel has been the price demanded of the Jewish State for
its participation in the international community. That price will not
immediately vanish. But it will become easier to negotiate.
The real change will be on
the “Palestinian” side where a terrorist kleptoracy feeds off human misery in
its mansions downwind of Ramallah. That terror state, conceived insincerely by
the enemies of the West during the Cold War and sincerely brought into being by
Western transnationalists after the Cold War ended, is a creature of that
transnational order.
The “Palestinian Authority”,
a shell company of the PLO which is a shell company of the Fatah terrorists,
has no economy worth speaking of. It has foreign aid. Its diplomatic
achievements are achieved for it by the transnational network of foreign
diplomats, the UN, the media and assorted international NGOs. During the last
round of “negotiations”, Secretary of State John Kerry even attempted to do the
negotiating on behalf of the Palestinian Authority in the talks with Israel.
Take away the transnational
order and the Palestinian Authority will need a new sugar daddy. The Saudis are
better at promising money than actually delivering it. Russia may decide to
take on the job. But it isn’t about to put in the money and resources that the
PA has grown used to receiving from us.
Without significant American
support, the Palestinian Authority will perish. And the farce will end.
It won’t happen overnight.
But Israel now has the ability to make it happen if it is willing to take the
risk of transforming a corrosive status quo into a conflict that will be more
explosive in the short term, but more manageable in the long term.
Prime Minister Netanyahu, in
stark contrast to rivals on the left like Peres and on the right like Sharon,
is not a gambler. The peace process was a big gamble. As was the withdrawal
from Lebanon and the expulsion from Gaza. These gambles failed and left behind
scars and enduring crises.
Unlike the prime ministers
before and after him, Netanyahu has made no big moves. Instead he serves as a
sensible steward of a rising economy and a growing nation. He has stayed in
office for so long because Israelis know that he won’t do anything crazy. That
sensible stewardship, which infuriated Obama who accused him of refusing to
take risks, has made him one of the longest serving leaders in Israeli history.
Netanyahu is also a former
commando who participated in the rescue of a hijacked airplane. He doesn’t
believe in taking foolish risks until he has his shot all lined up. But the
time is coming when not taking a risk will be a bigger risk than taking a risk.
Eventually he will have to roll the dice.
The new nationalist wave may
not hold. The transnational order may return. Or the new wave may prove darker
and more unpredictable. It’s even possible that something else may take its
place.
The status quo, a weak
Islamist-Socialist terror state in Ramallah supported by the United States, a
rising Muslim Brotherhood terror state in Gaza backed by Qatar and Turkey, and
an Israel using technological brilliance to manage the threat from both, is
already unstable. It may collapse in a matter of years.
The PLO has inflicted a great
deal of diplomatic damage on Israel and Hamas has terrorized its major cities.
Together they form an existential threat that Israel has allowed to grow under
the guise of managing it. The next few years may leave Israel with a deadlier
and less predictable struggle.
“Palestine” is dying. Israel
didn’t kill it. The fall of the transnational order did. The question is what
will take its place. As the nationalist wave sweeps the West, Israel has the
opportunity to reclaim its nation.
_____________
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman
Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on
radical Islam.
ABOUT FPM
FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD
PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER
The DHFC is dedicated to the
defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are
under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.
The David Horowitz Freedom
Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy
American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a
time of terror. The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s
campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and
intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace
of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded. Combining forceful
analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into
today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist
campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics
throughout the year.
David Horowitz began the
Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative
presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political
battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing
supporters and established programs such as … READ THE REST
No comments:
Post a Comment