FREAK OF THE WEEK: This week, the FredBlog shines its freaklight on Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition and a man who, when it comes to Middle East peace, lives in a parallel universe where playing fair is considered unfair.
Truth be told, there was much freakiness reacting to President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech this past week, in which he tried to strike the right balance between power and contrition.
But no one’s freakiness was more succinct than that of Matthew Brooks. In response to the speech, Brooks issued a statement that included this oxymoronic gem:
“President Barack Obama, in his major speech in Cairo this morning, struck a balanced tone with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that's what was wrong with this speech.
“American policy should not be balanced – it should side with those who fight terror, not those who either engage in it or are too weak to prevent it.”
Where to begin with how wrongheaded this is?
Firstly, a balanced tone is EXACTLY what is needed right now. If the U.S. – and other Western democracies – want peace in the Middle East, they must play fair. They cannot be seen as always siding with Israel, especially when Israel breaks the rules.
In fact, just this week we learned that the Dubya Administration was saying one thing to Israel in public about settlements in the West Bank, but privately sending a message allowing Israel to continue expanding those settlements. If the goal is peace, such one-sided duplicity cannot continue.
Secondly, Brooks paints both sides with very broad brushes. He implies that all Israelis are peace-seeking freedom lovers, and all Palestinians are terror-toting evildoers. That’s as helpful as the rest of the world hating all Americans because they disagreed with the policies of George W. Bush. Many Americans disagreed vehemently with Bush and his brethren, and the same can be said for Middle East residents and their respective leaders.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for one, will not endorse the so-called “two-state solution” backed, in writing, by previous Israeli governments. And yet many Israelis have no problem with a solution that creates a peaceful Palestinian state alongside Israel. (Officials in Netanyahu’s government also voiced their concern this week that Obama will no longer allow Bush’s two-faced duplicity, but that’s a whole other issue.)
As for Palestinians, characterizing all of them as terrorists – or too weak to fight terrorism – is counterproductive. Americans didn’t like being called evil by those around the world who disagreed with the invasion of Iraq, so why would average Palestinians tolerate it?
And if there are those who want to fight terrorism, but are too weak to do so, let’s help them – not insult them.
The truth is that people like Brooks aren’t interested in peace in the Middle East. They are only interested in what they believe to be biblical prophecy, which disregards current political boundaries, secularism, 21st century multiculturalism and the goal of global cooperation.
People like Brooks are stuck in the past – sometimes an ancient past – that will not lead to harmony in the Middle East. Obama, to his credit, is advocating a peaceful vision for the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment