The topic is the circus that surrounds the Palestinians’ attempt to gain recognition as a sovereign state without negotiating with Israel. It’s all political circus, as the UN, thankfully, has zero authority to recognize sovereignty. Most importantly, that the Paleos are there at the UN at all is a testimony to the failure of both the Paleos and their White House cheering section, led by Barack Hussein Obama.
No nation can be expected to negotiate with a group will not recognize its right to exist. That is, or ought to be, the going-in position of any negotiation. In this instance, the Palestinians have never acknowledged Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Which is what Israel is, and has been since its modern reincarnation.
The Paleos are fools for taking their case to the UN. It’s doomed to failure, even if they are “successful” at the UN. But they won’t be, because Obama, despite his longings for his Arab and Muslim brothers, can’t allow the Paleo case to succeed. Why? Domestic politics, plain and simple.
If Obama can’t veto the Paleos in the Security Council, the only UN body that actually matters, then he’s lost the Jewish vote in 2012. If he does veto them, as he almost certainly will, the Paleos, having built this up needlessly, will likely have riots and many deaths on their hand as their stupids rise up and bang their heads against Israel’s defenses.
All of this could have been prevented, of course. If only Obama had been more muscular in his approach to the Palestinians, and not been perceived as being quite so anti-Israel.
I write “perceived,” because that’s the best possible interpretation. The actuality is that in declaring that Israel’s pre-1967 War borders were the starting point of negotiations, Obama guaranteed that there would be no further talks.
Getting to last week’s GOP debate, Rick Perry was nothing if not accurate in his description of Obama’s Israel policy: “arrogant, misguided and dangerous.” Clearly the RINO Noonan falls in the “realist” camp, which usually means “let’s side with the guys who have the oil.” At best.
At worst, you get Prescott Bush, his pro-Saudi son G.H.W. Bush, and officials such as Jame Baker (here’s a useful short primer on the Bushes and the Jews).
Realists have little use for the evangelical Christian’s worldview, which is shared by G.W. Bush, Rick Perry, and millions of my coreligionists: we owe the Jews for giving us our Savior, for keeping the light of God alive in the world for thousands of years. We owe modern-day Israel for being a beacon of liberal democracy in a dark, dark place.
So Rick Perry spoke the truth. He was not diplomatic. On both counts, Noonan, and others of the squish wing of the Republican Party (and just about all Democrats) are offended by his blunt language.
Here’s how Noonan portrays Perry:
This was meant not to defuse but to inflame. It does not seem to have occurred to Mr. Perry that when you are running for president you have to be big, you have to act as if you’re a broad fellow who understands that when the American president is in a tight spot in the U.N., America is in a tight spot in the U.N. You don’t exploit it for political gain.
…in his first foreign-policy foray, the GOP front-runner looked like a cheap, base-playing buffoon.
With very little respect, Ms Noonan, America “is in a tight spot” because Obama bailed on telling hard truths to the Palestinians. America is in a tight spot because Obama hit the Israels again and again on what ought to have been a negotiating point (“settlements”). America is in a tight spot because Obama is perceived as reaching out to the Muslim world.
What happens at the UN isn’t Rick Perry’s doing; had Perry’s language been used from the start, there would be no “tight spot” to begin with.
Does Rick Perry gain from getting tough on Obama and the Paleos? Yes. But his words, as a candidate for office, will mean nothing. The Paleos and their terrorist-loving boosters in the Arab and Muslim world will press on, full steam ahead, doing what they are doing for the sheer theater of it.