Pages

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Steyn hits the bullseye on the Middle East












As usual Mark Steyn manages to penetrate to the heart of things.

Here's an excerpt:

Great Men' have grating effect on Mideast

"I was on the road the other night and so found myself watching CNN's coverage of Israel, Lebanon, Gaza, etc. It was "Larry King Live," and it was one of those shows where Larry interviews great men about what needs to be done and the great men all agree that what needs to be done is that the president needs to get other great men involved to "broker" a "deal." Sen. Chuck Hagel proposed that Bush appoint Colin Powell or Jim Baker as his Special Envoy; Sen. Barbara Boxer proposed that Bush appoint Madeleine Albright as his Even More Special Envoy. Sen. George Mitchell, who himself served as Extra-Special Super-Duper Envoy a few years back, proposed that Bush involve the European Union. And someone else proposed the G-8. And Larry suggested Putin. Oh, and some smooth-talking apologist in Savile Row pinstripes proposed Chirac, because he and Bush had agreed a U.N. resolution on something or other a year or two back.

Aside from Larry's closing tribute to Red Buttons, I've never heard more rubbish in a single hour since . . . well, come to think of it, since the last time I saw "Larry King Live." {...}

It's easy to fly in a guy in a suit to hold a meeting. Half the fellows inside the Beltway have Middle East "peace plans" named after them. Bush flew in himself a year or two back to announce his "road map." Before that it was Cheney, who flew in with the Cheney plan, which was a plan to open up a road map back to the last plan, which would get us back to "Tenet," which would get us back to "Mitchell," which would get us back to "Wye River," which would get us back to "Oslo," which would get us back to Kansas.

And none of these Great Men meeting with other Great Men gets us anywhere. Some of the Great Men can't speak for their peoples (Mubarak) or their legislatures (Abbas). And a lot of the Great Men can't even speak for themselves: From the late Yasser Arafat to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, they say one thing in meetings with Western emissaries and something entirely different to their compatriots. And some of the Great Men we send to negotiate aren't all that great: the wretched Mohammed El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Authority, is, in fact, a patsy for the nuclear mullahs. To reprise one of my all-time favorite Iranian negotiating positions, let's recall the perfect distillation of what Great Man diplomacy boils down to in the Middle East, as reported in the New York Times exactly a year ago:

"Iran will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognize its right to do so, two Iranian nuclear negotiators said in an interview published Thursday."

If we don't let Iran go nuclear, they'll go nuclear. Negotiate that, Chuck Hagel."


Read it all here:'Great Men' have grating effect on Mideast

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous6:32 PM

    What would we do without Steyn?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:46 PM

    first i don't get the title of the article, great men???
    didn't see any names on that list.
    great?
    don't get it.
    second, off topic comment.
    it's time for me to disagree with a previous essay ff posted here. i didn't earlier because........it's your site and what is happening to your country/people is devasting.
    steyn's essay touched on some of my thoughts when i read your essay "acts of war vs terrorism" and that is what prompts these comments.
    i have to disagree with your reasoning and maybe even your conclusions.
    i was one of those who were not surprised by the hamas elections earlier this year.
    just because you have elections does not a nation/state make.
    saddam got 98% of the vote in his trumped up charade.
    just because ham/hezz have elections and go through the motions "being" elected does not separate them in any way from the tribal culture from which they have sprung and has nutured them their entire lives.
    they do not understand the significance of an "election".
    they are NOT anymore a nation/state than they were before the "elections".
    that is why they hate the joooos. because with the stroke of a pen they called themselved a nation. not with a simitar and not with an AK-47.
    if israel does not re-write the maps of this region during this conflict/war, they are only setting the stage for the next war six years hence.
    buffer zones are for football.
    if lebanon becomes part of israel so be it. to the victor goes the spoils. the gaza strip should disappear. it is part of israel. to hell with UN partiioning. the beeka(sp) valley should become part of israel and if damscus doesn't like it then the map can be changed even further. assad can kissmyfatwhitelazyamericanass.
    in conclusion, i don't agree that the actions taken were those of a nation/state. there are sham elections just as there have been sham weddings.
    they are not a nation.
    they are an assembliage(sp) of barbarians who do not belong to this century.
    send them to their maker.

    if you feel that i should no longer comment here i will understand/comply.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Shabbs! Nice to see you!

    Louie,Louie..

    Wass wit you man? You think you have to always agree with me or something? You think I'm running some kind of echo chamber here?Stick around and continue to put in your two cents worth...I'd miss you if you didn't.

    As for the point at hand..Steyn is being SARCASTIC when he talks about `grate men!' Like me, he's somewhat sarcastic lots of the time, which is one reason why I like him.

    I pretty much agree with you about the `Palestinians'..as a `state'.. they are an accident waiting to happen.

    And I said three years ago that the odds on anything more than a Hamasistan in Gaza and MAYBE a few tribal crapholes in the Arab part of Judea and Samaria will be the end result.

    But what I'M addressing is the reality that for NOW, these people are conducting themselves like a state..and thus have comitted an act of war, not mere `terrorism'.
    Their OFFICIAL now, and subject top the same constraints as other states.

    I fully agree with you that Israel will not have a moment's peace as long as the present state of affairs. with the so-called `Palestinians' playing at being a nation..but in the ever encompassing NOW, that's what there is, m'friend.

    OK?

    FF

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agre with your take on Mark Steyn, Nazar. I rate him one of the three best columnists out there..not counting your ol' pal FF, of course! (LOL)

    ReplyDelete