Wednesday, May 22, 2024
From Ian:
Eugene Kontorovich: The Ugly Lessons of October 7
Eugene Kontorovich: The Ugly Lessons of October 7
The lesson for aspiring ethno-religious terrorist groups, then, is not that they would be assured recognition if they can only match the gruesomeness of Oct. 7. Uighurs and Kurds: Don’t try this at home. If you’re not the IRGC, an Iranian proxy, or a Palestinian group, don’t bother applying.Brendan O'Neill: Rewarding fascism
The flip side of this equation is even more obscene. Washington rewards Iranian and Palestinian terrorism under the moniker of “de-escalation.” That is to say, Iran and the Palestinians get to have their cake and eat it too: Their barbarism advances their agenda, and any attempted retaliation against them is condemned and constrained.
Which leads us to the heart of the matter, namely what Iran, Hezbollah, and Palestinian terror groups all have in common with each other and not with ISIS. By itself, the specific identity of the perpetrators of gruesome violence does not account for Western advocacy on their behalf. That is explained only by the specific identity of the victims: Jews. This is the common thread that ties together support for Palestinian barbarism abroad and for antisemitic mobs at home.
This brings us to the Biden administration’s diplomatic program, which aims to start the countdown for a Palestinian state in time to take credit for it in November. Much of the professional diplomatic and political class that has pushed for this outcome for three decades remains fully committed to it. As with the term “de-escalation,” the Biden administration uses Orwellian doublespeak to justify its push to establish a Palestinian terror state, like, “peace,” “security,” and “stability.” But what the pattern of the past eight months has doubtless conveyed to the Palestinians and their Iranian patrons is that more slaughter of Jews, especially those that will provoke a strong Israeli response, is the surest way to obtain more of what they want.
Supporters of Palestinian statehood have long maintained that if such a state were to attack Israel, the international community would support decisive Israeli actions to neutralize the threat. But the U.S. response to the Oct. 7 attack from Gaza, as well as to the subsequent attacks from Lebanon and Iran, which are states, shows the opposite. The atrocities a Palestinian state could inflict on an Israel reduced to the 1949 boundaries would make Oct. 7 look like a bar fight. The current U.S.-led international posture shows quite definitively that Israel will face pressure to make even more territorial and security concessions, until the Jewish state is no more. That has been the explicit goal of the Palestinian national movement since its inception, and it remains so today.
A reasonable observer can only conclude that the goal of “a Palestinian state” for both the Palestinians and their Western partisans has never been about achieving peaceful coexistence with Israel, which has been eminently achievable at every point in time beginning with the U.N. partition plan, which Israel accepted and the Palestinians and their Arab state backers rejected. The only “Palestinian state” that is acceptable to its partisans is one that replaces Israel on the map. When the White House, European governments, progressive NGOs, academic boycotters, the U.N., and other august bodies announce their support for Palestinian statehood, that is precisely what they are supporting.
Whatever subjective spin the three PMs put on their heedless act of global virtue-signalling, the objective consequence is the legitimation of Hamas. Indeed, Hamas has warmly welcomed their recognition of Palestine, describing it as ‘an important step towards affirming our right to our land’. I’m not into guilt by association, but seriously – when an army of anti-Semites starts singing your praises, you’ve messed up. Badly.Seth Mandel: Pierless
It was completely predictable that Hamas would interpret the recognition of Palestine as a recognition of Hamas itself. What exactly is this ‘State of Palestine’ that Ireland, Spain and Norway are welcoming into the international fold? There’s the West Bank, semi-governed by the corrupt, collapsing bureaucracy of Fatah. And there’s the Gaza Strip, dominated by the frothing extremists of Hamas. Palestine, sadly, is not a functioning state. And right now it shows no meaningful capacity to become a functioning state. That Hamas and its suicidal cheerleaders among the Western influencer set view today’s support for Palestine as support for Hamas and its war on Israel is the least surprising thing I’ve heard in a long time.
The historical illiteracy of the preening PMs really is something. Taoiseach Harris compared his recognition of Palestine with Ireland’s plea for recognition in 1919. That was when the revolutionary Irish Republic issued a ‘Message to the Free Nations of the World’ asking them to acknowledge its independence from Britain. This is mad. There is no comparison between the historic movement for Irish independence and what’s currently happening in Palestine, with exhausted oligarchs on one side and radical Islamists on the other. Ireland sought to create a free republic – Hamas wants to turn Palestine into an outpost of an unforgiving caliphate in which freedom would be notable by its absence. That Harris cannot distinguish between national liberation and Islamist depravity is chilling. He should listen to Salman Rushdie, who wisely counsels that Hamas-ruled Palestine would be a ‘Taliban-like state’.
Perhaps we should not be surprised by the infantile posturing of the three PMs and their dearth of consideration for what might happen if we further isolate Israel and embolden Hamas. Because in a way, such self-involved moral blindness sums up the entirety of ‘Palestinian solidarity’. So much of the supposedly pro-Palestinian sentiment – in politics, on campuses, on the streets – is fundamentally a displacement activity. Politicians and activists bereft of ideas for how to improve their own societies instead seek sanctuary in the moral glow of Palestinianism. Hence you have a figure like Harris, unpopular, unelected, directionless, devoid of ideas for how to fix Ireland’s housing crisis or its migrant crisis, who can nonetheless feel briefly important and even statesmanlike by standing before the cameras to say: ‘I recognise Palestine.’
This is what ‘Palestine’ has become for the cultural elites of the West: a moral balm, a source of fleeting meaning, a soapbox from which they can grandstand on faraway affairs, having zero vision for closer-to-home affairs. That’s what’s most unforgivable about today’s reckless act of unwitting Hamas emboldenment – that these three leaders seem to value their own 15 minutes of virtue more than the pressing task of bringing peace to the Middle East by bringing to an end the racist army that started the current war.
Finally, the UN official’s explanation for this disaster is one for the books. “They’ve not seen trucks in a while,” so they mount the trucks. This sounds like the description of a spacecraft landing on an alien planet. Moreover, it appears the UN… expected this response?
In fact, it sure sounds like the UN thinks this whole circus is a waste of time and money, and that they told the Americans as much: “The U.N. agreed to assist in coordinating aid distribution from the floating pier, but has remained adamant that deliveries by land are the best way to combat the crisis.”
That is certainly true: The pier has a far more limited capacity than the traditional overland crossings. It’s also expensive: The U.S. paid over $300 million to build what sounds like a pop-up pier ordered from IKEA. The Defense Department, via Ryder, is describing every cent of that $300 million as wasted. After all, the aid disappears into the mists of time as soon as the Americans hand it over to the UN’s version of Uber Eats.
Ironically, on paper this still makes the pier a complete success. America does its job quite well. The pier is built, food is delivered to it, and nary a boot is on the ground. Promises made, promises kept. Truly, this is the quintessential government project.
Years ago, there was a TV commercial for a security system that went something like this: We see a security breach reported, an alarm sounds, sector 13’s guard chases an intruder while radioing for help. The guard chases the intruder all the way to a line on the ground that marks where sector 13 ends and sector 14 begins. When the perp crosses that line, the guard radios triumphantly: “Sector 13, all clear.”
The Pentagon sounds an awful lot like sector 13’s security guard. Once the handoff is made, the rest is sector 14’s problem. According to Ryder, about 570 metric tons of aid has been delivered to the pier since its grand opening. Apparently, Americans should be proud that we are doing our part.
And in a way, we are. Statistically, it is highly likely that at least some of those stealing the food aid are its intended recipients. They’re just cutting out the middle man. In a way, hijackings and lootings make the process more efficient.
More dangerous too, sure. But not for Americans, and therefore not for the president’s reelection chances. Sector 13, all clear.
